Return to Transcripts main page

Legal View with Ashleigh Banfield

Justice Department May Sue Ferguson Police Department; Pentagon Report on Dishonesty Among Army Officers Discussed; A Look at the McStay Family Murder Case

Aired February 19, 2015 - 12:30   ET

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

RANDI KAYE, CNN ANCHOR: The Ferguson Police Department is potentially in for a rude awakening, a possible lawsuit courtesy of the U.S. Justice Department. Sources tell CNN, if the police department doesn't agree to change its ways, the Justice Department could sue for racial discrimination.

We're all familiar with scenes like this in the wake of the Michael Brown shooting, police tactics widely debated. But this potential lawsuit goes beyond all of that, addressing a broader issue of how police deal with, perhaps even target, minority communities.

Joining me now to talk about this is CNN's senior legal analyst Jeffrey Toobin, and CNN law enforcement analyst, Tom Fuentes. Good to see both of you.

Jeffrey, let me start with you. So, you have this group of low-income people claiming that officers in Ferguson, Missouri and in nearby Jennings are targeting minorities for traffic violations, and then putting them in jail when they can't pay the fine. So isn't this bigger really than Michael Brown?

JEFFREY TOOBIN, CNN SENIOR LEGAL ANALYST: It's definitely bigger than Michael Brown. And this is something the Justice Department has done a number of times including in much bigger cities, Cincinnati, New Orleans. And basically what they say is there are systemic problems with a police department and they negotiate with the department to make changes in training, in hiring, in how people interact with the police, they can even demand changes in leadership.

Now, usually, these are worked out in a settlement with the police department, but if there is no settlement, the Justice Department can go to court and have the judge demand that settlement -- that changes are made.

KAYE: Yes. I'm curious how likely it is that we'll see this lawsuit because the Ferguson Police chief has said that every time anybody has come to them, the Justice Department certainly has suggested they make changes in the past, that are reasonable, they've done so, they comply.

TOOBIN: It always struck me from the beginning that this was likely result, this sort of lawsuit. The criminal prosecution of Darren Wilson, which was possible under federal charges...

KAYE: The officer involved

TOOBIN: ... the officer who killed Michael Brown, that seems to be off the table. That's not a surprise either. Those cases are very hard to make. But a civil lawsuit aimed at to broader reform, that that has always seem to be in the cards.

KAYE: Yeah. Tom, let me ask you because I guess I'm certainly curious. I mean how this might impact other police departments nationwide when you have a police department or possibly even two, facing a federal lawsuit here.

TOM FUENTES, CNN LAW ENFORCEMENT ANALYST: Well, Randi, you know, the other police departments across the country should be watching and learning from what's already happened.

As Jeffrey mentioned, this lawsuits have been brought or consent decrees agreed to in a number of other cities. And those cities had to change what they were doing and had to abide by the agreement to make the kind of changes that the government asked for.

So, the idea that there are departments out there that don't think they need to change or don't think they need to abide by those kind of decisions are fooling themselves and stand the chance of this kind of event happening.

Now in the case of Ferguson, the attention brought on Ferguson because of the shooting of Michael Brown obviously led to the Department of Justice having more reason to take a look at what was going on in that community, and especially with the violent reaction by the people in the community to look at why would they react so violently, what have they been dealing with in terms of relations with the police all along.

KAYE: So do you, overall, see a need for change in police tactics?

FUENTES: Well, I don't know what the tactics are specifically. You know, we need to see that whole report come out specifically. We've heard that, you know, that they arrest and charged more minority members, but the minority members are, you know -- I mean, the community is a minority community.

KAYE: Yeah.

FUENTES: The idea of that people don't pay their traffic fines, they end up in jail. That's not a decision of the police department, that's something, now, we get to the city managers, the city council, the city attorneys that make those kind of decisions and what will happen and what kind of practices they want to engage in. And so, it's bigger than just the police department.

KAYE: Jeffrey?

TOOBIN: Those issues are really interesting and important. These money issues because, you know, communities don't want to raise taxes on their citizens. So what they have done in many cases is use arrests as a revenue device, to get people to pay for their freedom using these fines, and that's become very controversial. And keep an eye on that as an issue in Ferguson, but also in a broader sense around the country.

KAYE: If they do say, you know, we're going to institute these changes and this all goes away, who's going to watch that, who's going to monitor that?

TOOBIN: Well, that's part of the agreement. The Justice Department always insists on some sort of monitoring or either...

KAYE: So you can certainly do that?

TOOBIN: Oh, absolutely. Either the Justice Department themselves or they hire outside lawyers who'll keep an eye on it. But the Justice Department doesn't just take their word for.

