Return to Transcripts main page

CNN News Central

Supreme Court Guts Affirmative Action In College Admissions; Verdict Reached In Trial For Former Parkland School Resource Officer Scott Peterson; Former Parkland School Resource Officer Scot Peterson Found Not Guilty On All Counts. Aired 3-3:30p ET

Aired June 29, 2023 - 15:00   ET

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

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[15:00:36]

BORIS SANCHEZ, CNN HOST: We're following a seismic decision by the Supreme Court after the conservative majority rolled back decades of precedent and yet another landmark case. In a six to three decision, the justices ending affirmative action in college admissions are ushering in a new era in which a prospective students' race cannot be a determining factor in the decision to admit them.

Now, the White House is actively exploring executive actions to counteract that ruling. Today, President Biden vowed his fight is not over. Listen.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

BIDEN: I believe our colleges are stronger when they are racially diverse. Our nation is stronger, because we use what we - because we are tapping into the full range of talent in this nation. I also believe that while talent, creativity and hard work are everywhere across this country, not equal opportunity. It is not everywhere across this country. We cannot let this decision be the last word.

SANCHEZ: CNN Supreme Court Reporter, Ariane de Vogue, is back with us.

Ariane, the Supreme Court looked at affirmative action in 2015 and 2003, all the way back to 1978. Today's decision markedly different and it comes with some very heated opinions.

ARIANE DE VOGUE, CNN U.S. SUPREME COURT REPORTER: Yes, absolutely. The court really effectively saying that colleges and universities can no longer take race into consideration, overturning decades old precedent that really helped blacks and Hispanics in this area.

This opinion, as you said, it was six-three, divided along ideological lines. Chief Justice John Roberts, who has long been a critic of race- conscious programs, he wrote the major opinion here. He said - invalidating both the plans, he said, "The Harvard and UNC admissions programs cannot be reconciled with the guarantees of the Equal Protection Clause. Both programs lack sufficiently focused and measurable objectives warranting the use of race, unavoidably employ race in a negative manner, involve racial stereotyping and lack of meaningful endpoints."

And what's key here is he tried to say near the End of the appointment that, look, you no longer can check the box, but an applicant maybe in their essay, they can talk about their experience with race, and that really riled up the dissent here.

Justice Sonia Sotomayor joined by her two liberal colleagues. And she basically said that kind of solution really fall short of bringing diversity in school. She said the "supposed recognition that universities can, in some situations, consider race in application essays is nothing but an attempt to put lipstick on a pig."

She said, "The devastating impact of this decision cannot be overstated." We did have the two African-American justices on the bench, Justice Clarence Thomas, the conservative long wanting to overturn precedent, he said he understands the background here, but he thinks everybody should be treated equally. Justice Jackson, on her first term on this court, she really pushed back on what he said.

Remember, the schools here said, look, we want diversity, we think that schools are a pipeline to society. That's why it's important. And on the other side, you had this conservative group that had been fighting this for years, coming up with a victory and they said this amounts to racial discrimination and today they won.

SANCHEZ: Some very strong language on both the concurring opinions and the dissenting ones. Ariane de Vogue, thank you so much.

Let's bring in CNN Legal Analyst, Joey Jackson now. Joey, thanks so much for being with us. What is this going to mean for admissions offices when they go to work tomorrow?

JOEY JACKSON, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: Yes, Boris, I think it's a very significant development. Obviously, I think that development means that admissions offices and colleges and campuses are going to look far different throughout the country. It's interesting how you have justices essentially sit for confirmation hearings and they respect or at least they say they respect the rule of law. That rule of law is about stare decisis, precedent, it has been decided.

And then, of course, they get on the bench and do what they want to do.

[15:05:01]

And so to your question, there's a need, right, for diversity. There's a need for these affirmative action programs. There's a need, because you cannot pretend that race is not an issue. You can say that we should have a colorblind society and a color relevant society.

So I think the answer to your question is to the extent that colleges cannot use race as a factor, I think certainly it could lead to a significant dip and drop in enrollment as it relates to African American and Latino people of color in general and that's problematic.

