Return to Transcripts main page

Anderson Cooper 360 Degrees

Arizona Supreme Court Rules State Must Adhere to a Near-Total Ban on Abortion Dating Back to Civil War Era; Gov. Katie Hobbs Discusses About Her Take on Arizona Supreme Court Decision to a Near- Total Ban on Abortion; Judge: Witnesses in Classified Docs Case Against Trump Will Remain Secret; Trump Days Away from First Criminal Trial After Latest Delay Bid Fails; Parents Of MI School Shooter Sentenced To 10-15 Years In Prison; 19 Retired Top Commanders, Military Officials File Brief Before Supreme Court Against Trump Immunity Claims; Newly Released Bodycam Footage Show Chaotic Moments Leading Up To Deadly Shooting Involving Chicago Police. Aired 8-9p ET

Aired April 09, 2024 - 20:00   ET


CHRIS VAN HEERDEN, BOYFRIEND OF U.S.-RUSSIAN CITIZEN ARRESTED IN RUSSIA: ... because they refused to put the lights off. I can tell you this from the letters and stuff, she's scared.


ERIN BURNETT, CNN HOST, "OUTFRONT": She is scared and alone. One thing that gives Chris hope, he says, is that Ksenia doesn't actually have to wear a prison uniform.

And thanks so much for joining us. We appreciate your being with us. It's time now for AC360.

ANDERSON COOPER, CNN HOST, "ANDERSON COOPER 360": Tonight on 360, there's breaking news, an exclusive interview with Arizona's Democratic governor after the state's highest court reinstitutes a near-total abortion ban that's more than a century old.

More breaking news tonight, the former president loses a key battle in his classified documents case. Why the fight over revealing the names of potential witnesses is such an important win for the special counsel.

And later, new body cam video reveals what happened during a fatal encounter between Chicago police officers and a 26-year-old man during a traffic stop.

Good evening.

We start with the breaking news and the fallout from the Arizona Supreme Court decision. That has even some top Republicans in a state that could decide both the presidency and the Senate saying it goes too far.

The ruling scraps a 15-week limitation on abortion in the state and reinstitutes a Civil War era near-total ban that was enacted before Arizona was a state. And before, as Vice President Harris and others pointed out today, women had the right to vote in the U.S. The 4-2 decision is a direct result, obviously, of the U.S. Supreme Court overturning Roe v. Wade. That, of course, provided federal protections for abortion.

With those gone, it's now up to individual states to decide their own laws, which is what the Arizona court did today. And it's something the former president just yesterday said he was in support of.


DONALD TRUMP, FORMER PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: My view is now that we have abortion where everybody wanted it from a legal standpoint, the states will determine by vote or legislation or perhaps both. And whatever they decide must be the law of the land - in this case, the law of the state.

Many states will be different. Many will have a different number of weeks or some will have more conservative than others and that's what they will be. At the end of the day this is all about will of the people.


COOPER: In Arizona, the implications for women are obviously massive. The law, if it survives potential challenges, would place Arizona alongside states like Texas and Alabama as having some of the strictest anti-abortion laws of the country. For abortion providers, a violation of the law, if it goes into effect, it means a possible jail sentence of two to five years. Those are just some of the practical implications. There are obvious political implications as well.

Arizona is a swing state. Abortion is a major issue animating the race there and just about everywhere in the country. Just listen to what some undecided female voters in Arizona told our Randi Kaye when she talked to them a few weeks ago before this new decision.


KERI SCOTT, ARIZONA UNDECIDED VOTER: I don't know why the hell women's reproductive rights are even a political conversation.



SCOTT: Why my body now a topic of conversation?


SCOTT: Look, at the end of the day, we have two potential presidents, like you have no business up in my body, so ...


UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Exactly. PARKER: Look, it's not only reproductive rights. They're now talking about IVF. What is next? I do not want anyone, a government official who is a non- doctor, not part of my medical team, telling me what I can and cannot do to my body or what is right for my body.

RANDI KAYE, CNN CORRESPONDENT: How important are reproductive rights and freedoms to you in terms of choosing a candidate?

PARKER: That's my top-top.



KAYE: Is that number one issue for all of you?

PARKER: Mm-hm.

ALONDRA HUPE, ARIZONA UNDECIDED VOTER: I think it's definitely on the top one or two and the timeline is coming up where me and my husband wanted to start trying. And I'm scared for when I start trying and something happens and I have to make that choice.


HUPE: Left either to die or like it's just ...

PARKER: And doctors will go to jail.




COOPER: It may be weeks or longer before the law goes into effect. The political fallout began immediately. Vice President Harris posted a video statement on social media calling on Congress to restore the protections under Roe. She also said she travel to Arizona on Friday to address issues surrounding reproductive rights.

