Return to Transcripts main page
CNN Newsroom
Appeals Court Strikes Down DOMA; Hunt For Porn Star In Severed Body Case; Pres. Obama Welcomes Bush Family; Verdict Reached In Edwards Case
Aired May 31, 2012 - 14:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
KATE BOLDUAN, CNN ANCHOR: As Suzanne well noted, in for Brooke Baldwin this hour.
And a lot happening this hour. We want to bring you up to speed on everyone, including a House vote we're expecting any minute now that would ban sex selective abortions. A very hot topic. We'll have more on that coming up.
But we begin with a major court decision. A federal appeals court in Boston today ruled the Defense of Marriage Act unconstitutional. DOMA, as it's called, defines marriage as strictly heterosexual. One man, one woman. It denies all sorts of benefits to gay couples and that's one reason the court in Boston today says it cannot stand. CNN's senior legal analyst, Jeffrey Toobin, is joining me by phone to kind of get caught up on the significance here.
Hey there, Jeff. We know that there are similar lawsuits that have been filed and pending kind of across the country. So tell me how significant today's ruling is.
JEFFREY TOOBIN, CNN SENIOR LEGAL ANALYST (via telephone): Well, it's a very important one. This is a very respected court. The First Circuit Court of Appeals. A very respected generally conservative judge, Michael Boudin, who wrote the opinion. And it's really a very simple, legal issue. The Defense of Marriage Act says that the federal government will not recognize same-sex marriages even in states where it's legal.
So, in this case, you have a married couple, two women, who are as married as any other couple in Massachusetts, straight or gay, and they do not get those same tax return rights that straight couples get. You know, they can't file a joint tax return. They can't inherit money in the same way as straight couples. And the court said that is unconstitutional. That is a form of discrimination. It's a violation of states right to establish marriage as they see fit. And this is clearly going to the Supreme Court.
BOLDUAN: And that was exactly what I was going to follow up on. It's a states' rights versus federal authority issue that comes up. That's a major, obviously, issue the Supreme Court takes up. And while this kind of moves it one step closer to that, it's clear the Supreme Court won't be getting involved in this any time before Election Day. But you and I can often talk about things kind of in political terms of how it's playing. This is sure to be an issue on the campaign trail, right?
TOOBIN: It is. And, you know, it's important to point out that this is not a court saying that states must have same-sex marriage. That's not what this case is about.
BOLDUAN: Right.
TOOBIN: This is simply about whether the federal government can refuse to recognize same-sex marriages. You know, I don't know if this issue -- if this case will be a hot point of debate between Obama and Romney, but I -- it is part of the general debate over same-sex marriage. And clearly you have two individuals and two political parties that stand miles and miles apart on the issue of civil unions and same-sex marriage and also whether this law is unconstitutional.
The Obama administration won this case. They joined the plaintiffs in saying, the Defense of Marriage Act is unconstitutional. Governor Romney has said he believes it is constitutional. And that debate will certainly continue.
BOLDUAN: Right. And we're talking about a federal law here. But when the Supreme Court does get involved, as we would expect that it eventually will, do you anticipate that it will also hear the separate challenge to states laws banning same-sex marriage?
TOOBIN: Well, I think they are very different cases.
BOLDUAN: Yes.
TOOBIN: And I don't think the -- certainly the Proposition 8 case, which is, as you suggest, very much a -- just challenge to whether states can ban same-sex marriage. I don't think that case is getting to the Supreme Court anytime soon. That's tied up in a lot of other legal issues.
The DOMA case, the Defense of Marriage Act case, that is now ready to go to the Supreme Court and I think that will get there first. And I think gay rights supporters feel a lot more confident in the defense of Marriage Act case than they do in the same-sex marriage case.
It's a lot easier for the court to say this is simply a form of discrimination, a violation of state's rights. That is very different from saying every state in the union must allow gay people to get married. I think that is -- would be a much tougher sell in the court. And I think many same -- many gay rights supporters are glad that the Defense of Marriage Act case is going first because they think it's an easier case to win.