SANCHEZ: And Joey, I want to get your thoughts on this sort of gray area in the ruling because as Ariane just noted, the justices pointed out that a university could consider the way that a student expresses their experience of race either as a challenge or as an inspiration. But yet the university can't ask them about it. The language to me not being a legal expert was somewhat unclear.

JACKSON: Well, Boris, if you consider me a legal expert, the language is unclear to me as well. And so, what are they talking about? The fact is, is that we have standards. And those standards are based on well settled precedent about how diversity is a compelling interest, and how based upon it being diversity, a compelling interest narrowly tailored to the objective of providing opportunities to all could be considered.

Now you include language suggesting that if you write an essay talking about the effect of race on your life, well, you can consider that but you can't consider the race itself. I think that's lawyers splitting hairs very intelligent, obviously, and decorated lawyers, who do I speak, Supreme Court justices.

At the end of the day, you need a measure of protection, let's call it for what it is, that measure of protection was rolled back today, just as we saw the rolling back of rights as it relates to abortion rights in the case that they took up before. And so ultimately, I think this is a setback for all terms and purposes and whatever language they put in it, we know the language they said, and that is that affirmative action cannot be used and that is a - it's a problem, a significant one to say the least.

SANCHEZ: Joey Jackson, as always, we appreciate your perspective and expertise. Thanks, Joey.

JACKSON: Thank you.

SANCHEZ: Brianna?

BRIANNA KEILAR, CNN HOST: We are joined now by UC Berkeley Law Professor John Yoo. He serves on the board of the Pacific Legal Foundation, which filed briefs in this case opposing Harvard and UNC's affirmative action programs. John, thank you for taking the time to speak with us today.

We heard Calvin Yang, an Asian American student at Cal praising this decision, saying he believes diversity is very important for education. However, affirmative action is a well intentioned idea that is poorly executed in reality he said. How do you ensure diversity without affirmative action, if that is agreed upon, it seems by so many people that it's important?

JOHN YOO, LAW PROFESSOR: First off, we should realize that this Supreme Court decision only says that the use of race by the government is unconstitutional. You can have all kinds of other diversity if you want and we have it at the University of California. Here, racial preferences have been barred since Prop 209 In the mid- 1990s. Yet today, we admitted our most racially diverse class.

But what the court's opinion says is that you can't use race that our constitution is colorblind. And I have to say, I really disagree with the last guest when he was saying the court is attacking precedent. It's undermining the rule of law.

Sometimes the court gets it wrong. Dred Scott was a precedent of the Supreme Court, Plessy versus Ferguson, which upheld segregation was a precedent of the court. Those were both wrong, because they deviated from the Constitution's core principle, that the government cannot take account of its citizens based on their skin color.

That doesn't mean you can't take socio economic class into account, geography into account, educational background into account when you make admissions decisions. But schools and universities are now going to have to be like the rest of the government and not look at your skin color.

KEILAR: People can still talk in their personal statements, of course, about their experience when it comes to racism or it comes to heritage. But you mentioned right now how things stand. I mean, there's still comparatively speaking, a lack of Hispanic representation at Cal. And as you're well aware after Prop 209, there was a giant tanking. This isn't something that all of a sudden it was fine. I mean, it tanked when you were looking at the admittance rates for black and Hispanic students.

YOO: That's right. But one thing we should also remember is why is it the case that we don't think or some people think a college admissions process is somehow wrong if the student population doesn't exactly match the racial demographics of a population.

[15:10:08]

Why is it at all surprising that you might have different numbers of races in a college class, just like you'd have different numbers of races and other forms of life like sports or business, religion, we see racial difference. Voting patterns between Democrats and Republicans are very different based on race. It's not - and this is one thing that court stressed, education or educators, professors, administrators, they haven't explained to the court why you need to have that exact racial balance, why that diversity is important when the job of universities is to conduct research for the betterment of mankind and to educate our next generation of leaders.

KEILAR: What do you say to the military service academy carve-out?

YOO: I don't think there's a military service carve-out to this decision. I think what's happened in the past, is that the courts give a lot of deference to the military, when they decide how to run things, when - but they would not allow, say, for example, racial quotas and promotions. They would not allow racial quotas at West Point for admissions. That doesn't you can't (inaudible) ...

