Return to Transcripts main page

CNN News Central

Day 2 Of Jury Selection In Trump Hush Money Trial; Supreme Court Hears Pivotal Jan 6 Case On Obstruction Charges; Clarence Thomas Attends Arguments After Absence Monday; USC Bars Valedictorian From Giving Graduation Address, Citing "Safety" Concerns. Aired 1:30-2p ET

Aired April 16, 2024 - 13:30   ET

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

[13:30:00]

BORIS SANCHEZ, CNN HOST: Ahead, were going to break down the new challenges facing both the defense and prosecutors.

And the Supreme Court case that could lead to charges being dropped against some January 6th defendants and potentially even Donald Trump. Details in just moments.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

SANCHEZ: So far, dozens dismissed and zero jurors seated. We're now on day two of jury selection in former President Donald Trump's Manhattan hush money criminal trial.

So far today, 18 potential jurors have made it through the questionnaire phase. Prosecutors and defense attorneys have been questioning all of them individually.

[13:35:05]

The prosecution has been focused so far on whether jurors could be fair. And the defense has been asking their opinions of the former president. Both sides are now considering who they want to strike from that batch of prospective jurors.

Let's discuss with jury consultant, Richard Gabriel. He's worked on a number of high-profile cases, including O.J. Simpson, Casey Anthony and Aaron Hernandez. He's the president of Decision Analysis and the author of the book, "Acquittal."

Richard, thank you so much for sharing part of your afternoon with us.

What's your impression of the pace of jury selection so far. It could take up to several weeks to just seat a jury.

RICHARD GABRIEL, JURY CONSULTANT: Boris, I don't think he's going to take that long. Actually, I think we're making good progress right now.

Even though a lot of jurors were dismissed yesterday, who are obviously very candid about their opinions, said they couldn't be fair. There's a number of people that are seated. So we've got 18 on the box. The magic number that -- that both sides need in order to exercise their peremptory challenges is around 40, 38 to 40 jurors there.

So if we've got 18 so far, the parties are obviously reading the questionnaires and seeing, OK, how can I exercise those. I think we're getting there you fairly quickly.

SANCHEZ: Roughly half the potential jurors that were brought in yesterday said that they could not be impartial and they got immediately disqualified. They were very forthcoming with their views.

I'm wondering how the court potentially weeds out jurors who may actually have a bias one way or the other but are less forthcoming with their views.

GABRIEL: It's very difficult because mostly the law recognizes a stated bias, whether juror says yes, I can't be fair. And then there also has to be the court then considers, well, is there an inferred bias. In other words, is there something that the juror says that really does give rise.

One of the examples we might have from this morning is that some of the jurors said, well, I've got strong opinions, so I'm not sure. I think I can be fair, but I'm not sure.

Well, a defendant is actually entitled to a jury who is certain of their -- that they can be fair and impartial. So the court has to make some decisions in terms of excusing a juror for cause, about whether it's stated or not, and whether they can overcome that bias.

In other words, if they're self-aware enough to be able to monitor that bias during the trial and just look at the evidence.

SANCHEZ: What do you think this jury pool is ultimately going to look like?

GABRIEL: Well, I think it's going to be a very educated pool. I mean, that's fairly normal for Manhattan. There's -- there's lawyers that are now in the pool. There's financial people. There's marketing executives.

Typically, the education is fairly high. So it will probably be a fairly smart jury.

There might be -- but it'll be a diverse jury also. It'll be diverse demographically. And so it ultimately is going to be very interesting, especially, as I noted, there's already a couple of lawyers and the thing.

That's always poses a little bit of a risk for both sides because those are opinion leaders. Those are people who can actually really steer the jury.

So both sides are kind of looking at this and going, who are going to be my main leaders in this jury? And I think it's going to be very interesting.

SANCHEZ: The defense and the prosecution, they both get these 10 preemptive strikes. They could essentially have a juror dismissed, no questions asked, up to a limit of 10.

How does the strategy go about when they decide to employ that strike?

GABRIEL: Well, there is -- it is a little bit like chess, a little bit like 3-D chess, in which you are using your strikes. There are some people that you think maybe the other side is going to strike them. Therefore, I can spare my strike.

Truly, you're picking a jury of sort of only a few people who are going to be the opinion leaders. So you're prioritizing who are your most high-risk individuals.

And then trying to eliminate them to basically reshape the pool a little bit so you get the most advantageous hearing.

Both sides are looking for different things though. The prosecution is looking for a consensus jury, a group of people is going to work together, get along and come to a unanimous verdict.

The defense is looking, though, for a jury, what I would call high conflict jury, a jury that's going to not get along, is going to fight each other.

Because let's face it, don't Trump -- is a win for him if he gets even a hung, one juror or several that don't agree with a verdict.

SANCHEZ: Richard Gabriel, really appreciate your perspective. Thanks for being with us.

GABRIEL: Thank you.

SANCHEZ: So the Supreme Court is hearing a case over a law that was used to prosecutes several January 6th rioters. But some justices are skeptical about the reason the law was applied in the first place. We'll get into those details.

[13:40:11]

And just into CNN, voting technology company, Smartmatic, has reached a settlement with far-right One America News Network. Smartmatic sued OAN over its lies about the 2020 election. Much more on this straight ahead.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

JESSICA DEAN, CNN CORRESPONDENT: The Supreme Court is now weighing a case that could let hundreds January 6th rioters off the hook from obstruction charges.

Today, the justices heard arguments over whether a federal law that makes it a crime to obstruct an official proceeding can be used to prosecute those who stormed the capitol on January 6th. [13:45:06]

And the high court's decision could have major implications for Donald Trump, who was charged with the same crime in the federal election interference case against him.

