Return to Transcripts main page

CNN Newsroom

Herman Cain Accuser Comes Forward; Verdict Reached in Michael Jackson Death Trial - Awaiting Announcement

Aired November 07, 2011 - 15:00   ET

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

BROOKE BALDWIN, CNN ANCHOR: Let me jump in because i have a question.

I know that they heard from, what was it, 49 witnesses over the course of some 23 days. We heard from bodyguards, girlfriends, former girlfriends, investigators, and also multiple medical experts.

And so, as you mentioned, Sunny, on Friday I guess the one question the jury had was, can we have some highlighters? I'm curious just in terms of the science of this trial and how the jury really had to sit and concentrate talking about Demerol and propofol before ultimately reaching this verdict.

SUNNY HOSTIN, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: Yes.

You know, it really struck me as interesting that the highlighters were requested, but no questions. I thought that perhaps it came from the fact that in California and in this case the jurors were allowed to take notes. So, rather than come back into the courtroom and ask for read-back of testimony, which was sort of the practice when I was practicing law in Washington, D.C., as a prosecutor, perhaps they needed the highlighters to remind themselves of the most powerful evidence that came in front of them or perhaps to go through those jury instructions.

Remember, there's only one count here, involuntary manslaughter, but the jury instructions were actually quite complex. And that is because this case is much more of a medical malpractice-type case, rather than sort of the typical homicide that we all see on "CSI" and that sort of thing, homicide by gun, homicide by knife. So perhaps they needed it to weed through the elements that were outlined in the jury instructions, which again were pretty complicated.

RANDI KAYE, CNN ANCHOR: Yes.

Let me bring in our colleague Ted Rowlands, our colleague Ted Rowlands. He's outside the courthouse.

Ted, you and I have been here every day. We saw Katherine Jackson and Joe Jackson, Michael Jackson's parents, arrive just a moment ago. What's the scene out there now?

TED ROWLANDS, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Well, as you might imagine, there are a lot of people. As word has spread that a verdict is in, more and more people are coming outside the courthouse here. And we just saw Katherine and Joe Jackson come in along with Jermaine Jackson. We're anticipating more members of the Jackson family will be as well. We have not seen any of the defense attorneys come into the courthouse. A source close to the defense team I talked to just a few minutes ago said that Dr. Murray is on his way here, but no sign yet of anybody from the defense side.

But outside the courtroom, as you might expect, a lot of anticipation and the crowds that we have seen throughout this trial have grown exponentially. And so has security, LAPD now helping out the Los Angeles County deputies here with security.

KAYE: Sunny, let me get back to you because we mentioned the family is there. I have been in court with the family, the Jackson family. You have LaToya Jackson, you have Janet Jackson, you have Michael Jackson's parents sitting there in court just feet away from this jury.

What type of impact does the Jackson family being in that courtroom every day so close to them have on that jury?

HOSTIN: I think that you can't underestimate the impact of a family like the Jacksons, the celebrity, the close-knit family of the Jacksons being there day in and day out. We're talking about Katherine Jackson, the matriarch of the family, these are folks that we all sort of grew up with and the jury is familiar with.

When I was a prosecutor, Randi, I always asked family members to come into the courtroom so that this jury knew that the victim was a real person with real connections, a victim that would be missed, a victim that was loved by the family.

And so I think it's very impactful when a family comes and shows their support and their love for their loved one and their lost one. And I can't imagine that that was lost on this jury. My understanding is that they were looking at the Jackson family, not perhaps head-on, but just taking glances at the family.

I'm so curious as to what they will do when they walk into the courtroom to render their verdict because oftentimes if they look at the defendant, people sort of read into that. If they look at the family, people read into that. So it will be very interesting to see what happens when they do come in, when they render their verdict.

KAYE: Yes.

Let me ask you about this whole idea from the state, from the prosecution, I mean, even in the closings, prosecutor David Walgren hammered home that Conrad Murray abandoned his patient, that Michael Jackson trusted him with his life and then it cost him his life.

How much will that abandonment do you think play a role into their deliberation?

HOSTIN: I think that's significant because the prosecution outlined all of these deviations from the standard of care and they talked about the fact that Conrad Murray didn't keep medical records. Well, that didn't necessarily cause his death.

They talked about the fact that Conrad Murray didn't have monitoring equipment. Well, without the monitoring equipment, a doctor can monitor a patient visually. So that lack of monitoring equipment didn't necessarily cause the death of Michael Jackson.

But there was evidence, Randi, that came in that showed you are never to leave a patient unattended that's under such a powerful anesthetic. So Dr. Conrad Murray, by his own admission during the police interview, said I left the room for maybe two minutes. That sounded like a very short period of time, it sounded sort of self-serving, but he admitted to not constantly monitoring Michael Jackson.

So that two-minute abandonment I think is going to be very, very significant in this case because that could indeed have led to his death, and we had expert testimony that came in to that effect.

KAYE: All right. Sunny, appreciate your insight on that very much as we wait for this verdict to be read in about just under hour from now, Brooke.

BALDWIN: Randi Kaye, thank you so much. I will take it from here.

And I want to bring in Debra Opri. She is a defense attorney.

And, Debra, I guess the issue, I guess crux of what the jury had to determine, they had to determine whether or not Dr. Conrad Murray was criminally negligent. You watched the closings last week. How did you think Mr. Chernoff did?

DEBRA OPRI, DEFENSE ATTORNEY: He did OK. He was working with the best he had.

I think the repetitive -- and I had this prior to that he should use these words -- the repetitive use of error in judgment is not gross negligence, I think that was the strongest argument. However, you have to look at the jury deliberations. They basically went a day and a morning, and if we can tell by the details of the evidence because this was in many respects a malpractice case bordering on gross negligence which made it criminal, I think they had -- the jury had a complete grasp of the evidence and those markers that Sunny had mentioned were basically I think for the jury instructions, which at most are very difficult to understand, and I think that what was their issues in the deliberation.