KEILAR: No, but they're allowing in the service like - they're allowing in the service academies affirmative action, which they are not allowing in other colleges, these are colleges to be clear, these are people who go on, yes, to be officers in the military, but also to serve in important roles in society. YOO: Don't think that's going to last for very much longer if that's in fact what West Point and Annapolis and the Air Force Academy are doing. What the court said here was the fundamental principle the Constitution is colorblind. We have over time, the court says, allowed exceptions, like Dred Scott, like Plessy.

And they've said, we have always been wrong and we have done disastrous things for the country. So they are trying to create a harmony in the principal and so I think they're going to go through issue by issue, remove race, wherever it's used by the government, including ultimately the service academies, but I don't think the service academies are going to do it anymore.

KEILAR: Lastly, should legacy admissions be banned then?

YOO: Again, the court doesn't touch any other criteria for admissions other than race. Personally, I would not be in favor of legacy admissions and they don't work. We don't count them here at the University of California. Schools can do that if they want. They can also allow more poor people than rich people to come in. The court just says racial reasons are unconstitutional, because that's true to the Constitution is colorblind principle. All other forms of criteria for admissions are still allowed.

KEILAR: John, really appreciate your time today. John Yoo joining us this afternoon. Thank you so much and we'll be right back on a critical day when it comes to the Supreme Court decision gutting affirmative action in colleges and universities across the country.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[15:15:10]

SANCHEZ: Breaking news we want to take you live to a Florida courtroom where the jury has just reached a verdict in the trial of former Parkland, Florida school resource officer, Scot Peterson. He was on duty on the day of the Parkland mass shooting, let's listen in.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: (Inaudible) ask the foreperson to take those verdict forms and fold them in half. I'm going to have the jury return to the courtroom. I'm going to ask them if they've reached verdicts. And if so, if the full person can please, again, take those verdict forms, fold them in half and give them to the court deputy who will then give them to me.

I will then review the verdict forms. If they are complete, I will publish the verdicts. After that, I will read 4.2 instructions upon discharge jury. I'm then going to dismiss the jurors with my great thanks for their time effort --

KEILAR: All right. We're listening right now to what sort of sounds like the instructions to folks in the courtroom about how this is going to go down once the jury comes into the courtroom and these charges are red. But again, we're following this verdict reach now, in this trial of the former Parkland school resource officer, Scot Peterson, who was accused basically of standing by for 45 minutes while hearing gunshots also lying about gunshots is what he - part of the charges that he's facing.

I want to bring in Joey Jackson to talk a little bit about this. And Joey, just to be clear, we are monitoring the courtroom. So we're going to be bringing that to our viewers as soon as something substantial is happening in there. What are you looking for here today?

JACKSON:: Yes. This is quite significant, Brianna and Boris. And the reason for that is that what they're seeking to do that is the state to hold accountable an officer who they felt had a duty and responsibility to act, who felt that it was imperative and a part of their job to go in and to - in doing that job, preserve and protect lives.

And so what I'm looking for, is as we continue to see prosecutors try to get accountability of whether or not you can extend to when a police officer really criminal culpability for failing to act when so many lives are at issue.

And so this is a prosecution that I think has certainly precedential value. I think we can see prosecutions like this moving forward in the event, whether or not the jury does a guilty finding here.

But I think throughout this officer rightfully so was called to the carpet for not doing more. And I think the jury has to assess as they have been whether or not that constitutes a crime and whether he has a duty, a responsibility and an obligation to go in and do. So that's what I'm really looking to see what the jury's determination is as to his failure to act which is really at issue in the case, Brianna and Boris.

SANCHEZ: I just want to explain to our viewers what we saw there a moment ago, the camera movement that was the jury being brought in to the courtroom. Ostensibly, we are going to hear a verdict fairly soon.

We also have Areva Martin with us.

Areva, obviously, to Joey's point, the jury here has to determine whether this officer was neglectful and whether he gave up his duties as the shooter was moving through the third floor of one of the buildings. And prosecutors here have brought a specific number a specific amount of counts, given the amount of people that were killed and injured as this officer was allegedly waiting 45 minutes while the shooter was moving through the building.