Kari Lake, the Republican election denier who lost a gubernatorial race there, seems to have done a 180. She once praised the near total ban that's now law. Today, she's now running for Senate in the state, she said she opposed it and said that Arizona's governor, Katie Hobbs, and the state legislature should come up with a "common sense solution."

Arizona governor, Katie Hobbs, joins us now for her first interview since the decision.

Gov. Hobbs, I appreciate you being with us.

Were you surprised by the decision today? And what's your message to women in Arizona tonight? GOV. KATIE HOBBS, (D) ARIZONA: Well, Arizonans across the state are reeling from this decision that reinstates the most draconian ban in the country. This is a ban that, as you said, was passed in 1864 before we were a state, before women had the right to vote.


And it is a near total ban with no exceptions for rape or incest. It requires prison time for doctors and there's just right now a lot of confusion about what is the current state, who has access to what. And it is - this is a very harmful decision for Arizonans.

COOPER: I want to talk about what the legislature may do. But before that, I mean, can you clarify right now when - assuming there's no action by the legislature - when this law would be enforceable? Because while the state Supreme Court stayed its ruling pending further arguments in a lower court, the majority opinion says, and I quote, "physicians are now on notice that all abortions, except those necessary to save a woman's life, are illegal." So what is the timeline here?

HOBBS: As you can imagine, there's still a lot of folks trying to figure this out. We think it's 45 days, but certainly don't want to say that and make people think that they won't be penalized for something that happens before that. We just aren't sure and we need clarity.

COOPER: What do you think - I mean, do you think the legislature was - will act? I mean, Republicans control both houses in Arizona.

HOBBS: Well, I've been calling on the legislature to repeal this archaic ban from day one of my administration. I renewed that call at the beginning of this legislative session. The fact is that some of the Republicans right now who are saying that this decision went too far are the same politicians who said celebrated the Dobbs decision, which paved the way for this court ruling today.

And the Speaker of the House and the Senate president both weighed in, in this case with amicus brief, urging the court to do exactly what it did today.

COOPER: So you and your attorney general, I know, have taken steps to try to prevent county district attorneys from prosecuting anyone under this law. I mean, do you expect county officials are going to try to take it to court over that? What would happen in the meantime?

HOBBS: Well, to date, there hasn't been any test of that executive order, which I firmly believe is legally sound. And it just prevents an extreme county attorney from using this ban to criminalize women and doctors for seeking the care or providing the care that their patients need and would provide consolidation with the attorney general.

It hasn't been tested yet and I am hopeful that it doesn't have to be, because this ban, this extreme ban is going to prevent people from getting care that they need. You've said people across the state are outraged about this and there's certainly a lot of outrage. But you just named a couple of people who are actually for this. What do you say to those in Arizona, in your state who believe this is a good idea?

HOBBS: Look, Arizonans are going to be able to weigh in on this and enshrine abortion in our states' constitution in November. And I am confident that when given the opportunity, they will vote to protect abortion access. These politicians ...

COOPER: Do you think that we'll get on the ballot for this election? A statewide ...

HOBBS: They are well on their way there. They have surpassed the number of signatures needed and they still have months to continue collecting. And this is a common sense measure that is supported by the vast majority of Arizonans in terms of protecting access.

And certainly it's going to motivate voters in November. I'm concerned about people's care between now and November, and I'm going to do everything in my power to ensure that Arizonans can get the care that they need. But these extreme politicians are absolutely out of touch with what Arizonans want. And not only will Arizonans have the chance to weigh in on this ballot measure, but they'll also have a chance to elect new legislators who will fight to protect their freedoms instead of taking them away.

COOPER: As you know, the former president Trump's campaign said tonight and I quote, "President Trump could not have been more clear. These are decisions for people of each state to make." What do you say to that?

HOBBS: Well, it is really unconscionable that folks in Arizona now are going to have to go to Nevada, California, New Mexico or Colorado to get the care that they need. And I'm glad there's organizations that are going to be helping them do that. But people across the country, Americans should not have unequal access to their freedoms and we need to work to restore those in Arizona.

COOPER: Do you think there are going to be moves against IVF now in the state?

HOBBS: Absolutely. These extreme legislators sent a fetal personhood bill to my desk that I was able to veto last year. This is a bill that would have paved the way for an Alabama-style ruling that would ban IVF. In Arizona, they're going after contraception. This doesn't stop at abortion.

COOPER: Arizona governor, Katie Hobbs, I appreciate your time. Thank you.

HOBBS: Thank you.


COOPER: I'm joined now by Maggie Haberman, a senior political correspondent for The New York Times and Frank Luntz, a Republican pollster and communications strategist.

So, Maggie, as we mentioned, the former president's campaign said the position is that - should be up to the states. Does he think - I mean, he clearly thought he could kind of leave it at that yesterday, avoid maybe taking a position on your total bans like Arizona's. That does not include exceptions for rape and incest.