BOLDUAN: So another potentially landmark case heading towards the Supreme Court and probably --
TOOBIN: It will be a big year.
BOLDUAN: Another big year ahead of us.
TOOBIN: And we're still waiting, of course, for the --
BOLDUAN: For health care.
TOOBIN: Obama health care law to be ruled on.
BOLDUAN: That's absolutely right.
TOOBIN: That should be the end of this month.
BOLDUAN: End of this month.
TOOBIN: Next month.
BOLDUAN: You and I will both be watching that very --
TOOBIN: Next month.
BOLDUAN: Next month. Oh, we're still in May. We'll be watching that very closely. Jeff Toobin, thanks so much.
So let's get you caught up on everything else making news this hour. It's called "Rapid Fire." Let's go.
In Egypt, a state of emergency that's been in effect for decades has finally been allowed to expire. It gave police broad leeway to arrest citizens and hold them indefinitely without charges.
A very personal emergency for two American tourists in Egypt, though. The pair were kidnapped today at gunpoint while traveling into Sinai. The gunman demanded the release of a man arrested yesterday on drug charges. One of the men, Brandon Kutz, told CNN the pair were still in the custody of their captors, though they believe their release is imminent. Much more on that to come.
And sometime this hour we're expecting a vote on a bill being considered right now on the House floor. The bill would ban abortions based on the sex of a fetus. It's called the Prenatal Non- Discrimination Act and it would impose fines and even prison sentences for doctors and providers who knowingly perform abortions based on the fetus' sex. Critics call the bill a political ploy in this election year.
And the former Rutgers University student who used a web cam to spy on his gay roommate has just arrived at a jail in New Brunswick, New Jersey. Dharun Ravi was found guilty of intimidation and invasion of privacy after his roommate, Tyler Clementi, jumped to his death from the George Washington Bridge. Ravi was sentenced to 30 days in jail.
Very different story. The SpaceX Dragon capsule parachuted into the Pacific Ocean today, ending its historic flight. The first private spacecraft to travel to the International Space Station was cut loose after a five-day visit. It dropped supplies off and returned to earth with some science samples, as well as some old Space Station equipment. Got to unload that sometimes. The next Dragon supply mission is scheduled for September. We've got a lot more to cover in the next two hours. Take a look.
It's a story you just can't make up. And who would want to? A porn actor suspected of killing an acquaintance, dismembering his body, then mailing out the severed limbs. Today, a manhunt across two continents.
Plus, banning big sodas in the big apple. Mayor Michael Bloomberg takes a hard stand on soft drinks. Now many are asking, what's next?
And, it's the picture of the day. Not one, but three presidents at the White House. We'll tell you why.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
BOLDUAN: This story really grabbed our attention. When you hear the facts, you'll probably agree. First a severed foot, then a hand, were mailed to Canadian lawmakers. Not just for the strangeness factor of it all, but for the sheer savageness. Today, Interpol announced a worldwide hunt for this man, Luka Rocco Magnotta. A 29-year-old Canadian whose job resume includes acting in porn movies, for one. Police want to talk to him about a brutal murder and dismemberment of a victim that they're really only identifying right now as a white male. Interpol has been called in because police think Magnotta may have made a run for it and could now be in France.
So I want to bring in a reporter, John Lancaster. He's been following this story for Canada's CBC.
John, thank you for joining me this afternoon. Tell me, first off, this is obviously the first time a lot of our viewers are going to be hearing about this. What led police to suspect Magnotta in this?
JOHN LANCASTER, CBC REPORTER: Well, certainly this was a suspect who wanted to be identified. I mean, let me take you back to Tuesday up here in Canada. A human foot arrives at the conservative party headquarters in Ottawa, the nation's capital. A couple of hours away, in Montreal, Quebec, police had been called to a low rise and low rent apartment complex in the city there where residents had discovered a human torso inside a suitcase left on the side of the curb for garbage pickup.