As far as the closing arguments for the prosecution, we don't need to say any further how wonderful it was, he kept it like a road map and a table of contents as he basically came in and said, here is the evidence, this is what we proved, this is gross negligence. Chernoff, to wrap this dialogue up, I really think at some point in time they should have had more witnesses in there, challenged more of the evidence. But they were working with what they had.

BALDWIN: And just quickly, Debra, when with you look at just the single count, involuntary manslaughter, if, big if, he's convicted, what kind of sentence could he be facing? What is it, a max four years?

OPRI: Well, yes, maximum four years, but the big dilemma seems to be what's going on in California now with the new rules with house arrest. Will he do some time in county? Probably. Will he have some time as house arrest near the tail end? I think so.

But let there be no mistake, if Conrad Murray is sentenced, his life as he knows it is over. He loses his license, and that is and has been his biggest concern. I wanted to make one comment about the factor, the wow factor.

BALDWIN: Sure.

OPRI: I was with Katherine Jackson and her family during the sexual molestation case. And I can tell you what they're going through right now. They are on the edge of their seats saying, I'm hoping, I'm hoping Michael will have justice.

And my heart goes out to the Jackson family. And this is a very difficult time for them. It won't bring Michael back, but at least it can put everything to rest with that family. They have had the highs and lows of any other family in entertainment, and what a story that family has.

BALDWIN: What a story. And as you mentioned, the family, and we saw Joe, we saw Katherine, Michael Jackson's parents, arriving there. We know Jermaine is there. I'm sure certainly other members of the Jackson family will appear for this momentous day for them as the verdict has been reached.

But certainly not lost in all of this, also Michael Jackson's young children and certainly the impact all of this has had and will forever have on them. Take a look at this.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

KAREEN WYNTER, HLN ENTERTAINMENT CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): With amazing moves and a simulating voice, Michael Jackson became an entertainment sensation. Now "Showbiz Tonight" can tell you his oldest kids want to follow their dad's path. The heirs to the king of pop are going into show business, says CNN's Alan Duke.

ALAN DUKE, CNN WIRE ENTERTAINMENT EDITOR: Paris is interested in acting, being a teenage actress. And Prince is interested in the business side of entertainment. And I think we will see that very soon.

WYNTER: Katherine Jackson confirmed the news exclusively to SHOWBIZ TONIGHT. She is raising Michael's kids and tells "SHOWBIZ TONIGHT" 13- year-old Paris and 14-year-old Prince are getting ready for their close-up.

KATHERINE JACKSON, MICHAEL JACKSON'S MOTHER: They are taking acting lessons. This is what they want to do and well, Paris really wants to be an actress.

WYNTER: The entertainment world, that doesn't scare them at all?

JACKSON: Not at all.

WYNTER: Alan Duke says some powerful people in the entertainment industry are looking out for Paris and Prince.

DUKE: Will and Jada Smith helped both of them. They have been going to acting classes with Will and Jada's children. And no doubt that that family will open doors for the Jackson children.

WYNTER: Since their father's tragic death, M. J. 's kids stepped out on the world's stage, most recently appearing at a tribute concert to Michael in Wales. And Paris proved at ease on camera when she spoke over the summer about her dad.

PARIS JACKSON, MICHAEL JACKSON'S DAUGHTER: One of the greatest and nicest guys ever.

WYNTER: But SHOWBIZ TONIGHT wants to know if the kids go into show business, are they risking heartache? Publicist Marvet Britto who helped guide the careers of Mariah Carey, Kim Cattrall and Angela Bassett, among others, says Paris and Prince face the crushing weight of expectation.

MARVET BRITTO, PUBLICIST, THE BRITTO AGENCY: You really are under a magnifying glass and the public expects you to be as great or greater than your -- than the legacy from which you come.

WYNTER: And there's another risk. Their wealth and budding fame could attract false friends and users.

BRITTO: There are people who will try to attach themselves to Paris, Prince and maybe even young Blanket. Prince Jackson I know is thinking hard about who can he trust.

WYNTER: A weary Prince tweeted recently, People behind you are opportunists. People in front of you are enemies. And people beside you are lasting friends." Entrepreneurs are already approaching him with endorsement deals.

DUKE: Prince Jackson, as they say, is bankable. And yes, a lot of product would like his endorsement, would like to associate themselves with Prince Jackson because of his father.

WYNTER: Their father is gone but the children can count on savvy aunts, uncles, and grandparents to guide them through the mine fields of show business.

BRITTO: They certainly have people. Aunt Janet, the very individuals who shape the legacy and built the Jackson five family are still alive and still very much in the lives of his children.

WYNTER: Marvet Britto tells "SHOWBIZ TONIGHT" one thing is key to the kids' success.

BRITTO: The best advice I would give Michael Jackson's children is to stay grounded, to learn everything they can about the business, to educate themselves about the business.

WYNTER: Britto says if they do that, anything is possible.

BRITTO: I wouldn't be surprised if they were able to be guided to be just as successful as Michael Jackson was.

WYNTER: And that would make them truly worthy heirs to the king of pop.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

BALDWIN: Five-week trial, 10 hours of deliberation, one count, involuntary manslaughter. We will know within the hour the fate of Dr. Conrad Murray.

Keep in mind this is a unique situation there in Los Angeles, as we look at some of these live pictures outside the courthouse. There is a camera inside this courthouse, so we will be able to see and hear as this verdict is read. Stay tuned for that.

