Return to Transcripts main page

CNN News Central

Clancy Back in Court; Jack Smith to Testify on Capitol Hill; A.I Leaders Meet at White House. Aired 9-9:30a ET

Aired September 29, 2026 - 09:00   ET

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

[09:00:00]

PRISCILLA ALVAREZ, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Immigration court."

But the reality, when I'm talking to dozens of sources, is that that is not what they are seeing in courts across the country. And the scale of this unprecedented. It's true that it's not every year that children -- all the children in custody have attorneys, but there is a point in their proceedings where they do have one, or they used to have one. And that is what the 13-year-old was facing yesterday.

At the moment that they are deported, generally, there has been an attorney by their side. And that's not the case right now for many of the children, which means that they are going up against an immigration system that is incredibly complicated, and they are just too young to understand it.

John.

JOHN BERMAN, CNN ANCHOR: So in the case yesterday, the child was 13.

Priscilla Alvarez, thank you for sharing this new reporting.

A brand-new hour of CNN NEWS CENTRAL starts right now.

SARA SIDNER, CNN ANCHOR: Any moment now Lindsay Clancy, the Massachusetts mom charged with killing her three children, is set to return to court. It comes just weeks after her case ended in a mistrial when a jury deadlocked 11 to one.

You are looking live inside that courtroom right now. Clancy's case has drawn international attention. There are people already waiting and have been waiting early this morning to get in. She is being looked at because -- and people are paying attention because of the mental help they believe she did not get that she needed before killing her children.

Now, Clancy's attorney is arguing she should not be held criminally responsible because she was suffering from postpartum psychosis and had tried to get help for months. This morning, it is unclear whether the D.A. will pursue a second trial. But the prosecution just filed motions this morning opposing the defense request to find Clancy not guilty by reason of lack of criminal responsibility. CNN's Jean Casarez has been watching this case from the very

beginning.

You are outside court now. Describe what you're seeing and what you're expecting inside court today in just a few minutes here.

JEAN CASAREZ, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Well, here's what we do know. Kevin Reddington, the defense attorney for Lindsay Clancy, arrived. He walked up to that courtroom. He has gone in. So, he is inside now at this point.

Our producer is waiting in a line outside. A lot of media here today. There are about 40 we would say supporters of Lindsay Clancy, many of them wearing pink. They are lined up to be in the public line to sit in that courtroom, to watch and see what is going to happen.

We haven't seen the prosecutors walk in. Doesn't mean that they are not there. But it's an important day today because the pivotal question is going to be, will prosecutors retry this case?

Now, a motion was filed just minutes ago by the prosecution. I have scanned it. And what they are asking the judge for is an order precluding and not allowing counsel to make extra judicial -- prejudicial statements to the public at large. We could look at this as potentially a limited gag order, I believe. And we'll see if this comes up in court today. But why would you want that if you are not going to retry this case again? That's a question right there.

One of the motions they have is to dismiss -- this is the defense, dismiss the case outright, find -- the judge find her not guilty on his own. But also, we don't expect it argued today, but they want an investigation of this lone holdout juror. They want his phone to go to a neutral arbitrator. They want surveillance video of when -- of right outside the deliberation room. They want his confidential jury questionnaire.

He spoke out last night. His name is Michael Desronvil. He made a statement. Listen to what he said is important to look at, at this point.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

MICHAEL DESRONVIL, LONE HOLDOUT JUROR IN LINDSAY CLANCY TRIAL: Hi, my name is Michael Peguy Desronvil, also known as the lone juror.

I know the whole focus has been on me, but we want to reel everything back and put the focus on the three angels that (INAUDIBLE). The ones that can't speak for themselves. The ones that can't defend themselves. And the ones that can't fight the battles. And those are Cora, Dawson and Callan.

A little bit about me. I want to thank God for my Catholic faith. I want to thank God for blessing me with the ability to love my daughter. And I'm -- foremost I would like to thank everyone, every individual that have supported me throughout this difficult situation.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CASAREZ: So, this hearing is set to begin -- any minute this hearing is set to begin. And one other thing we need to look for is, Kevin Reddington said that he was very willing to engage in conversation with prosecutors to reach some type of an agreement. Has that happened? Will we hear it in open court?

[09:05:01]

We'll stay tuned because it's momentarily about to begin.

KATE BOLDUAN, CNN ANCHOR: Yes, so many questions, Jean. Jean is out front of that courthouse right now.

And here with us in studio, CNN legal analyst and criminal defense attorney Joey Jackson.