MAGGIE HABERMAN, CNN POLITICAL ANALYST: Yes, Anderson, I think that he and his aides thought that he was going to have more than a day of buying time with that statement yesterday. A statement that was not clarifying. I mean, it was saying that it should or will be left up to the states. He didn't address where he is on a federal ban or if he would sign a federal ban if such a thing were to pass however steep the odds are in Washington if he were president.

And so now he's going to have to address this ban. I mean, the argument from Democrats and the Biden campaign is by saying that it's up to all states to pick what they want to do, Trump has endorsed all bans. And this news out of Arizona is really going to test that. As far as I know, he has not commented yet. There are a lot of people eagerly waiting to hear what he has to say.

COOPER: Frank, how do you think this plays out from - in terms of politics?

FRANK LUNTZ, POLLSTER AND COMMUNICATIONS STRATEGIST: It's the worst issue for the Republicans right now. They have a double digit lead on inflation, a double digit lead on immigration. If they're talking about abortion, Democrats have a 15- to 20 percent advantage. So for Trump talking about this, engaging in any of the details is a negative, same thing for the Republicans.

And if you notice the governor, and I pay attention to words, and she talked extreme, extreme, she must have said it half a dozen times. That's going to be the narrative over the next seven months that this is an extreme position, which it is. But they're trying to use abortion as a way to communicate the Republican Party as being outside the mainstream. It's a good Democratic issue.

COOPER: And that messaging, that language, do you think that's effective for Democrats?

LUNTZ: It's effective for Democrats. It's less effective for Independents. But in the end, the Independents and swing voters, they're looking for economic issues. They're looking for quality of life issues. Young women, this is the number one issue. For young women, their right to choose trumps every - sorry for the language - it trumps every other, issue.

So in terms of get out to vote, in terms of winning in these close states, abortion could do for the Democrats exactly what it did in 2022. Republicans were expecting a 20C, 25C gain. They didn't get it because young women voted on abortion back then and they're going to do the same now.

COOPER: Megan, the former president has reportedly told allies in the past that he believes abortion is a political loser. I mean, to Frank's point, if Republicans are talking about it, it's - they're losing. Do you have a sense of how worried they are tonight about Arizona?

HABERMAN: This is something that is certainly on their minds about how to deal with it. I mean, I will note that the one out that Trump may take is that he stressed in his video, and he has said this in private discussions with people and public commentary, his focus on exceptions in terms of rape, incest, and life of the mother.

And this bill - this new law would have no exceptions, and that might be an off-ramp that he takes. But regardless, I mean, yes, Trump said, and we at The Times broke this, that Trump was saying to people, when the likely Dobbs decision was impending, that this was going to be bad for Republicans. He has recognized that the politics of this are bad for Republicans. He has also then gone out and said that he proudly helped overturn Roe v. Wade.

And so it's a little hard to have it both ways, but he is trying to have it all ways. And he often does. He tries to leave all options open and avoid being pinned down. This is on a significant issue that a lot of women are very, very animated by. And looking as if you are trying to avoid saying anything, I don't think it's going to be a sustainable position for him.

COOPER: How - I mean, Frank, how does the Trump campaign avoid talking about this issue? I mean --

LUNTZ: By going back to the border, by going back to prices and he's good at that. The public is deeply concerned about affordability. And I'm not ducking your question. I'm actually emphasizing affordability matters to every family. Immigration, because of the results of what's happened at the border matters to everyone.

Abortion is a hardcore issue for younger women, a little bit less so for younger men. And the older that you get, it's still important, but it's not a voter-driven issue, as these other ones are.

COOPER: And Maggie, I mean, if Trump is elected in November, do you think he would change his position to support a federal abortion ban? I mean, I guess there's - I mean, of course, he's certainly open to changing his position on a lot of things.

HABERMAN: Right. Anderson, I think that's the point. And I think that's what you will hear Democrats say and point to a lot that Trump has been in several different places on abortion.


He does have credibility with evangelicals because of what he did in terms of appointing conservative justices to the Supreme Court and throughout the federal courts. Those justices in the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade. That was something Trump said in 2016 he was going to do. That did happen.

And so Trump believes that he has enough credibility to not really take a stand here. But Trump has historically reverted on the issue to turning the issue over to conservative activists who are against abortion.

And so I don't think anyone should assume that they have any idea what he would do on this as president.

COOPER: He also - you had evangelicals, you have a former president - Vice President Pence coming out saying this was a slap in the face yesterday when he said that. Do you think that actually matters at this stage of the Trump campaign? I mean, is that - where are they going to go if they don't vote for Trump?