Also breaking today, a fourth woman coming forward accusing Herman Cain of sexual harassment, but this one is speaking out publicly. She just appeared last hour right alongside Gloria Allred in New York. You're going to hear what she says Cain did to her and how this might impact his campaign.

We will be right back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BALDWIN: All right, also happening today, this fourth woman has come forward to accuse Republican presidential hopeful Herman Cain of sexual misconduct.

The woman's name is Sharon Bialek, and she once worked at the educational foundation that was run by the National Restaurant Association of which Herman Cain headed. What makes her different from Cain's three previous accusers is that she went -- here she is -- before the cameras today to tell her story in detail and in public.

She says she met with Herman Cain in Washington back in 1997 to see if he could help her find a job, and this is what she says happened after they had dinner.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SHARON BIALEK, ACCUSES HERMAN CAIN OF SEXUAL HARASSMENT: While we were driving back to the hotel, he said that he would show me where the National Restaurant Association offices were. He parked the car down the block. I thought that we were going to go into the offices so that he could show me around.

At that time, I had on a black pleated skirt, a suit jacket and a blouse. He had on a suit with his shirt open. But instead of going into the offices, he suddenly reached over and he put his hand on my leg under my skirt and reached for my genitals. (END VIDEO CLIP)

BALDWIN: I do want to read this Cain campaign statement. He has responded to these latest allegations with this statement.

I want to read it for you, saying this -- quote -- "Just as the country finally begins to refocus on our crippling $15 trillion national debt and the unacceptably high unemployment rate, now activist celebrity lawyer Gloria Allred is bringing forth more false accusations against the character of Republican front-runner Herman Cain. All allegations of harassment against Mr. Cain are completely false. Mr. Cain has never harassed anyone."

I want to go to chief political analyst Gloria Borger. She's been all over this story for us out of Washington.

And, Gloria, I know you have news on a separate accuser, and I want to get to that in and the a minute, but I want to talk about this story as it specifically pertains to Sharon Bialek, what we saw just a little while ago in New York.

Is this a game-changer for Herman Cain? Because we now have a face on this accuser. And again these are allegations. Does he have to come forward and address this?

GLORIA BORGER, CNN SENIOR POLITICAL ANALYST: Well, I do think you have specific allegations by somebody who had worked for the Restaurant Association, who went to him for help after she had been fired, and then she described this kind of sexual encounter and she said that he said to her, well, you want a job, don't you?

And so I think at a certain point this reaches critical mass and Herman Cain may well have to speak out and answer these allegations specifically, because we haven't heard this kind of detail before, and I don't know how you let it go out there unanswered when you're running for the presidency. I think you need to answer the charges.

BALDWIN: We heard her at the very end, right? She's asking, she's saying, essentially, please Mr. Cain come forward and say how you acted was inappropriate.

BORGER: Right.

BALDWIN: We don't know if he do that. We don't know even if he will come forward, right?

BORGER: We don't.

BALDWIN: But let me just ask, big picture, politically, how will this story and the graphic detail of this story, how will this impact the Cain campaign?

BORGER: Well, I think -- and let me just say this and add some news to what you have been reporting, which is that my producer Kevin Bohn has just gotten off the phone with Joel Bennett, who is the attorney for the woman on Friday came forward. And what he said is that -- quote -- "This is similar conduct by the same person." So he wouldn't go into any more detail about what the first woman was talking about, but when he calls it similar conduct, remember, on Friday, he had called it a series of inappropriate behaviors and unwanted advances.

So now you have two women who are essentially saying the same thing. And you can view Sharon Bialek's statement today as a corroboration, if you will. That's the way Joel Bennett views it. Then I think that the pressure becomes much more intense on Herman Cain, who is a front- runner in the Republican race for the presidency, to deny these allegations, to answer these allegations, to explain these allegations more directly.

BALDWIN: So you think it's...

BORGER: He's got to do it. He's got to do it.

BALDWIN: He's got to do it.

OK, Gloria Borger, thank you so much.

And, guys, we have him on the phone. Is Roland on the phone?

I want to bring in CNN political analyst Roland Martin.

And the other piece of this story, Roland, is Herman Cain said on FOX News that there was an element of racism in all of this and his PAC, his political action committee, started using ads just last week from the voice of Clarence Thomas from his infamous confirmation hearings for the Supreme Court. Do you think there is a valid argument to be made here?

ROLAND MARTIN, CNN CONTRIBUTOR: I just read about this on CNN.com. And the column is on the Web site.

It's not. Remember how this whole thing evolved. You had Ann Coulter, you had Rush Limbaugh, you had other people who began to talk about the issue of race, going after so-called uppity blacks trying to invoke what Clarence Thomas said in his confirmation hearings back in 1986.

The problem there is that begins to disintegrate because as you begin to hear more details -- remember, it also was supposed to be the liberal media. And then the next thing you know, Herman Cain then accused somebody who used to work on his campaign who now work for Rick Perry. So all of that went out of the window.

Bottom line is, when with you look at historically, you have had white candidates who have had to deal with tough allegations. Senator John Kerry had to deal with the swift boat is. You had former President Bill Clinton when he was running in 1992 the whole issue of bimbo eruptions. When you say it's a question of race, you give the impression that, well, this has happened to me unlike it would happen to a white candidate. There is no doubt in my mind that if you had allegations like this leveled against Governor Perry, leveled against Mitt Romney or Jon Huntsman, or anybody else, people would see that as what happens when you run for president. This is what happens. You have to lay everything out here.

(CROSSTALK)

BALDWIN: Par for the course if you're in this position politically?

MARTIN: Precisely.

So Herman Cain's deal, what he has to do is first of all, he's in a difficult position because in essence you have to disprove something if you say it didn't happen. The reality is, you know, did this latest woman, did she file any kind of complaint? The difference between what took place today and the other two women is that they actually filed the complaint and there was an actual investigation. There was a process there.