Joey, when this begins, what will you be listening for to get -- I mean there's a ton of questions, but to begin, what prosecutors want to do next?

JOEY JACKSON, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: Yes, very important.

Good morning, Kate, John and Sara.

Listen, the bottom line here is, I think everybody is going to be looking for this double jeopardy question. Should this case be retried legally? Can it be retried? The defense argument is about this issue called manifest necessity. What does that mean? It means that there was no compelling reason, judge, for you to declare a mistrial.

Defense says, what are you talking about? This jury deliberated for seven days and 38 hours. They came back and said, we can't reach a conclusion. Based upon that, I declared a mistrial. That's the very definition of manifest necessity. And so, the first issue is whether the judge legally, right, could and will declare a mistrial in this particular case. That's the first and foremost that you look for. Why? Because if the judge says, hey, no trial, then what are we all doing here?

But I think there are other things to consider, such as, when you get to the prosecutors, if they have the right to retry the case, as I think the judge will find, will they retry the case? This was 11 to one saying that she was indeed insane.

Lone holdout, certainly his view has value. Clearly value enough to derail the trial. But prosecutors have to assess that and determine, is it in the public interest to move forward.

BERMAN: Those are two separate issues, aren't they, right?

JACKSON: Oh, yes.

BERMAN: Whether or not it's one or five or eight jurors that caused a mistrial, how much does that matter to a judge? Whereas, how much does it matter to a prosecutor deciding whether to put the case out again? JACKSON: Yes. So, you know, John, I think prosecutors, certainly when

you look at this nebulous, what does justice mean? I think justice means always doing what's right. If you have a case, and you can prove it beyond a reasonable doubt, you should proceed. If you have a case and you cannot prove it beyond a reasonable doubt, you shouldn't.

There's also this thing about the interest of justice and whether this is really moving forward, if you're a prosecutor, would be in the interest of justice. Is this a woman who, just for whatever the reasons in this psychosis that she had, postpartum, which is real, did something she normally wouldn't do? And is that attributable to insanity? And if it is, should we not evaluate her mental state and get her appropriate help? Does she need jail for the rest of her life, or does she need a mental institution that could get her better? And prosecutors, John, are going to have to evaluate that and make the right assessment in keeping with the public interest.

SIDNER: I do want to ask you about the jury and about this lone juror who voted to -- for her guilt. The defense is asking for the confidential questionnaire that the jury filled out, his in particular, and for his phone records. Is this something that you expect the judge to grant?

JACKSON: So, I do not initially. And here's what I mean, Sara. I think that certainly we expect jurors always to act in good faith. We expect jurors, if you fill out a questionnaire, that that questionnaire should be filled out in a way that is in keeping with reality. We don't get to make up things that we want to put on questionnaires.

The issue is, is how that affected the outcome. And we have to be careful because we don't want to single out a particular juror because we don't like the views of that particular juror. If you do that for this juror, should we not evaluate all of the questionnaires and all of what the jurors have said and didn't say, and whether they were accurate or inaccurate? But at the end of the day, it's how it affected the outcome.

This juror felt that she was guilty. This juror has a right to make that feeling. The issue is, did he do it in keeping with the law or did he not? Did he deliberate in good faith or did he not? Does he have this conscious belief of reasonable doubt, right, or did he not? And that's really the assessment here.

BOLDUAN: Joey, stick close. We're going to keep a very close eye on this as it's getting underway really as we speak.

BERMAN: Yes, look, a lot of live events happening at this moment.

On Capitol Hill, Special Counsel -- former Special Counsel Jack Smith is about to testify before the Senate Judiciary Committee. You're looking at live pictures there.

Let's get right to CNN's Evan Perez for what we can expect to see here.

EVAN PEREZ, CNN SENIOR JUSTICE CORRESPONDENT: Yes, John, I think you're going to see a lot of fireworks certainly from Republicans who are very frustrated with aspects of these two investigations that Jack Smith oversaw, the January 6th attack on the U.S. Capitol investigation, as well as the classified documents at Mar-a-Lago.

One of the things that you -- that we're going to see a lot of contention over is the fact that Smith is limited in some of the testimony he can provide. There is a court order down in Florida that was issued by Judge Aileen Cannon that prohibits him from talking about aspects of the classified documents case, anything that is outside of just the public indictment.

[09:10:01]

For instance, anything that was inside his report, which has still never been released. Those things he cannot talk about. And you're going to hear questions from members of Congress, some of the senators here who are angry about allegations that, for instance, their phone records were being looked at by the investigators.