Well, police, when they were investigating in Montreal, that discovery of the torso, residents came from outside -- came into that building and said, you know, listen, on the second floor here there's a really foul smell coming from one of the apartment units. So police headed straight in there. And what they saw, they described as something out of a horrific film. Some kind of "b" level horror film. They said it was clear someone had been murdered and dismembered in that apartment. There was all sorts of evidence left behind on the furniture, on a bed there, in the bathtub, even in the fridge and freezer inside that apartment.
They quickly identified the suspect, Luka Magnotta, a 29-year-old resident, as the tenant of that apartment. And within hours, they discovered even something more horrific, that the suspect had allegedly not only videotaped this crime, but posted it online for anyone around the world to see. So clearly the suspect wanted to be identified it seems.
BOLDUAN: And, John, let me jump in then. What do we know about any possible motive here?
LANCASTER: Well, all police are saying right now is that the victim in this case, a young man, he's believed to be Asian, in his early 30s, was known. Possibly a former lover of the suspect. They believe possibly he was lured back into that apartment under some pretense, and the suspect allegedly fulfilled some kind of bizarre fantasy it would allegedly seem, and that is the motive. We know this suspect created an almost larger than life persona of himself online. He bragged about being a star in the modeling world, in the adult film business, both of which were untrue. He even had himself linked to dating a well-known serial killer here in Canada. Again, something that wasn't true.
In 2010, he even posted these horrific videos of him allegedly torturing and killing cats. So he was clearly someone who wanted this bizarre form of notoriety. And certainly it seems now he's got it.
BOLDUAN: Bizarre and more and more gruesome the more you hear about it. Really quickly, why France? Why do Canadian authorities think that he may have run to France?
LANCASTER: Well, he's probably more familiar with the U.S. If you look at some of these bizarre photos he's posted online, he's posing on the Hollywood Walk of Fame, at Penn Station in New York City, even as far away as Moscow. But we do know that about five years ago Magnotta, who grew up right here in Toronto, was arrested by police, spent a little bit of time in jail for some credit card frauds. That would make him inadmissible to the U.S. We all know that border is pretty tight these days. So perhaps he figures Europe is a better place to go, perhaps less heat on him. He can blend in a bit better there. Who knows? We've heard reports he could be heading to Thailand. He's been there before, too. But we know he blogged about this, that he said it took four months to make yourself vanish, and that's exactly what he's done right now.
BOLDUAN: That's truly an amazing story. And hopefully they'll be hot on his tail very, ,very soon. John Lancaster from our affiliate CBC. Thank you so much.
Other stories we're following. The president -- President Bush -- the president, Bush, pardon me, returned to the White House for a private lunch and a public unveiling.
And we are just moments away from a House vote on a bill that would ban sex-selective abortions. That is also coming up next.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
BOLDUAN: Want to get you a quick update on a story that we've been following throughout the day. The House was voting on a ban on sex-selective abortions. And just now we've gotten word that that vote failed in the House. The vote was 246-168. The reason that number is significant and might be counterintuitive to you is that this voted need a two-thirds majority to pass. It did not meet that threshold. So this vote failed. That ban, obviously, is not going through. It will be interesting to see how that conversation, if it will be brought up again. I will tell you this, we will be talking to the chief sponsor of that measure, Trent Franks, Congressman Trent Franks, in the next hour. You do not want to miss that.
In the meantime, I want to get you caught up on another story that we are watching. Within the past hour, we witnessed a poignant moment at the White House. The president hosted his predecessor, George W. Bush, for the official unveiling of Bush's presidential portrait, in the video right there, along with that of former First Lady Laura Bush. We had the opportunity to hear from Mr. Bush. Haven't seen him much since he left office. His humor of -- his sense of humor is definitely still intact. Listen to this.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
GEORGE W. BUSH, FORMER U.S. PRESIDENT: I am pleased that my portrait brings an interesting symmetry to the White House collection. It now starts and ends with a George W. When the British burned the White House, as Fred mentioned, in 1814, Dolly Madison famously saved this portrait of the first George W. Now, Michelle, if anything happens, there's your man.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
BOLDUAN: Our Dan Lothian is joining me now from the White House.