LUNTZ: He's got the evangelical, no matter what happens in his life, he's proven that, that evangelicals will stand behind him. No matter what happens in his life, he's proven that economic conservatives can trust him on economic issues, social conservatives. But in the end, it's that center. It's the 5 percent who haven't made up their minds. They tend to be younger rather than older. They tend to be a little less educated, a little less likely to follow the news. And for these people, an issue like abortion matters a little bit more than the population overall. That's what I'm focused on, undecided voters, and this is going to play big time among younger women.

COOPER: Frank Luntz, thanks so much. Maggie Haberman as well.

Coming up next, breaking news in the former president classified documents case, what the judge is saying tonight about the potential witnesses in that case and the former president trying again to delay his historic criminal trial in Manhattan with just six days until it starts. I'll talk it over with CNN's Kara Scannell, who was in the courtroom today, as well as our legal team.

And then later, a Michigan judge has sentenced the parents of a high school shooter who killed four students. Details on their precedent- setting punishments after being convicted of involuntary manslaughter and also the emotional victim impact statements read by the families.



COOPER: Breaking news in the classified documents case against the former president. The federal judge in the case, Judge Aileen Cannon, just made a key ruling, and it has to do with the potential witnesses.

CNN's Evan Perez joins us now with that. So what did the judge decide?

EVAN PEREZ, CNN SENIOR JUSTICE CORRESPONDENT: Well, Anderson, she decided that she agrees now with Special Counsel Jack Smith to keep protected some of the names - the names of witnesses, key witnesses. Jack Smith, the special counsel, had argued that they should be protected because they could be subject to intimidation and threats, which, of course, we've seen in some cases associated with the former president.

And so she had previously indicated that she was inclined to let those names be put in public records in some of the filings by the Trump team, which, of course, would cause problems for them.

But one of - part of the story here, Anderson, is the continued back and forth, sharp back and forth between Jack Smith and the judge. You and I talked about it last week, and I said that it's getting downright sassy. And you see some of that today in this filing where she said that some of the arguments that they made, they should have made from the beginning and not belatedly.

COOPER: Did Judge Cannon leave room for a release of witness names in the future?

PEREZ: She did. She said for now, these names will be redacted in any filings that are made. She did say that the special counsel seems to want to make this a long-term thing and so she allowed for her to change her mind later on.

COOPER: And does this impact any records in the case becoming public?

PEREZ: Well, she also ruled that more records in the case are going to be made public. But if any of those records implicate the names or might identify some of these witnesses, then she's asking for that information to be redacted.

So in both cases, Jack Smith got some of what he was asking for, which is to protect the names. The Trump team got some of what they wanted, which is for more of these records to be made public, Anderson.

COOPER: Evan Perez, thanks so much.

Now to the former president's hush money criminal case here in New York today. He was rejected yet again in another attempt to delay the case that's set to start on Monday with jury selection. This time, the decision came from an appeals court judge just minutes after hearing arguments.

Joining me now are former federal prosecutors Jennifer Rodgers and Temidayo Aganga-Williams. He was also senior investigative counsel for the House Select January 6th Committee. Also CNN's Kara Scannell who was in the courtroom today.

So what more happened in the appeals court today, Kara?

KARA SCANNELL, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Yes. So this is Trump's latest attempt to try to stop this trial before it starts. Today, they were in there asking an appellate judge to hold the trial to stop it so they could challenge the gag order that was put in place restricting Trump's statements. There were brief arguments on this. It was quickly denied.

But this is just one of a flurry of filings that we're seeing both at the trial court level and at the appellate level to try to stop this case. And there are three court days left before this is over and - before the trial starts and I think we could possibly see more. But even this is not technically over because they will file briefs for an appellate court panel to consider this. Those briefs are due on Monday, which is the start of this trial. A decision is expected to follow. It's still a long shot for him to stop this case right now.

COOPER: I mean, Temidayo, one of the arguments the Trump team is making is that, well, New York, the jury pool is likely to be - or more likely to be liberal, perhaps, and not like Trump. I mean, does that argument hold any water? Would that mean that any politician on trial could only be tried in a district where he was popular?

TEMIDAYO AGANGA-WILLIAMS, FORMER SENIOR INVESTIGATIVE COUNSEL, JANUARY 6TH COMMITTEE: Yes. I mean, you get to have a jury of your peers. And the president is famously from New York. And what the jury process is about is about gleaning who is going to be fair and impartial in the process. It's not about getting the jurors that you only want. It's about having the opportunity to ask them questions to really inquire whether they can be fair and impartial to both parties. Both the government and the defendant have a right to a fair trial.

He's going to have the opportunity here. The judge will ask questions. Counsel, too, will have the opportunity to ask questions. And these very issues about political affiliation, preconceptions about the former president, all that is going to have an opportunity to come out.


And then he'll have the opportunity to do what people do in every trial, which is to strike jurors.