One of the things that I think we found the last time Jack Smith testified, which was back in January, is that he said that they never investigated members of Congress. And since then there have been these records that have -- that have -- that have come out, that some members are going to accuse him of lying. Again, that's going to be a big point of contention today.

John, look, we are going to relive 2020 here because President Trump wants that. But there's still this sort of this cloud that overhangs all of this, which is an investigation that is going on in the Southern District of Florida that is looking at not only Jack Smith's conduct in this -- in these investigations, but also the 2016 Russian interference investigation, which is still, obviously, something that President Trump is angry about. That investigation is ongoing as well.

John.

BERMAN: One of the -- one of the things that's interesting here, Evan, is that, yes, it's Republicans running this committee, and Chuck Grassley is the chair there, but Democrats have been asking for Jack Smith to testify for a long time, even longer than the Republicans were willing to have it happen. So, what's the play there?

PEREZ: Yes, you know, that's very unusual. Usually when a -- when a special counsel finishes their work, they get a chance to come here and explain what they did and present their report. Republicans did not want to do that, in part because they didn't want to relive and relitigate some of the things -- these ugly things that the -- that these two investigations found about the conduct by President Trump and some of the people around him. Obviously, in the months since, what they've been able to do is seize on some of these records, some of the aspects of this investigation that they believe show Smith and the FBI were behaving in ways that you're going to hear from Chuck Grassley, weaponized the Justice Department. That's a word that, of course, has become one of the president's favorite words, and the Justice Department's favorite words about this investigation, these investigations that Jack Smith did, but also the 2016 Russian election interference investigation that looked -- that was overseen by Robert Mueller and that special counsel investigation.

BERMAN: All right, Evan Perez, for us in Washington.

Again, we're standing by for Jack Smith's opening statements. We will watch that very closely.

We're also just getting word in Massachusetts, in Plymouth. Lindsay Clancy's lawyer and the district attorney have arrived at court. We'll go inside that courtroom for that highly anticipated hearing as well.

Stay with us.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[09:17:24]

BERMAN: All right, we have two live events happening at this very moment.

In Massachusetts, a hearing in the Lindsay Clancy case. The defense attorney and the district attorney now both in the courtroom. We are waiting for the judge to gavel in there and here, will perhaps the prosecution announce they are going to try to retry the case? Will the judge take the extraordinary action of throwing the case out? So, we're standing by for that.

And in Washington at this moment, inside the U.S. Senate, the Senate Judiciary Committee is about to hear from Jack Smith, the former special counsel, who talked about -- who investigated the president's election interference and also the storing of documents at Mar-a-Lago. So, we are waiting to hear from him very shortly.

In the meantime, also shortly, President Trump is set to meet with top executives from the leading A.I. companies at the White House. Now, this comes just as OpenAI announced it has pulled its latest model because it, quote, "didn't quite meet the bar for safety."

Let's get right to CNN's Alayna Treene at the White House this morning.

That bar for safety is one of the major questions now facing the industry and facing the White House. How much should it get involved there?

ALAYNA TREENE, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Yes, look, and this OpenAI news about them, you know, pulling this latest model and the testing around it comes after we've seen a number of different of rogue actions by different A.I. models over the summer, really leading to these concerns that we've heard from top leaders in the industry about the need for more guardrails to ensure that the future and the safety risks of A.I. are contained by regulations.

But that's also not exactly how the president and many people here throughout the Trump administration view how this should move. President Trump has been very clear that he kind of sees the priority when it comes to A.I. remaining, that it continues to outpace China, that the U.S. continues to outpace China in this race over who's going to kind of set the global rules around artificial intelligence.

But this meeting is going to be, I think, a pivotal moment because it does come, as I mentioned, we're hearing a lot of these different industry leaders and others, lawmakers as well, ringing the alarm about what is needed to ensure that the dangers of A.I. are contained.

Just to give you a sense, you had it on the screen, but I'm going to walk you through who some of the CEOs and leaders that will be at this luncheon with the president and others today. It includes Anthropic's Dario Amodei. He met privately with the president for dinner on Sunday night as well. There's also going to be Meta's Mark Zuckerberg, Nvidia's Jensen Huang, someone who's very close to the president, talks to him frequently by phone about A.I., Palantir's Alex Karp and OpenAI's Greg Brockman. All of them are expected to attend.

[09:20:04]

Now, according to sources who have been familiar with arranging this meeting, John, they say that this isn't expected to really solve a lot of these problems. It's more so trying to get some of these tech leaders on the same page as the president and others in the government. House Speaker Mike Johnson, he is someone who's really called for there to be a meeting of the minds, get all these people in one room to talk about what the government's role in regulating A.I. looks like moving forward.