I don't think this allegation today, even though there's a face on it, is going to somehow change what takes place now. So he has to be more forthcoming, but it's different when you actually tell someone else, level a complaint and there's a process there vs. just simply saying this is something that happened.

BALDWIN: And I want to be clear. We heard this woman's story standing alongside Gloria Allred not too long ago in New York. CNN has been unable to speak with this woman ourselves, unable to vet her claim.

I just want to be entirely transparent when it comes to this woman's story. But again, if you look at the grander scheme of things, thus far she is the fourth accuser and again these are allegations and she I guess wouldn't have filed any kind of claim or complaint because this was after she says she was let go from this arm of the National Restaurant Association.

Roland Martin...

MARTIN: No, but, Brooke, she still could have. The reality is, even though she had been let go, she could have still filed something.

So even though you are no longer employed there, the conduct of an official still with the company still is a case. Again, I'm not putting her on trial. I'm simply saying it's a different case when somebody files a complaint and there's a process than when someone says, 14 years later, oh, hey, this happened to me and now I'm coming forward now.

BALDWIN: Well, it's an excellent question for her. And I have a feeling many a reporter are trying to track her down right now.

Roland Martin, thank you so much for calling in.

MARTIN: Brooke, thanks a lot. BALDWIN: And quickly, as we're watching, let me sneak a look down at my clock. We are just about 20, 25 minutes away from when we could be hearing, from when we will be hearing, I should say, that verdict in the Michael Jackson, Dr. Conrad Murray involuntary manslaughter trial.

Again, they have been deliberating -- you count Friday, you count today, just about 10 hours. This is a single count, as I mentioned, involuntary manslaughter. We're all over it. We will take you to L.A. momentarily.

Also, though, another bombshell story, what investigators say happened inside this locker room at Penn State. It is unspeakable, these allegations.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

LINDA KELLY, PENNSYLVANIA ATTORNEY GENERAL: This is a case about a sexual predator accused of using his position within the community and the university to prey on numerous young boys for more than a decade.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BALDWIN: A Penn State football coach accused of horrific crimes involving children. The charges, the alleged cover-up, and who knew what when, that's next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BALDWIN: And now to this legendary football program, Penn State rocked today by charges of child sex abuse.

Take a look at this man. This is Jerry Sandusky, longtime former defensive coach, accused of abusing boys between the years of 1994 and 2009. Sandusky was apprehended on Saturday. The allegations include sodomy, the victims, at least 8, possibly 10 years of age. An alleged incident in 2002 specifically was raised with legendary carry coach Joe Paterno. He went to higher-ups within the school, but not to police. In fact, no one did, not from the school's administration.

Here is the Pennsylvania attorney general speaking a short time ago.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

KELLY: The incident which occurred in 2002 at Lash (ph) Hall, where Sandusky was seen committing a sexual assault on a young boy of about 10 years of age, was reported to university officials by a graduate assistant who happened to be in the building late one Friday evening.

Those officials and administrators to whom it was reported did not report that incident to law enforcement or to any child protective agency. And their inaction likely allowed a child predator to continue to victimize children for many, many years.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BALDWIN: Two ranking officials, including the school's athletic director, appeared in court this afternoon on multiple charges linked to this case. Tim Curley and Gary Schultz are charged with lying to investigators.

And now here as we're sitting at the bottom of the hour, breaking news today today out of Los Angeles. It has been a five-week trial, 10 hours of jury deliberations between Friday and Monday morning.

And I just want to welcome our viewers in the United States and all around the world. I'm Brooke Baldwin.

Michael Jackson/Dr. Conrad Murray verdict happening in a matter of minutes in Los Angeles, and we have a number of correspondents and experts that we're going to go to over the course of the next half- hour, as we will be learning the fate of Dr. Conrad Murray. Did he or did he not give Michael Jackson that fatal dose of propofol which led to his death in June of 2009?

Holly Hughes, I want to begin with you.

Are you surprised, we're talking one count here, involuntary manslaughter. We know the jury deliberated for seven and a half hours Friday, two and a half this morning. Given the fact this is a single count trial, does that strike you as odd? Does that strike you as long?

HOLLY HUGHES, CNN LEGAL CONTRIBUTOR: No, it doesn't, Brooke, because remember over the course of those four weeks the state of California entered over 200 pieces of evidence. So that jury took it seriously. The judge gave them a copy of the law printed out. And remember one of the very first things they asked for on Friday was highlighters. We know they're not allowed to write on the evidence, so what could they have been highlighting? They were highlighting the law. That's what we can assume from that. They're got the jury packet. They're looking at the law, then they're looking at those 250 pieces of evidence and they're saying, how does that evidence line up with what he's been charged with?

So it's not a long time considering all the scientific testimony we heard. I think it's just about right given the one count, and a very serious jury who everybody that's been covering this in the courtroom has told us they are taking copious notes from beginning to end. And so that's what they did. They also went back through their notes if there was a question, hey, I wrote this down, what do you remember about it? And that's how they reached their decision.

BALDWIN: Holly Hughes, stand by. I want to bring in Jeff Toobin, senior legal analyst for us here on CNN in New York. Jeff Toobin, the crux of this is proving criminal negligence on behalf of Dr. Murray. What do you think it's like right now in that courtroom?

JEFFREY TOOBIN, CNN SENIOR LEGAL ANALYST: Well, you know, there's nothing like waiting for a jury. I was a prosecutor for several years, and you sit there and you just have no idea. Everybody can speculate. Everybody can suggest, you know, what a note meant. There were no notes.

BALDWIN: Or highlighters.

TOOBIN: Or highlighters. Yes. I really would not read too much into the highlighter issue. I think Highlighters are just highlighters.