I mean, every lawyer who's been to trial before is engaged in that process. You're trying to understand what are people's preconceived notions about your positions and then you test those. And if you don't feel confident they're going to support you in your ultimate arguments, you have those jury struck, so we'll have that chance.

COOPER: And, Jennifer, I mean, we saw the jury - some of the questions are going to be asked to the jury. Do you think it's going to be - I mean, do you think it's going to be a lengthy process finding a jury?

JENNIFER RODGERS, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: I think it will because there's so many people involved. I mean, they're going to call hundreds of people because there's so many people who are going to say they feel strongly about Trump, either against him or for him. And the judge has already said that all people who say, I have a conflict or I just can't be fair and impartial are going to automatically be excused. But I think it's going to take them a long time to get through all of these hundreds of people, even with a streamlined process, which includes a questionnaire and not going one by one through all the people who say that they have a conflict.

COOPER: And, Kara, I mean, specifically about the gag order, what did his legal team take issue with?

SCANNELL: So they said they wanted to narrow it in three different ways. They said that they thought Trump should be able to talk about Michael Cohen and Stormy Daniels, two key witnesses for the prosecution, because they said, that they are continuing to talk about the case. They want him to have the ability to respond. They also said that they think Trump should be able to talk about publicly filed motions in this case. One of them is about recusing the judge. And that motion, which had the details about the work his daughter was - has done for a Democratic organization, came the day after the gag order was put in place. So he's trying to get around the gag order that way by saying, let me talk about this motion.

And then also he wants to talk about one of the prosecutors on the case who, for a brief period of time, worked at the Department of Justice as part of his line that this is a Biden prosecution, even though the district attorney, Alvin Bragg, is entirely separate from the Department of Justice and is not taking direction from Joe Biden.

And so he wants to loosen the gag order in that way. The prosecutor said, know that this gag order is already narrowly tailored. And they said that they're already having challenges with some witnesses who don't want to testify even just about record keeping in the case because of the fear of what Trump could possibly say against them and what his followers could possibly then react with.

COOPER: Jen, one of the former president's attorneys made the argument that some of the former president's statements about the case may be rude, but they didn't rise to the level of incitement.

RODGERS: Yes, that's the understatement of the year, right? I mean, they don't have to rise to the level of incitement. They are they are intimidating. They are threatening. They are, as Kara just said, making people not want to participate in the trial. And the judge has an obligation to protect the integrity of those proceedings.

And so this gag order, which by the way very similar language was upheld by the D.C. Circuit Federal Court of Appeals when it was put in place by Judge Chutkan in the other the federal election subversion case. So there's really strong ground to stand on to say that this was a constitutional order and I think it'll stand up.

COOPER: And Temidayo, on the Judge Cannon decision about keeping the jury for now, the names off or from going public, but at least at this juncture, what do you make of that?

AGANGA-WILLIAMS: I think there's been a confrontation between the Department of Justice and Judge Cannon that has been building and the question of whether ...

COOPER: That's an understatement.

AGANGA-WILLIAMS: ... yes, it's an understatement - but I think you saw her back down and try to save face here. I mean, she really said - she suggested that Jack Smith had introduced new evidence that she could consider. And I think what's happened here is that he told her what the law was and she had no choice but to agree with him.

But I think this is just the beginning and were likely a confrontation, which is going to have to be decided by the 11th Circuit, which is the appellate court that oversees Judge Cannon. And we may in the future see an attempt by Jack Smith to have her removed. COOPER: Do you think she can be removed?

AGANGA-WILLIAMS: I think if she makes - if she continues on the path, which she has, I think this had some undefensible decisions that she's made. And I think if she does that again, I do think we'll see that possibility going forward.

COOPER: Fascinating. Appreciate it, everyone. Thank you.

Just ahead, emotional impact statements today in the historic sentencing of the parents of a Michigan school shooter. You're going to hear them and I'll talk to the lead prosecutor on the case. That's next.



ANDERSON COOPER, CNN ANCHOR: It was an unprecedented and emotionally difficult day in court today as the parents of the Michigan school shooter were sentenced to at least a decade in prison. James and Jennifer Crumbley's son killed four students in the 2021 shooting and they became the first parents to be held criminally responsible for a mass shooting committed by their child.

CNN's Jean Casarez has more.


JUDGE CHERYL MATTHEWS, OAKLAND COUNTY CIRCUITY COURT: It is the sense of this court, Ms. Crumbley, that you served 10 to 15 years. As to defendant James Crumbley, it is the sense of this court that you served 10 to 15 years.

JEAN CASAREZ, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): Historic sentences handed down for the parents of a teen who killed four students at a Michigan high school in 2021.

MATTHEWS: It is a goal of sentencing to act as a deterrent. These convictions are not about poor parenting. These convictions confirm repeated acts or lack of acts that could have halted an oncoming runaway train.