A lot of former Bushies were in that room, Dan. Tell me, what's your take on the event today?
DAN LOTHIAN, CNN CORRESPONDENT: That's right. You saw former Secretary of HUD, Mel Martinez. You saw Andy Card, the former chief of staff. Also Karl Rove, Dana Perino, who was the former spokesperson here at the White House. And, of course, the extended Bush family here gathered for this special day, which, of course, all presidents get a chance to do, which is finally, at some point, come back to the White House after they leave and watch the unveiling of the artwork of not only the president but also of the first lady.
The one person, though, who we did not see here today was Vice President Dick Cheney. Unclear why he wasn't able to make it, Kate.
BOLDUAN: Ah, very curious indeed. I'm sure people will be reading into that as well as the body language, Dan.
LOTHIAN: That's right.
BOLDUAN: But, you know, honestly, given all the pomp and circumstance and honestly civility in the room, you'd almost forget that President Obama speaks quite often and quite often in less glowing terms of the economy that he inherited from President Bush. We put together just a little sampling of that. Listen to this.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
BARACK OBAMA, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: It was a house of cards, and it collapsed in the most destructive, worst crisis that we've seen since the Great Depression.
To the policies that created this mess in the first place.
The worst economic calamity since the Great Depression.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
BOLDUAN: So, given all that, Dan, a little reminder to our viewers, was there any tension in the room?
LOTHIAN: Not that we could see. And, you know, we've been asking aides about this over the last couple of days here at the White House. Yes, the president has hit the former president on the economy, saying that this is something that he inherited. He's also criticized the former president on foreign policy and national security issues as well. What White House Spokesman Jay Carney pointed out today is that, look, you know, they are clearly -- they have their differences, but they are part of this elite group of former presidents, and they very much respect each other.
And you heard President Obama talk about how when he was -- during that transition period, that former President Bush was very helpful in providing him with some guidance as he took on this new challenge. Take a listen.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
OBAMA: The months before I took the oath of office were a chaotic time. We knew our economy was in trouble, our fellow Americans were in pain, but we wouldn't know until later just how breathtaking the financial crisis had been. And still, over those two and a half months, in the midst of that crisis, President Bush, his cabinet, his staff, many of you who are here today, went out of your ways -- George, you went out of your way -- to make sure that the transition to a new administration was as seamless as possible.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
LOTHIAN: And it wasn't just official business. President Obama saying that the former President Bush and his wife played a special role in giving them counsel on how to deal -- raise their daughters here in the White House and even the former first daughters gave the current first daughters a lot of advice of how to deal with this time here in the White House and come out on the other end in one piece.
BOLDUAN: Very, very interesting. See, they can all get along when they need to. That's for sure.
LOTHIAN: That's right.
BOLDUAN: Dan, thanks so much. We'll talk to you soon. So if you want a super size soda next year, you may have to avoid New York City. Sorry, folks. Mayor Michael Bloomberg wants to limit the size of carbonated soft drinks. The industry says the mayor has it all wrong, that sodas don't cause obesity. The president of the American Beverage Association joins me next.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
BOLDUAN: Breaking news to bring to you right now. We are hearing that the jury in the John Edwards trial, the corruption trial, has reached a verdict. I want to see if we can go to Greensboro, North Carolina, right away, where our Joe Johns has been there throughout this whole trial and has been waiting there for the eight days of deliberation.
Joe, quick, tell me what you know.
JOE JOHNS, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Hi, Kate.
That's what we know. We are told there has been a verdict reached in this trial. We don't know what that verdict is. We're told we're going to have to wait probably ten, perhaps even 15 minutes before we know what the verdict is. Of course, not guilty, guilty a possibility also. There's clearly a question right now as to whether it's a full verdict, a partial verdict, or what have you. There are six different charges in this indictment. And if you want me to, I'll just go very quickly through them so you know what they are.
BOLDUAN: Yes.