(CROSSTALK)

KAYE: Yeah. Well, take care of that problem.

TOOBIN: It's all good. Check back in a few years. No, it doesn't work that way.

KAYE: All right. Tom Fuentes, Jeffrey Toobin, thank you very much.

FUENTES: Thank you, Randi.

KAYE: Up next, mother of four shot and killed after a road rage confrontation. But did she go looking for trouble? Her family defends her actions as police search for the killer.

And things just got real for reality TV host Robert Van Winkle, whom you may know as Vanilla Ice.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

KAYE: Here are some top stories that we're keeping an eye on this hour, a deadly drug-resistant bacteria is being pinpointed as the contributing factor in the death of two patients at a Los Angeles Hospital. Many more patients have -- may have been exposed to the so called super bug. The Ronald Reagan UCLA Medical Center is contacting 179 who had endoscopic procedures between October and January.

Defense attorneys for the suspect in the Boston Marathon Bombings are expected to appear in a federal appeals court today to ask for the trial to be moved. Dzhokhar Tsarnaev's attorneys are arguing that it is impossible to find an impartial jury in Boston. The defense has tried and failed to have the trial move several times already.

Suge Knight legal woes just won't quit. The former rap producer was due in court today on a new charge stemming from an incident last year in which he and comedian, Katt Williams allegedly stole a photographer's camera. Last month, Knight was charged with murder in a fatal hit and run in Los Angeles.

Rapper Vanilla Ice, also known as Robert Van Winkle, is also in trouble with the law. The recording artist turned reality TV star allegedly broke into this foreclosed home in Lantana, Florida and stole a pool heater, as well as some furniture. He is charged with burglary and grand theft. Van Winkle told CNN affiliate WPBF that this is all just a misunderstanding.

The family of a woman killed after a road rage incident is coming to her defense. They say Tammy Meyers is the victim. No questions asked. But questions are being raised about her role in the incident and what she may have done to put herself in danger. CNN's Sara Sidner explains.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SARA SIDNER, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Filled with sorrow, the family of Tammy Meyers walks by her makeshift memorial as they prepare to make funeral arrangements.

Meyers, a mother of four, shot and killed after a road rage incident...

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: She's doing what every mother would do is to protect her baby.

SIDNER: But while the family first explained this as a case of road rage only the part of the suspected killer, they now find themselves defending Meyer's role in possibly escalating the situation.

Initially, the family only revealed details that the driver suspected of killing Meyers went off the handle with no provocation. But new details are emerging, police say, Meyers was finishing up a driving lesson with her daughter in the parking lot just two minutes from their home. And then the two left the school and ended up in some kind of altercation with the man who would eventually kill Tammy Meyers.

LT. RAY STEIBER, LAS VEGAS METROPOLITAN POLICE: A vehicle came up at a high rate speed behind her. And then pulled off to the side and cut -- ultimately cut in front of her. As that vehicle did that, her daughter had a reached over and honked the horn.

SIDNER: Police say Meyers and that driver sketched here, argued. Meyers and her daughter then drove home.

STEIBER: Her 22-year old son came out on the house, got into the car, he was armed with a firearm that is registered to him and then they left the house. They left the house in search of that person they were -- that Mrs. Meyers was involved in an incident with just prior.

SIDNER: Police say they found the driver they were looking for but gave no details on what happened in that second encounter. What we do know is Meyers and her son returned home, and this time the suspect followed. Gun fire was exchanged and Tammy Meyers was struck in the head.

Despite the criticism that Meyers and her son may have had a hand and escalate in the situation, her family says no one should ever have died over something so trivial.

Sara Sidner, CNN, Las Vegas.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

KAYE: And we have this from a Facebook post by Tammy Meyers' husband, Robert Meyers. He says the family will return donations made to a GoFundMe page started by family friend. The decision comes after intense public criticism from those who say the family withheld crucial information in their description of that road rage incident.

Up next, a high profile murder defendant who's planning to be his own lawyer, facing the judge today, no telling what he'll say. But wait until you hear what he told me before he became the prime suspect.

(COMMERCIAL BRFEAK)

KAYE: So, typically, anytime a defendant wants to be his or her own lawyer, it does not go well. Chase Merritt is charged with murder in the death of Joseph McStay, his wife, Summer, and their two boys, Gianni and Joseph Jr., an entire family of four. Their remains were found in a California dessert nearly four years after they disappeared.

A short time ago, Meritt was in court for hearing and he is representing himself. The McStays went missing February 4th, 2010. And for years, no one knew what happened to them.