CASAREZ (voice-over): James and Jennifer Crumbley were found guilty of involuntary manslaughter in separate trials earlier this year. The first time parents of a mass school shooter have been held directly accountable for an attack. On November 30th, 2021, their son killed Madisyn Baldwin, Tate Myre, Justin Schilling, and Hana St. Juliana at Oxford High School, using a gun gifted to him by Jennifer and her husband.

CRAIG SCHILLING, FATHER OF SHOOTING VICTIM JUSTIN SCHILLING: The blood of our children is on your hands too.

CASAREZ (voice-over): Family of the victims gave statements ahead of the sentencing. UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: When you worried about what people thought of you and feeling threatened. I was learning your son threatened my daughter and feelings fatally shot her in the head. While you were hiding, I was planning her funeral. And why you were running away from your son and your responsibilities, I was forced to do the worst possible thing a parent could do. I was forced to say goodbye to my medicine.


CASAREZ (voice-over): The older sister of 14-year-old victim, Hana St. Juliana, says no punishment will ever be enough.

REINA ST. JULIANA, SISTER OF SHOOTING VICTIM HANA ST. JULIANA: I now have to live without Hana, my little sister, my best friend, my other half. To me, that makes the maximum sentence being 15 years too short. Hana even have 15 years to live.

STEVE ST. JULIANA, FATHER OF SHOOTING VICTIM HANA ST. JULIANA: How does murder has destroyed a large portion of my very soul?

CASAREZ (voice-over): Both Crumbley spoke up on their own behalf. James Crumbley for the first time since his trial began.

JENNIFER CRUMBLEY, MOTHER OF SCHOOL SHOOTER: To the victims and the families, I stand today not to ask for your forgiveness as I know it may be beyond breach, but to express my sincerest apologies for the pain that has been caused. I will be in my own internal prison for the rest of my life.

JAMES CRUMBLEY, FATHER OF SCHOOL SHOOTER: I really want the families to know how truly am I -- how truly sorry I am and I'll continue to feel this pain for the rest of my life as well. If I could go back and change things, if I could go back and do things differently, and maybe none of us would be here today.


COOPER: And Jean Casarez joins us now. Are the Crumbleys likely to appeal? I mean, could this be -- their sentence reduced?

CASAREZ: Absolutely, they're going to appeal. We don't know how it will turn out but, you know, there are a lot of texts in this trial and a text is one moment of time, right? You don't know what happens before. You don't know what happens after.

There were texts by Ethan in this trial, the shooter in this trial and where he texted his friend and he said, you know, I asked my dad for mental help and he laughed at me and he told me just suck it up and take a pill. Well, the Crumbleys could not counteract that. There was nothing they wanted Ethan to come in that courtroom to testify, so we could see what Ethan had to say about all of that.

And he had a Fifth Amendment privilege that his attorneys waive for him did not waive saying that they are going to appeal his sentence, furthermore, the medical records because he told a psychiatrist that he actually lied. He didn't ask his parents ever for any help. Those medical records are privileged also. So they couldn't come in. So you saw one side there was no way to counter it by James and Jennifer Crumbley. We'll see what an appellate court says about that.

COOPER: OK. Jean Casarez, thanks very much.

Joining me now is the lead prosecutor on the case Oakland County, Michigan Prosecutor Karen McDonald. Ms. McDonald, I appreciate your time. You heard in Jean's report, a sister of one of the victims, Hana St. Juliana, says that the 10 to 15 year sentence for the Crumbleys feels too short because Hana, her sister, didn't even live to be 15. Are you satisfied with the sentences they got?

KAREN MCDONALD, OAKLAND COUNTY, MICHIGAN PROSECUTOR: You know, satisfaction isn't really a feeling that I think anyone has just watching this -- your story. It's, you know, I haven't actually watched it since we were in court today and it, you know, it is so jarring and moving. And I think nothing will bring back these kids.

But the sheer enormous impact that their gross negligence had on these families is just -- it was palpable. And if I could, Anderson, I would like to just address just the previous statements. It's not actually true that that the shooter said -- the psychiatrist said he lied. That was taken completely out of context.

And, you know, we heard that even today, which was a surprise, that we'd be arguing facts after we've had two jury trials, but the shooter being called as a witness and the psychiatrist actually would be damning testimony for both parents. So, you know, the text messages he sent his friends --

COOPER: So do you worry about what may happen on an appeal? Are you confident?

MCDONALD: I do not because the, you know, we were -- we took painstaking efforts and so did this judge to make sure that Jennifer and James Crumbley had a fair trial. And the evidence that we sought to admit, by the way, much, much, much of it was deemed excluded, was went through the rigor of an evidentiary analysis by the court and real argument and analysis by each side.