But I think it's mesmerizing and very painful for all people concerned because you just have no idea until the jury comes back. One of -- there are many courtroom traditions. One is that a rule of thumb is there is one day of deliberation for each week of testimony. And here you had about four weeks of testimony and about two and a half days of deliberations so that is one of those rules that is always right except when it's wrong. So, I mean, these old tales don't really matter much.

Another one is if the jury comes back into the room and they're looking away from the defendant that means they're going to convict him. If they're looking at the defendant, that means they're going to acquit him. That one at least in my experience is more true than not. We'll see in a couple of minutes from the observers in the courtroom which way the jurors are looking when they come back in.

BALDWIN: Fortunate for us, there's a camera in that courtroom and you know we'll take it live as soon as we can so we'll actually be able to see and hear what happens.

TOOBIN: But the jury -- they never show the jury.

BALDWIN: Of course.

TOOBIN: So we'll have to count on our reporters to tell us.

BALDWIN: We'll count on Ted Rowlands who will be staring down those jurors and we'll extrapolate what we can from him.

By the way, I should mention we're going to get him on the phone and he can sort of set the scene for us with regard to the feeling and atmosphere in that courtroom right now. Guys, we don't have Ted yet?

Meantime, Sunny Hostin, let's go to you. Sunny Hostin, former federal prosecutor, we talk a lot. You're sort of fascinating, I guess, with regard to all of these myriad people who took to the stand, whether they were girlfriends, investigators, family members, and also medical experts. Why are you so fascinated by the science of this trial?

HOSTIN: Because this was very of a medical malpractice case. The type of evidence that came in was unusual for the involuntary manslaughter case. Usually the evidence that came in comes in in a civil case, medical malpractice, perhaps licensing board type of case. But in this case I thought the prosecution did a good job of explaining the science in sort of everyday terms, and it was heavy on the science.

I really believe this case comes down to a battle of the experts. I mean, the prosecution's theory was that Conrad Murray grossly deviated from the standard of care so much so that it caused the death of Michael Jackson. But the defense expert was very, very different. He said, yes, of course Conrad Murray did deviate from the standard of care, he was negligent. But his negligence didn't cause the death of Michael Jackson. Michael Jackson himself may have caused his own death.

And so I was very intrigued by that, Brooke, because you had two doctors who were apparently not only colleagues but were friends testifying really against each other. So it was a very fascinating sort of dramatic evidentiary -- evidence that came in. I was really fascinated by it, legal geek that I will.

BALDWIN: Sunny, we appreciate the geek factor in you. Casey Wian I'm told is standing by. Where is Casey? Live outside the courthouse. Casey, set the scene for me. What's it like?

CASEY WIAN, CNN CORRESPONDENT: What we're seeing is a larger gathering of people outside the court here. You can probably see that over my left shoulder. There were maybe 25, 30 people here throughout the day. Since news of a verdict announced, the crowd has grown significantly. Most of these people appear to be fans of Michael Jackson. Just about a half hour ago they saw members of Michael Jackson's family, his parents, some of his siblings, walk through that crowd to the courtroom to hear this verdict which we expected to be delivered in about 25 minutes or so.

Another thing we have seen over the past hour or so develop here is a much expanded police presence. My producer Paul Vercammen was up on the ninth floor and he said there was quite a bit of security provided by the L.A. county sheriff's department up there on the ninth floor. There are several LAPD officers here to sort of keep the piece outside the courtroom. We have not seen any indications of any trouble or any disturbances, just people very, very interested, very, very anxious, very, very nervous awaiting this verdict, Brooke.

BALDWIN: Casey, thank you. Stand by. I want to go to Ted Rowlands. As promised, he has just called in. Apparently he's in the hallway leading into the courtroom. Ted, set the scene for me, and also tell me which family members you've seen.

TED ROWLANDS, CNN CORRESPONDENT (via telephone): Well, outside it's very crowded here. And they are starting to line up the folks that have passes. There are eight members of the public that won a lottery this morning that will be allowed in. And then each media --

BALDWIN: It's tough to hear him. We're going to have to lose -- there's LaToya Jackson stepping out of her car. We saw -- who did we see? Katherine Jackson, Joe Jackson. Reportedly Jermaine Jackson is there. All, or many of the Jackson family members heading into this courthouse. Can we go back to Casey? Casey, tell me who you've seen.

ROWLANDS: Well, you're seeing LaToya Jackson. Just now I've seen Michael Jackson's parents, his brother Jermaine. It's been hard to see anyone else through this crowd, but I know several members of the Jackson family are here, one of the defense attorneys also already in the courtroom.

It must be a great relief for the Jackson family for this verdict to finally have come down. As you may remember Friday afternoon it was a rainy day here in southern California, they drove from their homes in the San Fernando valley, got a hotel room near the courtroom so they could be close to the court when the verdict was read. Obviously that didn't happen Friday. They must be very relieved it's finally happened today, Brooke.

BALDWIN: And from what I understand, Casey, it was 10:56 this morning your time in California when the jury hit the buzzer three times. Is that correct?

WIAN: That's correct. About 10 hours of total deliberations by my quick calculations over two days. This trial began back in September. Jurors heard from 49 witnesses, lots and lots of evidence. It was a very, very intense, complicated trial, lots of tension on the stand between different medical experts. Everyone that has witnessed this jury, including myself, saw a jury that was very attentive, saw no cracks in the jury. It seems like they were a very unified bunch. So perhaps it's not surprising that it took them less than two days to come to agreement on this very, very complicated case.

BALDWIN: OK, Casey, stand by. Let's try Ted again. I imagine many, many people are on their cell phones so it may be tough to get a signal in the courthouse. Ted, let's try this again. If you can, just reset the scene for me in that hallway inside that courthouse.