JOHNS: The actual verdict sheet that the jury has gotten starts with charge number two that came out. This is accepting illegal campaign donations in 2007 from a woman named Rachel "Bunny" Mellon. She, of course, is a rich woman from Upperville, Virginia, or just outside of Middleburg for those of you who know that part of the country. And she donated something like $175,000 -- $675,000, maybe even $725,000 to John Edwards. And it was ostensibly for a personal reason. That was a testimony in court. The question, of course, here in this trial is whether it was actually a campaign donation to try to keep the political hopes of John Edwards alive.
The second count is another Rachel "Bunny" Mellon count of more donations in 2008. The third count on this list is a donation from a man named Fred Baron, who was a very rich asbestos lawyer who is from Texas. He died not long after all of this transpired in 2008. He gave quite a sum of money as well. Again, the question about whether these were illegal campaign donations. The next charge is a 2008 charge along the same lines involving Fred Baron.
The charge after that is a false statements charge. This is relating to false statements being made by the Edwards' campaign to the Federal Election Commission. The question, of course, whether John Edwards was responsible for those false statements.
The last one is a conspiracy charge. That sort of sums up everything. That was the first charge in the indictment for all those people who follow legal things that closely. The first charge in the indictment was put all the way down to the bottom of the verdict sheet because the judge thought it would be easier for this jury to sort of figure it out from there.
So, they've been deliberating now for nine days. This is the ninth day of deliberations. Actually something like 17 days of testimony, Kate, 500 exhibits, 31 witnesses. So we've seen a lot of action here over the past couple days and we'll keep you informed when we know what the verdict is and whether they've covered all of the charges or just some of them.
BOLDUAN: And obviously fast-moving developments as you're getting this and bringing it right to us. You said it was 17 days of testimony.
Tell me quickly while we -- what could be happening -- what are we waiting for right now? Are we simply waiting for jurors to get back into the courtroom?
JOHNS: Right.
BOLDUAN: I know we have -- our producer is in the courtroom. What are we -- how long are we - what are we waiting for right now?
Are we simply waiting for jurors to get back into the courtroom? I know our producer is in the courtroom. How long are you anticipating it's going to be before we hear the actual verdict?
JOHNS: Yes, well, the way we heard it was 10 or 15 minutes. That was probably 5 for 7 minutes ago, I would say, and these things tend to take a little bit longer than some people expect.
What's pretty clear though and what we do know is that John Edwards himself walked into the courtroom. I saw him just a little while ago.
Even before that Abbe Lowell, his defense attorney who had been sort of wandering around out here on the plaza I think reading a book, sitting in the shade a little while ago, I saw him walk into the courthouse as well.
I saw Cate Edwards and I believe she came escorting the family, the mother and father of John Edwards who have been throughout the trial. So people have made their way into the courtroom.
The attorneys were given sort of a short leash, 15 minutes or so and you might have to be back here. The other interesting thing I think of note is it started looking like this jury was a little closer to getting some type of resolution around lunchtime.
Normally, during this process essentially what they've done is they've taken a break, they walked out of the jury room and gone over to another part of the courthouse, had lunch, and then returned to deliberations.
Today was different. Today, this jury decided that they would all stay in the jury room, continue their deliberations, sort of a working lunch, if you will, and that is basically what they did.
So they took the hour and not long after that hour, in fact, did we hear them sending a note apparently out to the judge saying we've reached a verdict.
BOLDUAN: OK. Let's do this -- sorry. I was going to say, let's do this. Stick with me real quick, Joe. I want to -- I think we have our legal analyst Paul Callan on the phone. Joe, stick with me. Obviously, we're not going anywhere on this. Paul, are you with me?
PAUL CALLAN, LEGAL ANALYST (via telephone): Yes, I am.
BOLDUAN: Paul, so obviously this is fast-moving developments. We have been waiting as the jury has been deliberating on this for days now. What is your take?
You have been following this closely along with all of our viewers, and we anxiously await the actual verdict. But while we are waiting, what is your take at this point?
CALLAN: Well, it's always difficult to read the tea leaves on jury deliberations, but the usual playbook is fast verdict is an acquittal. When they get into middle time ranges, it's more likely probably to be a prosecution verdict.