AREVA MARTIN, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: Yes, the charge here is not with respect to the individuals that were killed on the first floor of the school building. But as you just said, the charges really relate to those individuals that were killed on the third floor. And the prosecution's case is basically that if this officer or former school officer had gone into the school when he arrived, that he would have been able to save those children who were killed on the third floor of this building.

We know this community has been very, very, very upset with the way that this case has been handled as well as the shooter himself who was not given the death penalty but rather given life in prison without the possibility of parole. So many family members are looking at this case as a way to continue the healing process.

But as Joey said, this is going to be a precedential case if there is a guilty verdict because we have not seen school officers, school agents like this former school officer charge because of a mass shooting in a school building.

SANCHEZ: I find it notable - let's actually go right back to the courtroom now.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: (Inaudible) and give them to the court deputy who will then give those verdict forms to me please.

Thank you.

[15:20:00]

Okay. The verdict forms are complete. I will now publish them. They read as follows: In the Circuit Court of the 17 Judicial Circuit in and for Broward County, Florida, case number 197166CF10A: State of Florida plaintiff versus Scot Peterson defendant.

Verdict count one: We the jury find as follows as to the defendant in this case, the defendant is not guilty. So say we all, this 29th day of June, 2023 at Fort Lauderdale, Broward County, Florida.

Verdict count two: We the jury find as follows as to the defendant in this case, the defendant is not guilty. So say we all, this 29th day of June, 2023 at Fort Lauderdale, Broward County, Florida.

Verdict count three: We the jury find as follows as to the defendant in this case, the defendant is not guilty. So say we all, this 29th day of June, 2023 at Fort Lauderdale, Broward County, Florida.

Verdict count four: We the jury find as follows as to the defendant in this case, the defendant is not guilty. So say we all, this 29th day of June, 2023 at Fort Lauderdale, Broward County, Florida.

Verdict count five: We the jury find as follows as to the defendant in this case, the defendant is not guilty. So say we all, this 29th day of June, 2023 at Fort Lauderdale, Broward County, Florida.

Verdict count six: We the jury find as follows as to the defendant in this case, the defendant is not guilty. So say we all, this 29th day of June, 2023 at Fort Lauderdale, Broward County, Florida.

Verdict count seven: We the jury find as follows as to the defendant in this case, the defendant is not guilty. So say we all, this 29th day of June, 2023 at Fort Lauderdale, Broward County, Florida.

Verdict count eight: We the jury find as follows as to the defendant in this case, the defendant is not guilty. So say we all, this 29th day of June, 2023 at Fort Lauderdale, Broward County, Florida.

Verdict count nine: We the jury find as follows as to the defendant in this case, the defendant is not guilty. So say we all, this 29th day of June, 2023 at Fort Lauderdale, Broward County, Florida.

Verdict Count 10: We the jury find as follows as to the defendant in this case, the defendant is not guilty. So say we all, this 29th day of June, 2023 at Fort Lauderdale, Broward County, Florida.

Verdict Count 11: We the jury find as follows as to the defendant in this case, the defendant is not guilty. So say we all, this 29th day of June, 2023 at Fort Lauderdale, Broward County, Florida.

Ladies and gentlemen, I'm going to address you only by the numbers that are on the back of your badges.

Juror number one, are these your true verdicts?

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Yes, Your Honor.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Juror number two, are these your true verdicts?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Yes.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Juror number four, are these your true verdicts?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Yes.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Juror number five, are these your true verdicts?

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Yes, Your Honor.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Juror number six, are these your true verdicts?

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Yes.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Juror number seven, are these your true verdicts?

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Yes.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Ladies and gentlemen, I wish to thank you for your time and consideration of this case.

I also wish to advise you of some very special privileges enjoyed by jurors.

No juror can ever be required to talk about the discussions that occurred in the jury room, except by court order. For many centuries, our society has relied upon juries for consideration of difficult cases. We have recognized for hundreds of years that a jury's deliberations, discussions and votes should remain their private affair as long as they wish it. Therefore, the law gives you a unique privilege not to speak about the jury's work.