ROWLANDS: Well, we have heavy security here. The sheriff's department is here he in force. We just saw a member of the prosecution team, actually the lead detective in the case, he's made his way to the ninth floor here and everybody is ling up and following the orders of the bailiff.

Basically, with any jury decision there's, you know, incredible anticipation no matter where you are in terms of the stakeholders. I just talked to one of the defense attorneys, he is obviously not allowed to talk, but he raised his hands up as if to say, this is it, this is all the work we've poured into this on both sides, that there's a lot at stake here.

And the person with the most at stake, of course, is Dr. Conrad had Murray. I haven't seen him in the hallway yet. Typically they bring him up and put him into a courtroom that's not being used adjacent to the courtroom where he'll find out his fate. But at this point he is not on the ninth floor yet. However, he should be arriving fairly quickly.

BALDWIN: And then where are the members of the jury right this moment?

ROWLANDS: They are back in the jury room that they have used throughout this trial. They are in the courtroom. The courtroom is still sealed off. They'll wait until the jury is back in the back portion of the courtroom before they'll allow anybody else in. So that's what we're waiting on right now is presumably for the judge and the bailiffs to give the all-clear.

The jury is in place in the back room. Then once the courtroom is filled, first in will be members of the media, then the Jackson family will come in, sitting in the second row, then members of the public, and then finally the defendant and the lawyers will come in as they are ready.

Once everybody is set, then they'll bring the jury in and it will not be long before we hear the verdict. The verdict will be read by the court clerk, Ms. Venson (ph), who is the person who has sworn in all of the witnesses throughout if anybody's watched this trial on television. She's the one who will reach the verdict.

BALDWIN: OK and we will be able to see and hear that.

Just to help explain to you, so what you're seeing right now on television -- Ted, thank you, by the way -- these are obviously pictures, live pictures, outside the courthouse from which ted was just speaking. On the bottom right-hand side, that is actually a live picture of some seal probably the California state seal inside that courtroom. So it's from that camera that we will be able hear the verdict being read from the court clerk.

Let's go back to New York, Jeff Toobin, because, Jeff, let's play the "if" game. If Conrad Murray is what kind of sentencing could he face? How many years?

TOOBIN: This is really a tough question because there aren't many people prosecuted after trial for this crime. The range of options are zero, probation, to four years. So it is not one of these crimes with a very high upside. This crime, involuntary manslaughter, is usually part of a plea bargain deal. There are not a lot of trials of this kind of crime.

In a plea bargain, you usually wind up, if you plead guilty to this, with probation. But if you go to trial, most people get prison time. I don't pretend to know the answer of where in that range it would go.

For pleas of this crime, as I say, it's usually probation, but you usually get a harsher sentence when you force the government to put you on trial. I suspect he will get some time. Most importantly, it seems to Conrad Murray, if he's convicted of this felony, he loses his medical license. That goes -- that is --

BALDWIN: That goes without saying. Jeff, thank you. Stand by.

I want to go to Dr. Drew Pinsky. He of course has been following this right along with the rest of us. And Drew, I know you talk a lot about addiction, and that clearly is one part of the storyline, and I think Randi Kaye was talking about a number of the members of this jury have been touched in some form or fashion by addiction in their own lives, which will be interesting to see how that factors into their decisions with regard to this verdict.

But also, you know, Michael Jackson was a father and he has several young children. I just want to first begin with that, how this affects them for the rest of their lives.

DR. DREW PINSKY, ANCHOR, "DR. DREW" ON HLN: Well, yes. There's sort of two aspects to the children. One is the children themselves and how horribly traumatic this entire affair must have been for them. One of the things I have learned about Michael Jackson from talking to people on this inside is how dedicated he was to these kids. We all look at the kids now and before we saw them shrouded in masks and blankets and things, and we thought, oh, boy, these poor kids. How will they end up? Well, they've ended up pretty good.

And the fact is what we hear is that inside he was doing a good job of fathering as best he could, given his impairments and whatnot, obviously. But the fact is they've been through a horrible ordeal here and the jury may be thinking about that when they think about the verdict.

BALDWIN: How so? They're thinking specifically about the kids?

PINSKY: Yes, sympathy for the kids. And you also raised the issue of the addiction and family members amongst other jurors, and that can cut both ways. Some family members can blame the addict for the disease, be angry and dismissive and buy the defense theory that Michael Jackson is to blame for his disease -- family members do get that way -- versus family members who have had a good experience with a family member in recovery and understand it is us as the caretakers to render that care to make sure they get safely into recovery and not blame them for any shenanigans that go on along the way.

BALDWIN: So, having watched this trial and covered it for these past four or five weeks, what one moment or one piece of testimony, Drew, really, really resonated with you?

PINSKY: You know, there were a couple of things that jumped out for me. One was the women that were trotted up there. That whole escapade was bizarre.

BALDWIN: The girlfriends?

PINSKY: Yes. As I think back on this trial, I think, my goodness, when with and what was that? It seemed so far from where we are now, talking about the specifics of a Propofol infusion. And the other is the issues around the infusion itself.

But I've got to tell you, the thing that I'm -- you know, people say this was a highly scientific trial. I think it was not that scientific. It was rather basic. And it's unfortunate we missed some of the clinical issues, which is whether this guy actually administered the Propofol infusion or not, he had somebody with severe addictive pathology. He didn't consult appropriately, and he left these horrible medications around someone who is an addict who could impulsively take these things. That's the doctor's responsibility whether he picked up the needle himself or not.