And when I talked to Chase Meritt, a family friend and a business partner of Joey McStays, before he was named as a suspect, he said detectives questioned him. And this is what he says they asked him.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

CHASE MERITT, CHARGED IN MCSTAY FAMILY MURDER: The standard questions. You know, just do I know anything about them disappearing? Did I have anything to do with it? Just the standard questions, you know, it's probably what they ask everybody.

KAYE: As far as you know, you were the last person or at least one of the last people to see him, right?

MERITT: Yeah, yeah. When he left Rancho Cucamonga, nobody else -- although I think somebody -- there was another person or two that he talked to. I'm not sure.

KAYE: But you were the last person he saw?

MERRITT: I'm definitely the last person he saw.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

KAYE: And I spoke to Chase Meritt a year ago, January, his only a television interview. And there he have -- you have him telling me that Joey McStay was certainly -- met him for lunch that day. And that he was the last person that he saw. So let's take a look at the Legal View here. Let me bring back in CNN legal analyst Danny Cevallos and HLN legal analyst Joey Jackson.

First of all, are you surprised that he would say that, Joey, that he is definitely the last person that Joey McStay saw.

JOEY JACKSON, HLN LEGAL ANALYST: I'm surprised he made any admissions at all. Now, you know this case probably better than anyone based on the interviews you've been doing and everything else, Randi. And, you know, what strikes me is that, I really wonder how much you'll play in the actual trial itself. But what impressions did you get -- did he sound sincere and did he appear sincere to you?

KAYE: Yeah, I mean, he was very low key. He was very friendly to our crew. We spend a good couple of hours with him. It was an early morning interview, he only wanted was a glass of milk when we asked him what we could bring him.

But now, he is in court and he is representing himself.

JACKSON: Mistake, yeah.

KAYE: So what's the problem there? I mean, let me just say he doesn't think he has long to live. He thinks he has heart problems...

JACKSON: Congestive heart failure, yeah.

KAYE: Congestive heart failure. He might have only six or eight months. He wants to get this done and get out of jail is his hope.

DANNY CEVALLOS, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: It's all been said with pro se defendants that the man who represents himself has a fool for a client, right? And even more so, pro se defendants are at, once, the bane and the glory of the legal system. And I can't tell you how often I've asked defense counsel have been appointed as advisory counsel to pro se defendants because you think, "Hey, that sounds like a pretty easy gig because you're just advising." Believe me, it's not.

It is incredibly difficult because you have not a client, but someone who's essentially making decisions in court that may really slow down the process. And they're going to make those demands of that appointed counsel while the appointed counsel really doesn't have the control over the situation that he would if the person was client and not pro se defendant.

These cases are fascinating but when it comes to judicial economy, they are usually a huge disaster.

KAYE: Yeah.

JACKSON: Because they slow down the process and, you know what, there are rules of evidence that you have to be really clear on when you're in a court, Randi. And if you're not, it's problematic. In factually, I think, although we don't know, because I know a lot of the search warrants are still sealed. The media was able to get some of the search warrants. I want to know what evidence that's compelling enough they have against them because remember factually, it was investigated in San Diego as a missing person case.

KAYE: Right. Because they thought the family went away on their own to Mexico.

JACKSON: That's right. For three years. And so clearly, I'm sure, Danny, you would be lighting up the detectives in San Diego saying, "How are you investigating? This is a missing person's case for three years." Now, all of a sudden, in another county where his remains are found, they're saying, "Wait, it's not a missing person's case obviously. There are remains there. There was foul play."

CEVALLOS: That's a fascinating thing because as we all know, there's no statute of limitations on murder. So if they had discovered evidence five years from now, 10 years from now, they could have indicted. But there's another separate but related issue, and that's pre-indictment delay. When the police investigates something for years and years, and years, they may get enough evidence at the end of a ceratin period of time to charge a defendant, but what about that defendant? How well could you defend the case today if you just found out you're being in indicted for something that happen 10 year ago.

KAYE: Right.

CEVALLOS: Do you know what you were doing 10 years ago? Do you have any witnesses? Can you come up with an alibi? I've actually had this come up in cases that were over a decade old, and piecing together what you were doing 10 years ago or finding a witness for yourself, almost impossible.

KAYE: When we -- I did interview the district attorney in this case and he said...

JACKSON: In San Diego?

KAYE: ... in San Bernardino who actually brought charges. And they said they have all the evidence they need and, you know, they believe that the whole family was killed at home. They said that there -- he said there're great inconsistencies in Chase Merritt's story, certainly...

JACKSON: Randi, how ironic is it that the San Bernardino district attorney says that they have (inaudible) in the home. Meanwhile the San Diego authorities couldn't figure that out and were investigating it as not as a death...