When they're out for a very long time, hung jury, sometimes an acquittal, but I think the Edwards' case we have to throw away the playbook because in cases involving politicians, juries have a natural disrespect and distrust of politicians.
And I think sometimes even very weak cases result in convictions where politicians are involved. So I think even though this jury has been out for a very, very long time and a lot of people thought it would be hung or maybe there would be an acquittal, you can't rule out the possibility, of course, that this might be a conviction.
One of the things that I was thinking about when I heard that they had asked to be able to deliberate through lunch was basically if you're going to find somebody not guilty, why do you have to deliberate through lunch?
I mean, you just check off the not guilty boxes and come back to the courtroom. Usually when there's some sort of guilty finding, they're arguing about the details and which count would be the appropriate count.
But this jury has been a tough one to read. You know, they've been appearing in court dressed in odd outfits, at least the alternates have, and a lot of other strange things have been going on so I wouldn't presume to read what they're going to do. That's sort of a general overview of jury deliberations in criminal cases.
BOLDUAN: I want to dig into that a little bit more. Let's take a quick break. Paul, if you could stay with me. We'll get back to Joe Johns who is on the scene in Greensboro, North Carolina. But a quick update, CNN has confirmed that the jury has reached a verdict in the corruption trial of former presidential candidate John Edwards.
We're awaiting that word, what the verdict is. We'll bring it to you live when it comes. Stick with us. We'll be right back.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
BOLDUAN: We are continuing to follow the breaking news that we have learned there has been a verdict reached in the corruption trial of former presidential candidate John Edwards. We are awaiting word on what that verdict is right now.
Our own Joe Johns, he is in the courtroom. We were just speaking with him. He's now in the courtroom awaiting that word as well. I want to bring back in our legal analyst, Paul Callan.
Paul, we were speaking right before we went to the break about how long this jury has been deliberating, and some of the -- I guess we could call them strange things that have been going on in these eight days.
A lot of our viewers may have followed bits and pieces of this may not have been following the day to day. Talk to me a little bit about kind of just a bit of the unique nature of what's been going on the past eight, nine days.
CALLAN: Yes. An awful lot of strange things have gone on during the case, including this group of alternate jurors who would dress with the same color red, gray, yellow every day. They would alternate.
There were claims that one juror was - well, some reporters described her conduct as flirting with John Edwards. Later that reporter withdrew that claim and said that it was just inappropriate eye contact and smiling at John Edwards and that this was inappropriate.
There have been questions propounded to the judge that have caused at least three, four closed session conferences with the lawyers and the judge regarding undisclosed juror problems.
So we're going to hear, I think, a really interesting backstory about what's been going on with that John Edwards' jury during these more than 47 hours deliberations.
BOLDUAN: And that's one of the questions a lot of people have. Will we ever learn what was going on in those closed sessions? They kept popping up and just very unique as we've been following the minutia of these day-to-day deliberations. Will the public ever find out what was going on in those closed sessions?
CALLAN: I think we will know because those question and answer periods were transcribed by court reporters because if there's a conviction in this case, that will be part of the appeal, whether the judge handled these questions regarding juror conduct properly. So that would be a matter of public record. I think we're going to get to see everything that went on. Now, in terms of what went on in the jury room itself, well, that's really up to the jurors.
They can consent to be interviewed by the press and they can reveal everything or they can maintain their privacy and refuse to answer questions.
In my experience in high-profile cases in the past, most jurors certainly do agree to talk to the press, and eventually the truth comes out about what went on during jury deliberations.
BOLDUAN: As we await this verdict, one thing that you hear corruption trial, it sounds kind of straightforward, but when you're dealing with campaign finance laws, this is some pretty dense, tough stuff that these jurors are facing with this trial, right?
CALLAN: Yes. This was an extraordinarily complex, and it's an extraordinarily difficult decision that jurors are grappling with. I think members of the public pretty much if you just are paying casual attention to this trial, you know that, you know, John Edwards had a mistress.
And she became pregnant, and allegedly he used campaign money to hide her from the press, and that's pretty much I think for the public what it's about.