BALDWIN: I want to play a sound bite, Drew. This is from Michael Jackson's dermatologist talking specifically about Propofol. His name is Dr. Klein. Dr. Klein spoke with HLN. Let's take a listen.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

ARNOLD KLEIN, MICHAEL JACKSON'S FORMER DERMATOLOGIST: All the nonsense, because they had experts on addiction that knew nothing. Let me tell you about Propofol and how you can't self-inject it. Do you know how painful it is? It burns on injection. It's nonsense that he self-injected. Did anybody there ask if there was any pain there? Did anybody ask why there are marks all over the body? Did anyone ask that?

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BALDWIN: Did you watch that? That was Jean Casarez, "IN SESSION." What do you make of that?

PINSKY: I need to get my hands on Dr. Klein. The fact is, I have 1,000 issues, but one issue, the Propofol was mixed with Lidocaine. Dr. Murray was very clear he had it mixed with Lidocaine and that Michael himself knew how painful it was and demanded it be mixed with Lidocaine. So that's how you prevent the pain associated with Propofol. So that is a nonissue.

But Dr. Klein, I have questions about the opiates, the Demerol he was giving Michael Jackson, a diagnosed addict in an out-patient setting on a repeated basis without consulting with a psychiatrist or addiction medicine specialist. I'm sorry, I don't treat pimples. I'm not a dermatologist. He shouldn't be treating addiction or complex psychiatric cases and then grandstanding about what great care he gave. It doesn't make any sense to me, so I've got some questions.

BALDWIN: I think at one point in time Jean was asking him if this doctor was fueling had his addiction. He said, well, if anything, I guess he's just addicted to being handsome or good looks. I don't know if you saw that part of it.

PINSKY: I didn't see that part of it. Again, I'm a little confused. Call me confused, call me crazy, but's got some explaining to do as far as I'm concerned.

BALDWIN: You've got some issue with Dr. Klein. Drew Pinsky, great to have you on. Stand by.

Let's go back to Los Angeles as we are again awaiting this verdict. It will be coming down in a matter of minutes in the case of Dr. Conrad Murray, single count, involuntary manslaughter. Let's go back to Ted Rowlands who is inside. Where are you, ted, still in that hallway?

ROWLANDS: Yes. They just called for us to get in line so we're all in line here and getting ready -- I just saw the defense attorneys they've all arrived except for Ed Chernoff and -- David Walgren and they're now getting us in line and we'll be going in in a few moments.

BALDWIN: So you are lining up. What are the looks on the faces of both Ed Chernoff and David Walgren? How do they look?

ROWLANDS: Well, you know, while one of the folks from the defense team came up to me and said, hello. And I said, what do you think? He said, of the record, it would have been nice to go another day or two. Clearly the timing of the verdict is still in that window which you would think would lead towards a guilty verdict. So the prosecution has to be very happy with the timing of this.

Of course, that said, anything can happen. You look at the Casey Anthony verdict, about 10 hours. So anything can happen, but I think it's safe to say the defense and probably Conrad Murray himself are pretty nervous right now.

BALDWIN: OK, Ted Rowlands, thank you.

Let's go just outside the courthouse to Casey Wian. Casey, as we're seeing a number of people, protestors, demonstrators, holding up the signs, I'm sure you see the scene right around where you are. Again, you had mentioned LaToya jack sob getting out of the car, a number of Jackson family members in the courthouse, of course, for this significant day. What else are you seeing and hearing there?

WIAN: It's interesting you mention LaToya Jackson. She sent out a tweet not long ago that traffic actually delayed her getting to the court today. Obviously she has now made it, as we saw, a few minutes ago.

But I want to show you something interesting. We have the juxtaposition of two big news events here today. What you see behind me is that crowd that's waiting for the Michael -- the Dr. Conrad Murray verdict. And as my photographer, John, you will have to excuse the tree and everything, pans over here, you'll have to excuse the busses going by, but once you see the busses clear, you will see what is across the street, which is Occupy Los Angeles. There are hundreds of people camping out overnight every night, hundreds of tents, thousands of people. And you can see the police officers there. They want to make sure that Occupy Los Angeles folks don't get mingled up and mixed up with the folks who are interested in the Conrad Murray hearing.

So it is a very, very big job here outside the courtroom sort of keeping the peace. I don't want to imply there is any threat right now. But it is clearly a big job as we wait for this verdict, Brooke.

OK. Casey Wian, thank you so much. I imagine the security is very, very tight where you are and in the courthouse as well. Stand by.

We have our chief medical correspondent Sanjay Gupta who has just joined me here in the studio. From what I understand, he is just back from the hospital. And Sanjay, as you and I watch this, we are just minutes from this jury coming down. You and I have talked a lot about Propofol.

DR. SANJAY GUPTA, CNN CHIEF MEDICAL CORRESPONDENT: Yes, and I think the first time we heard about this a couple years ago, just the idea that Propofol would be potentially used in someone's home I think struck everyone as bizarre and it remains that way, Brooke.

As your other guests have noted, what this comes down to as far as science goes, is not only was the Propofol in the home being used in way that most people have not heard of before, but exactly who administered it and at what time. And also I think the question is, what do you think the crime is exactly here, as Dr. Pinsky was talking about? Do you think it was a simple act of having Propofol in the home? Having the substances close to someone who was an addict or was it the actual injection of the medicine? So I think that's what this sort of hinges on.

BALDWIN: And so, as we have been mentioning, time and time again, the jury today decide whether or not Dr. Murray was criminally negligent in administering the Propofol. When you listen to closing arguments, last Tuesday, have you the prosecution saying absolutely it was Dr. Murray who administered this fatal dose, you know. On the flipside you have the defense saying, it was Michael Jackson himself who, I can't remember exactly how many minutes, would have lapsed from when Dr. Murray left the room, it was Michael Jackson who self- administered.