(CROSSTALK)

CEVALLOS: The defense is going to...

KAYE: The said it wasn't even a crime scene. The San Diego folks said it wasn't even a crime scene and they didn't seal the home and here is my other question. Not only that, they left this home open. The authorities weren't called for 11 days until after the family had disappeared. They didn't get search warrants to get inside for another three days. And during that time, some of the McStay's family members were in there, cleaning up the musty eggs that were left, the pop corn that was left.

Joey McStay's mother threw out dirty diapers. She didn't want the home to be a mess. They took a computer out of the house. Doesn't this all play a role?

JACKSON: You better believe it plays a role because you don't have a typical crime scene which would certainly steps would be taken to ensure to that crime was preserved, and the dogs were in the backyard. The dogs weren't fed, animal control had been there ...

KAYE: Right.

CEVALLOS: Law enforcement is darned if you do, darned if you don't. If they pursue other leads, that fact that they pursued other leads will later on be used by the defense and thrown right back in their face. So I mean they're sort of -- they have a (inaudible) choice.

JACKSON: It's Constitutional right to represent yourself, but he should be a counsel.

KAYE: All right. There you go. You heard it from Joey Jackson right there, Joey, Danny, thank you.

JACKSON: Thank you, Randi.

KAYE: Next, is the U.S. Army filled with liars? A new study by the military says, yes, and I'm not making this one up.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

KAYE: Before Chuck Hagel left the Pentagon, he went public with concerns that there were ethical gaps among senior army officers. A new study appears to show that those concerns are real. The U.S. Army War College compiled a report that concludes that the army has a problem with "dishonesty and deception" at all levels of the service, from junior members all the way up to the top generals.

This is one line from the report. It reads, "In the routine performance of their duties as leaders and commanders, U.S. Army officers lie."

Retired Lieutenant Colonel Rick Francona is our military analyst. Colonel, first of all, I mean, you're a retired Air Force, so we're talking about the army here. But keeping with the military tradition, honor and honorable service is sacred. And really there is no worst thing to call a military member than dishonest, right?

RICK FRANCONA, CNN MILITARY ANALYST: That's right. We're always taught that an officer's word is their bond. And we -- the officer's code is we do not lie, cheat or steal nor tolerate those among us who do.

This report and I've read the executive summary and portions of it. I think we have to put this in some context and realize what we're talking about here. We're not talking about, you know, lying for self-(inaudible) enticement or lying to get ahead. What's happening in the army and I suppose the other services as well, (inaudible) to see how that how that plays out. But there are so many requirements placed on all levels of command. All units, particularly down at the brigade level and lower in the combat units.

There are so many training requirements. So many mandatory formations, so many things that have to be done that the commanders have to certify. And it's such an overwhelming load that they can't do all of them. So rather than saying, "I can't do this." The tradition now is becoming, "Yes, we did it." So you're falsifying documents. You're falsifying training records.

We use to call this pencil whipping when you do -- just say you did it and you really didn't.

KAYE: Yeah.

FRANCONA: This becomes problematic throughout the army. But I think some context is in order here. We're not -- it's not like we have a bunch of dishonest officers running the army, is that they're trying to do the best they can in the bureaucracy that's crashing them.

KAYE: One thing that caught my eye in the study were these words that officers have become ethically numb. Isn't that concerning?

FRANCONA: Yes it is. And this is the result of this having to make due with less. And there's a whole bunch of factors that go into this. We've got the sequestration. We got the draw down the army. And there is -- and now, the attitude and all of the military services is zero defects.

If you make a mistake, you're out. We don't allow any room for error. So if there's no room for error, errors never show up in the training reports and then the -- all the paperwork that has to go back up.

KAYE: So what kind of damage do you think this does to the army's image and what's the challenge in repairing it?

FRANCONA: Well, the challenge -- well, challenge in repairing this, the army has to reorganize its bureaucracy. But what we'll probably see out of this is they'll say, "We have to address our ethics." And then they'll have another ethics thing that all of the officers have to do yet another compliance thing that they'll probably pencil with.

The problem is that if you do this in your admin, if you do this in your training, if you do this in your logistics, this is going to translate to what we do when we get into combat? Are we going to falsify those records? Are we going to say we took the objective but we didn't? That's not going to happen.

I know hundreds of U.S. army officers. They're fine officers. They're doing a very difficult job trying to fight this crashing bureaucracy.

KAYE: All right. Thank you Rick Francona, appreciate your time. And thank you everybody for watching.

I'm Randi Kaye. I'll be back tomorrow. Wolf starts right now.