But it is not true that he told the psychiatrist that he lied about that, that's taken out of context. And, you know, it's frustrating for us because all of this came out in the Miller hearing, which is a separate proceeding and we never sought to keep any of that information, but it's not ours to give. He does have a right, a Fifth Amendment right and we couldn't give that.

But it's just -- you know, all of the evidence came out about what he actually told the psychiatrist and what his testimony would be. And that's -- and it's not favorable to Jennifer or James.


COOPER: I appreciate the clarification. What do you -- I mean, one of the important things that -- I mean, I'm not going to say that anything good can come out of this, but one of the important things perhaps that can come out of this is a message that could be sent to parents everywhere, not just in Michigan, but around the country about responsibility. And what do you hope that message is that's received by parents?

MCDONALD: You know, I don't think the majority of people in this country and parents, you're a parent, I'm a parent, need to have that message. I think the facts in this case are so egregious. I am absolutely not -- do not promote the idea that we should criminalize bad parenting.

I absolutely don't stand for the proposition that we should always find out where the parent's role was in every criminal act, even if it's with a gun. But when you're presented with evidence like this, and you ask the question, like all of us did, where did the minor get the hands -- his hands on this gun, and you -- those answers lead to social media posts boasting about it.

They lead to a lot of signs that there were some trouble and ignoring that. And then in addition, providing this deadly weapon four days before the shooting, giving him access to the weapon and the ammunition, not securing it. And then when called to the school and given this worksheet where he writes, "help me, the world is dead, blood everywhere" and asked to get him some counseling either that day or within 48 hours and they say nothing about this gun, you know, they were just -- you know, and I think the judge's comments really stress that.

She sat through to very long detailed trials and her comments in sentencing really reflected a knowledge of the evidence. And, you know, look, I hope that what comes out of this is more questions about where the weapon comes from, more attention to access to weapons. But I want to be really clear, this prosecution does not really change the fact that the number one cause of death for children in this country is gun violence.

And we have to address it in a comprehensive public health way. I started and we're releasing recommendations on the commission to address gun violence. And it goes way upstream to talk about way before somebody puts their hand on a gun, how can we prevent these tragedies.

And the good news is there's a lot of ways that we can prevent this. We just have to educate the public and provide that for them.

COOPER: Karen McDonald, I appreciate your time tonight. Thank you.

MCDONALD: Thank you.

COOPER: Just ahead, opposition to the former president's claims of immunity in his election interference case. This time from former top military commanders and officials, one of the 19 who signed an amicus brief to the Supreme Court, joins us next.



COOPER: Nineteen former top military commanders and officials have filed a brief before the Supreme Court attacking the former president's claims of immunity. The authors include retired four star admirals and generals, as well as our next guest, Ray Mabus, who served as Navy Secretary in the Obama administration.

Secretary Mabus, it's good to have you on. You write in this amicus brief that a president who had complete immunity from any action taken in office could mean, quote, "creating the likelihood that service members will be placed in the impossible position of having to choose between following their commander-in-chief and obeying the laws enacted by Congress." Can you give us an example of an unlawful order, even if it was given by the commander-in-chief?

RAY MABUS, FORMER SECRETARY OF THE NAVY: Sure, you've got a president that has immunity that has no consequences for action. Then you've got a group of protesters peacefully protesting a policy of the administration. And the president says, tells the U.S. military, take them out. Then the military, if they follow that order, they would be prosecuted for murder.

But they would have the impossible decision, choice, of do you follow an order from the commander-in-chief, which is clearly unlawful, or do you follow your duty to not obey that and cause the chaos that would follow? That's the danger here and it's a serious, deep, substantial danger.

COOPER: So it's not just theoretical. I mean, this could -- you're saying, but you believe it could have a ripple effect of having people in the military questioning orders that they receive from on high to make sure that, I mean, just -- it would raise all sorts of questions and concerns about people in all different ranks?

MABUS: Absolutely. If -- one of the -- we've got two bedrock principles here. One is civilian control of the military. It's enshrined in our constitution. The other is that both civilians and the military operate under the rule of law. And the thing that holds that together is trust. The military trust the fact that the civilian superiors are going to issue lawful orders.

If you have somebody who is not constrained by that, who from there are no consequences, and just says, I don't care if an order is lawful, I'm going to issue it no matter what. Then, once again, the military is in that impossible position. Do you follow an order that's clearly unlawful, or, and they've got a duty to disobey if an order is unlawful, do you follow that?

But then what does that happen down the chain of command? What does the colonel do? What does the lieutenant do? What does the sergeant do? What does the private do?


You've got the commander-in-chief saying one thing. You've got your military commanders and chain of command saying, don't do that. COOPER: The --

MABUS: That is chaos.

COOPER: The brief also says, and I quote, "domestic conflict on U.S. soil -- especially conflict related to the peaceful transition of power -- only encourages our foreign adversaries." What type of national security threats do you envision if a foreign adversary were to take advantage of a disruption in the United States?