GUPTA: Right. And it was interesting, what the prosecution did, Brooke, is they made the case that it was actually Dr. Murray who administered the dose. But they also spent a great deal of time sort of making this case that that's almost not relevant as the fact that these medications were in the home --

BALDWIN: Four gallons.

GUPTA: Right, all of that. So that was part of their argument as well. And the defense raised enough after doubt that, look, we're not sure who administered the dose. You heard the prosecution trying to minimize that or make that less relevant.

BALDWIN: I want to -- Sanjay, thank you. Stand by. I want to go to Deborah Opri who is also standing by. She's a defense attorney. But interestingly, Deborah, you explained to me that you worked close with Katherine Jackson during the previous trial. I'm just curious. You know them, you know her, you know the family, what must be going through their minds right now. Have you been at all in contact with them? Tell me about the family.

DEBORAH: OPRI: The family right now is very together and they are bonded in justice for their son. They need to put behind them. They won't get their son back. And Katherine, my heartache, she was like a west coast mom to me during that case. And my feeling is that Katherine's years on this earth, she's had a lot of heartache, a lot of joy. And it is just very sad to me to think that this had to end in her later years that she had to have this kind of tragedy. And I just -- I pray for them.

What are they going through? They are going to wait for the verdict. I think it's going to come down favorably for them. They will go home, get on with their lives and her daughters, they are good daughters and I say god bless them and my prayers will always be with them.

As far as the trial itself, it's been a long duration. Michael's kids, as I said, they would never be in the courtroom. They didn't belong there. They don't belong there. They have to look to tomorrow because they have a good future ahead of them. BALDWIN: And also, I don't know if you were listening to my conversation with Dr. Drew Pinsky, but he was speaking about the children, and certainly the members of the jury, the seven men, five women, that couldn't have been too far from mind in determining an outcome for Dr. Murray. They have to think of the little ones.

OPRI: You're correct that they looked at the children, but I am telling you that the key factor in this is Katherine Jackson sitting in the courtroom and his siblings. When you look at the dynamics of the family, it doesn't matter what people out there in the public said, that they fought, they bickered. That is a tight-knit family and they always have been, always will be. And the jury factored in that element of a loving family from the mother and the father to the siblings to Michael's children. So the jury sat in that room knowing that Michael Jackson was a man who didn't have to die. He had too much to live for.

BALDWIN: Deborah, thank you.

I want to go to Sunny Hostin. Sunny, as we are looking at the clock here, it could happen now any minute. Any minute we will be hearing and we will be hearing the verdict read from inside that Los Angeles courthouse. Just what must be happening right now as everyone's filing in this room, sitting down. You have the jury as I mentioned, seven men, five women. Dr. Murray, prosecution, defense, as Deborah mentioned, of course the members of the family. We have seen Jermaine, LaToya, Katerine. They're all sitting Janet. What must that feel like?

HOSTIN: Well, I've been in the situation, of course, as a prosecutor sitting in a courtroom waiting for a verdict when the jury is finally going to come in. It's a very, very intense moment. I'm sure it is very intense for all parties involved.

I mean, bottom line is, someone is going to be very disappointed with the jury's verdict, whether it be the defense team or the prosecution team. And so this is a very difficult time for all involved. My understanding is that the gallery is open and people are walking in. So we will really hear about this just any minute now.

BALDWIN: Do you think it is possible that once this verdict is read, that at some point today, this afternoon in California, we will hear from members of the jury themselves?

HOSTIN: My understanding is that they may hold a press conference. So I think we may get to hear what happened over those 10 hours, what happened in the jury room. I think we all have so many questions about whether or not addiction played a part. About whether they believe Michael Jackson could have killed himself. So there is a chance we will hear from the jury today.

BALDWIN: And again, just quickly, beyond the gender of the members of this jury, what more do we know about these people?

HOSTIN: I think it's really an extraordinary jury. Nine of them, Brooke, have prior jury service, that's very unusual. There's a biochemist on the jury, someone that may have led this jury in terms of going over the science. There's a professor, a parallel who has been a parallel for over 30 years, so someone familiar with the ins and outs of the legal system.

There is also a postal service worker on the jury. So a very diverse jury, five women, seven men, but diverse in experience. I think what's also a big take away is that five of these people have had addiction sort of touch their lives. There is even one person on the jury who lost someone as a result of addiction. So this is a jury who not only was instructed on the law, listened to the facts, took copious notes, also a jury that will take in various experiences with them to the jury room.

BALDWIN: OK, Sunny, thanks to you and the final moments with me on this show as we are waiting for this verdict. Sanjay Gupta, I just want to give you the final word. You've been watching, covering this trial as well extensively, looking ahead but also looking back. What really stood out to you in the testimony in the weeks in this story?

GUPTA: I think it was quite striking that this substance, Propofol, which is widely used in hospitals, you know, it really drew out very conflicting theories between these two experts. One of whom, people call the father of Propofol in this country because he is someone who really introduced it and had it started being used the way it is today. So they are both obviously very knowledgeable, but they came to very, very different conclusions, Brooke. I think it is interesting. It is one of those things about science, looking at the same data, same studies, with the same evidence and different conclusions.

I think in the end, as I think some of other guests have intimated, the science of this, some was complex in terms of levels of Propofol at the hospital versus an autopsy and correlating that with dosing and what did that mean as far as who administered it and how quickly the body metabolized it, all that. And I think some of that, despite the education of some the jurors, was still pretty complicated. I think it comes down to what they believe happened here.

BALDWIN: The jurors sorting through the science, and obviously, as we now know, reaching a verdict in the trial of Conrad Murray. Sanjay, my thanks to you. My thanks to the rest of the folks who joined me in the last little bit here. I'm Brooke Baldwin. We're going to continue to follow this breaking news story with my colleague Wolf Blitzer. Wolf?