With us now, CNN chief legal affairs correspondent, Paula Reid.

Paula, what do we hear from the justices today?

PAULA REID, CNN CHIEF LEGAL AFFAIRS CORRESPONDENT: It appears the court is divided largely along party lines about whether this law that has been used to charge hundreds of rioters is -- has been properly applied.

This law was passed in 2002 in the wake of Enron, as part of Sarbanes- Oxley. And it covers people who obstruct or interfere with an official proceeding.

And there's a catch-all provision in there that this defendant, Mr. Fisher, argues, has been too broadly applied and should not include folks who participated in January 6th.

He argues that this is for people who engage in witness tampering or evidence tampering, not folks who, for example, allegedly attack police officers.

So at the district court level, he won. They agreed this was misapplied. But the court of appeals went the other way, which is how we found ourselves at the Supreme Court.

But we likely won't get this decision until mid to late June.

DEAN: Right. It's always wait until mid to late June with the Supreme Court.

What could the ruling potentially mean for Trump, though?

REID: So initially, a lot of folks said, oh, this could have an impact on the Trump case. But if you really drilled down, even the alleged conduct here for this specific charge for Trump as compared to the folks who were on the -- Capitol Hill, it's different, right?

He didn't show up at the riot, even though he may have wanted to at some point. He didn't show up there. His allegations -- of course, this is only one of the charges that he faces in the federal election submersion case -- it's different.

So it's not clear that even if the Supreme Court sides of Mr. Fisher, that that would really have any impact on Trump's case.

But of course, next week on Thursday, the Supreme Court will take up Trump's federal election subversion case and this question of presidential immunity and whether he has any immunity that would shield him in that case. That will of course, have a much bigger impact on his case. DEAN: Absolutely.

And just before we let you go, Justice, Clarence Thomas was back on the bench today after being out. What are you learning about his unexplained absence yesterday?

REID: Look, I think this is one of the biggest news today because, yesterday, he was not in arguments and the Supreme Court, which I affectionately referred to as the least transparent branch of government, didn't provide any explanation, where usually they do.

There's also the option to participate remotely. And this raises a lot of questions about the most senior associate justice, why is he not here? Is he in good health?

Because as we know, any question or concern about the viability of a Supreme Court justice, that is huge in any year, but especially in a presidential election year.

So all eyes were on that seat today. He was there. And it was notable that not only was he there, he sort of made it a point to ask questions. He sounded like he was just fine.

What was also notable, the content of his questions. He has been called to recuse himself because of his wife's role and tried to subvert the election. He has not recused himself.

I think it's notable that his first question appeared to be sort of sympathetic to the Justice Department's case. So it's as if he was making two points, one, I'm here, I'm in good health and I can be objective. So that was really one of the most notable moments here.

DEAN: You often have to read between the lines at the Supreme Court.

All right, Paula Reid, thanks so much.

Finishing at the top of your college class should be a moment of unbelievable pride. It has turned into, though, a moment of controversy for the valedictorian at the University of Southern California. And we'll tell you why, next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[13:53:05]

SANCHEZ: The University of Southern California is now facing growing criticism after telling its pro-Palestinian valedictorian that she can't give her commencement speech at next month's graduation.

In a campus-wide letter, the school provost says that Asna Tabbasum will not be allowed to speak at the ceremony because of safety concerns stemming from her views on the war in Gaza.

CNN's Nick Watt joins us now live.

Nick, what more can you tell us about the decision and how the valedictorian is responding?

NICK WATT, CNN NATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Well, Boris, as you might expect in these passionate and polarized times, there are strong opinions on both sides here.

There are groups and individuals who were calling for this woman to be banned from giving her speech because they say her social media activity is stoking violence.

There are, of course, many people on the other side saying that the fact that USC won't let her speak is a gross violation of free speech and stifling a pro-Palestinian voice.

USC says this has nothing to do with free speech. This is all about safety.

I'm going to read a little bit from their letter announcing what they decided.

They say, "Discussion relating to the selection of our valedictorian has taken on an alarming tenor. We must prioritize the safety of our community."

Now, I've just spoken to Asner Tabassum on Zoom. She wouldn't tell me what she was planning to talk about in that speech. She said it was going to be about hope.

Take a little listen to what she had to say.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

ASNA TABASSUM, USC VALEDICTORIAN BANNED FROM SPEAKING AT GRADUATION: But whether or not I planned to speak about Palestine, speak about any sort of conflict in general, I think is besides (sic) the point.

The point here is that the university preemptively made a decision not on the basis of safety, but on the basis of potentially other factors that I think impedes on my freedom of expression.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

[13:55:04]

WATT: Now, USC said, listen, we have to look at what's happened on other campuses around the country in the past six months, the violence and harassment that has really surrounded this debate over what's going on in the Middle East.

Just last week, up at U.C. Berkeley, at the law school, a young pro- Palestinian woman got up during a dinner at the dean's house and started speaking and that led to a bit of a situation.

There's also the issue of campuses have become like a real focus for this. The broader community moving in. And a lot of universities say that they just don't have the resources.

People who say her social media means she shouldn't be allowed to speak, they are celebrating.

Asna herself is saying she's going to fight to be reinstated as the speaker. This hasn't finished - Boris?

SANCHEZ: Nick Watt, thank you so much for that update.

In a Manhattan courtroom, some prospective jurors are seeing Donald Trump in person for the first time, and vice versa. The latest on his criminal hush money trial, straight ahead.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)