[15:25:05] Although you were at liberty to speak with anyone about your deliberations, you are also at liberty to refuse to speak to anyone and request to discuss either your verdict or your deliberations may come from those who are simply curious from those who might seek to find fault with you, from the media, from the attorneys or elsewhere, it will be up to each of you to decide whether to preserve your privacy as a juror.

Ladies and gentlemen, I want to again, give me my sincere thanks for your time, effort and energy, 99 percent of the citizens that live in Broward County, a county of 2 million, have no idea what happens when you're actually selected on jury and you actually serve through the process, but now you all know. And I know most people don't say thank you, but I will say thank you because I know the time, effort and energy that went into this.

I have a thank you letter and a certificate. I'm going to give that to the court deputy who's going to pass that out when they walk you out because it has your names on them. The reason I normally do this in person in the courtroom, but I'm not going to do it today is because I'm not and have not addressed you by your names that's why we use the numbers in care of your privacy.

I did also want to let you all know I will be entering an order today that instructs the clerk of court, the trial court administrator as well as both parties not to disclose your names, okay? So the only way your names are going to be disclosed, is if you choose and you certainly may choose.

So if you want to go out there and talk to whoever you want to talk to, you're perfectly entitled to do that. If you want to go out there and never talk to another human being about this ever again, you're perfectly entitled to do that, too. I want to emphasize that it's each of your decisions to make.

But momentarily, I'm going to have you step in the back and collect your belongings, the court deputy is going to walk you out to your cars, and that's going to conclude your jury service.

I do have two quick pieces of bad news for you. Number one: I'm going to need those lanyards back. So if you take them off and just put them on the ledge in front of you, we'll collect them from you.

Number two: Since you actually did serve on a jury, they will not summon you for jury duty for a year, for 12 months. So I'll see you next year. Okay.

All right. Unless you all have any questions for me, ladies and gentlemen, your jury service has concluded at this point. Again, with my great thanks for your time, effort and energy now our court, there are certificates for each of your jury services (inaudible) you are dismissed.

SANCHEZ: We've been watching some profoundly emotional moments in a Fort Lauderdale courtroom. Scot Peterson, the school resource officer who was there the day of the Parkland shooting acquitted of all 11 charges he was facing including felony child neglect leading to bodily harm on seven counts, culpable negligence on three counts and perjury in a single count.

He broke down in tears clasping his hands together, looking skyward, thanking and embracing his attorney who also is apparently emotional in the courtroom. We saw parents of Parkland victims, sitting inside the courtroom shaking their heads visibly upset over this decision. He was facing 95-and-a-half years in prison, but tonight, he will go home a free man.

KEILAR: The actions of this officer more than five years ago, really stunned and perplex the parents of the victims that day. One asking what was he doing, he spent this time outside of the building where the shooting was taking place, did not act and today we learn he is found not guilty on all charges in the deaths of Cara Loughran, Joaquin Oliver, Jaime Guttenberg, Scott Beigel, Meadow Pollack and in the injuries of Anthony Borges, Kyle Laman and Marian Kabachenko as well as Stacy Lippel, those were the names of some of the victims and we're seeing them here today on our screens.

I do want to go ahead and bring in Josh Campbell. He was there reporting that day.

Josh, was this what you were expecting as we had gone into this third day of deliberations?

JOSH CAMPBELL, CNN SECURITY CORRESPONDENT: Bri, some of these trials as they occur, you tend to be able to predict what's going to happen. I'm going to be honest, talking to law enforcement officials, those who have been watching this, no one really knew because of how rare this prosecution was.

I mean, you have to remember the officer here - former officer wasn't accused of doing something of committing some type of overt crime. He was accused of not doing, of failing to act.

The prosecutors here had prosecuted him under a statute that referred to him as a caregiver under Florida law, which means that he had a duty to protect those children, the staff that were there at the school that day in Parkland.

Now, his attorney actually issued a quote that was very direct, but obviously raised a lot of eyebrows saying that his client had no duty to protect the victims.

[15:30:03]