MABUS: One of the things that's the most awesome about our democracy is how we have a peaceful transfer of power. And every time we do, and we have for almost 250 years now, in all sorts of situations, every time we do, you have that transfer of power, that time is a really fraught time. Because you've got a completely new group of people coming in, there -- they've got to be up to speed on day one, they're probably going to be tested.

But if you've got someone issuing unlawful orders during that time, trying to hold on to power after an election that they lost, then foreign adversaries, they're going to seize on that. They already do. They already watch very closely and test the U.S. during these transitions. But if you've got this chaotic time and orders being issued, followed, not followed, then they could use that very easily as a time for either to move against us, to move against our allies, or to try to undermine us in myriad ways all around the world.

COOPER: Yes. Secretary Mabus, I really appreciate you being on. Thank you.

MABUS: Thank you, Anderson.

COOPER: Coming up next, a deadly police involved shooting in Chicago and some questions about whether officers use excessive force. We'll show you what newly released body cam footage reveals about the moments leading up to the fatal encounter.



COOPER: Tonight, just released body cam video is revealing new details about a fatal police involved shooting in Chicago. 26-year-old Dexter Reed was killed during a traffic stop last month involving five police officers. Nearly 100 shots were fired towards Reed, raising questions about whether the officers used excessive force.

CNN's Omar Jimenez has that story, and we want to warn you some of what you'll see is graphic.


OMAR JIMENEZ, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): March 21st, 2024, Chicago police are initiating a traffic stop on a driver reportedly for not wearing a seatbelt, according to the civilian office of police accountability. A traffic stop being conducted by five tactical officers.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Roll the window down. What are you doing?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Roll this one down.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Roll that one down too.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: What's going on?

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Hey, don't roll the window up. Don't roll the window up.


UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Do not roll the window up.


UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Unlock the doors now.

JIMENEZ (voice-over): The temperature quickly escalates. One officer puts what appears to be his gun on the windshield. Reed then fires first, hitting an officer in the forearm, according to the initial investigation. Then chaos.


UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Drop your gun. Gun fire.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Stay who is good.




UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Bring that gun fire.


UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Shots fired. Pick it up.


JIMENEZ (voice-over): Reed goes down. Then, three final gunshots. Ninety six in total, according to investigators. A gun was later recovered from the front seat of Reed's car. Porscha Banks had just been on the phone with her brother, and the minutes before it all happened. Then she turned on a police scanner at her shop.

PORSCHA BANKS, SISTER, DEXTER REED: Listening to the police talking like saying, shots fired, but I can hear all the shots on the scanner. I can hear so many shots, so many shots, so many shots, but didn't know that it was my brother. So then to know later on that night that those shots that I heard and then the MLMs going past my shop was my brother, was the most heartbreaking thing that I could ever feel in my life.

JIMENEZ (voice-over): One of the family's attorneys argues this never should have happened in the first place.

ANDREW M. STROTH, ATTORNEY FOR THE FAMILY: There was a weapon recovered in his car. However, it started with an unconstitutional, pre-textual, and unnecessary stop of Dexter Reed. And that's what precipitated the entire incident.

JIMENEZ (voice-over): And questions remain over why tactical officers initiated a traffic stop for a supposed seat belt violation. As part of a brief statement, Chicago police says this incident is still under investigation. But the stop is where it all began.

ROOSEVELT R. BANKS III, UNCLE, DEXTER REED: If you don't stop my nephew, he'll be alive today.

JIMENEZ (voice-over): Reed's uncle sitting alongside his father.

R. BANKS: When this happened to my nephew, I hope the police can understand that this is the same pain that they feel when an officer is killed in the line of duty.

JIMENEZ (voice-over): It's a pain that manifests in memories and pain that manifests in despair.

NICOLE BANKS, MOTHER, DEXTER REED: They took my son away from me. He ain't got that no more. I don't know what I'm going to do without him.

P. BANKS: And I just wish that I could talk to him one more time. But to see him gunned down, I never ever thought that it would be him. I never thought that it would be him. I never thought that it would be him.


JIMENEZ (on-camera): Now, the Chicago Police Department says this is still under investigation. And the Civilian Office of Police Accountability says they've recommended to the police superintendent that they relieve four of these officers of their policing powers as that investigation continues.

The Cook County State's attorney here says they are investigating for a potential criminal prosecution, but they are not there at this point. And, look, as people watch this and react to this, Reed did fire his weapon first, and so that initial response from police is not necessarily what is under question here. Those initial shots. It is really why this stop happened in the first place and why the shots continued for as long as they did. Anderson?

COOPER: Omar Jimenez, thanks so much.

The news continues. The Source of Kaitlan Collins starts now.