I should note, though, that, you know, some senior officials, including the Treasury secretary, Scott Bessent, the White House chief of staff, Susie Wiles, they do worry about what this could mean for how A.I. is really impacting the economy and impacting it in a good way, I should say, and how regulations could kind of slow down that progress.

It also comes as we know a lot of Americans have an eye on the data centers and are concerned about data centers, especially in the lead up to the midterms. So, all of that likely to play a role in these conversations today. So, big focus there.

I should note as well, at 10 a.m., in about an hour from now, we are going to see the president and other top White House officials at an event launching this new website called ai.gov. It's essentially an artificial intelligence way of sorting through a lot of the different kind of confusion that comes with government websites, trying to make it easier to streamline what people read through the government and on those websites. So, you'll see a lot of these tech leaders at that event around 10 a.m. as well, John.

BERMAN: All right, Alayna Treene at the White House monitoring that situation. Thank you for being there for us.

In the meantime, we have our eye in Plymouth, Massachusetts, right now. The Lindsay Clancy case. We'll be inside that courtroom for a crucial hearing right after this.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[09:26:16]

BOLDUAN: All right, we're keeping a very close watch on Massachusetts. Lindsay Clancy, the Massachusetts woman accused of -- accused of killing her three children, she is set to return to court. Here's video from earlier of her attorney arriving at court.

This comes just weeks after her case ended in a mistrial, sparked a national debate when the jury deadlocked 11 to one -- 11 to one. The reason being a lack of, well, 11 to one.

Let's get over to Jean Casarez, as we're waiting for court to begin, as it was set to be underway already.

Jean, what is the very latest?

CASAREZ: You know, the latest is, more and more cars are arriving to this courthouse and women and children are walk -- coming out with pink on. And these -- that's the sign for Lindsay Clancy, the pink. And so, conceivably, they are supporters of hers. They are still waiting in the hallway upstairs to get into the courtroom.

We know that Kevin Reddington is in the courtroom. We do know the film crew is ready to go. We also know that there are about 40 women, at last count, maybe more at this point, in pink wanting to sit in the public gallery area. The media is in another line, but they have not been allowed in the courtroom yet. So, we don't know exactly what the holdup is. But we do know that this is going to happen because parties are here.

You know, it's interesting because Lindsay Clancy is going to be in that courtroom. She has quite a drive. She has two nurses, as you know, that are with her all the time, but they have to transport her in a van, in her wheelchair, from the state hospital where she is. And from my understanding, it's upwards to two hour drive every day to get from there to this courthouse. And so, conceivably, there could be an issue with her transportation. Could be a little late. Attorney could be talking to the parties at this point. But, obviously, it's all for good purpose and good reason.

And so, when they finally are on the record in open court, we will bring it to you live because the cameras are in that courtroom today.

BOLDUAN: All right, everyone ready and standing by for that.

Jean, outside bringing us updates as soon as they happen. Thank you, Jean.

SIDNER: And joining us now, CNN legal analyst and criminal defense attorney Joey Jackson is here.

During all this, is there still a chance that there is going to be a plea deal? Is -- could that be worked on as this case continues to go forward? These motions continue to be put in front of the judge.

JACKSON: Yes, Sara, without question. And, in fact, the judge could be in there saying, hey, prosecutor, what do you think? Are you thinking about resolving this case with a plea? Defense, what's significant, right?

The judge, of course, is the neutral referee. Just making sure that the laws and the rules are followed. But I think that if there was a case where a plea deal might be appropriate, it might be this particular case. Is it criminality or is it the lack of criminality based upon her not having or appreciating what she was doing? And so that's fair. And if the issue is to get her treatment, if the issue is to do justice, if the issue is to ensure that the parties come to some kind of resolution short of doing this again, with all the drama associated with it, with a seven-day deliberation, 38-hour deliberation, I think a plea deal would be fair. Of course, there would be parameters. And what the defense has said is that he doesn't think that his client should spend a day in jail.

BERMAN: Joey, do you have any sense of how this is going to play out? Like, what happens first here? Because there are so many things that might happen.

JACKSON: Yes.

BERMAN: I'm not sure I understand the order of business.

JACKSON: Yes. So, the order of business is always a sticky wicket. We don't know exactly what the judge is going to approach first, or what the judge is going to deal with.

[09:30:00]

We know what the big open questions are. We know that the defense has filed this motion, which essentially says, you know what, your honor, there's not even legally sufficient evidence for this case