But the jurors are parsing over very difficult questions such as the people who contributed the money, there's a woman named Bunny Mellon who was the major contributor contributing in excess of $700,000 and the claim was she contributed that money for his personal use, not for the campaign use.
A second individual named Fred Barron, who was a leader of the trial lawyers in the United States, and, remember, John Edwards before he became a candidate, was one of the most successful plaintiffs trial lawyers in America, so he had a group of supporters among the trial lawyers.
Barron was contributing money and the Edwards defense was that these funds were not for campaign use and, therefore, no crime was committed. It's a more complex defense because the claim was that Andrew Young, who was one of Mr. Edwards' top campaign advisers, misused the funds and did things with the funds that Mr. Edwards was unaware of so lots of questions that these jurors had to analyze.
BOLDUAN: Lots of questions that they need to analyze. The analysis is not going to end here. It's only just beginning. Paul, let me try to fit in a quick break. We have our team standing by.
Paul Callan is on the phone with me. Joe Johns is in the courtroom in Greensboro. Our senior legal analyst Jeffrey Toobin will be joining us as well as our John King. He's standing by to join us as well.
We're going to fit in a quick break. We'll bring you back more breaking news in a verdict being reached in the John Edwards' corruption trial. Be right back.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
BOLDUAN: We're continuing following the breaking news coming out of Greensboro, North Carolina, where a verdict has been reached in the corruption trial of former senator and former presidential candidate John Edwards.
We've got our team in place. We are awaiting the verdict. Joe Johns, he is in the courtroom ready to bring that when it comes. I have John King standing by with me who can bring a lot of perspective on the man and kind of the fall, if you will.
We also have Jeffrey Toobin, our senior legal analyst. He will be joining me to break it all done as well as CNN producer Ray Lynn Johnson. She has been following this probably closer than most and she'll be bringing a good perspective on that.
I want to first go to John King. John, you know more about this man than probably many people do. Pretty amazing that we're talking about the verdict, kind of his fate, and where he was and could be and where he is today, right?
JOHN KING, CNN CHIEF NATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: It's the fall that you mentioned. In some way it's a tragic Shakespearian drama in the sense that when John Edwards came to Washington, he was the new Democrat from North Carolina, young attractive, a public speaker who won a seat that was held by a very, very conservative Republican.
Democrats took that as not only do we have a young rising star in the party we are making inroads in a state where we have struggled for so, so long. He goes from that, a young senator, to being, because of his appeal, because of his potential to change the map, if you will, he's suddenly his party's vice presidential nominee for John Kerry back in the 2004 election campaign.
And then of course, that made him a leading contender for the Democratic nomination in what turned out to be a field of stars. Hillary Clinton ran for the nomination. The young senator, Barack Obama, who ironically how did Barack Obama become a national figure?
At the very convention that nominated John Edwards to be the vice presidential nominee for the Democratic Party. Not yet Senator Barack Obama gives a keynote speech and then rockets into national stardom.
But when you look at the trajectory of John Edwards, he went up, Kate, his trajectory was up so fast and because of this allegations almost regardless of the verdict, back down to earth, a very humbling ending to the political career of John Edwards.
BOLDUAN: Sorry, John. I'm just hearing we are being told right now in my ear that the jury is entering the room, which we would assume means that we will be getting this verdict very soon, but you said this fall, it is really, really amazing as well as how public it was. The "National Enquirer" and how salacious the details were. I want to quickly move, John, to Jeff Toobin, our senior legal analyst. He's with me in New York.
Because Jeff, I want you to help me kind of break this down. A lot of our viewers have not been following this from the very day-to- day -- from the beginning of this on the day-to-day.
This is actually a pretty complex trial in terms of campaign finance law. Where do you land on where you think the verdict is going to be and kind of what this argument and this verdict really is hinging on?
JEFFREY TOOBIN, CNN SENIOR LEGAL ANALYST: Well, the facts of this case -- what's unusual about this case are that the facts, the core facts of this case, are not really in dispute.
Everybody knows that Bunny Mellon, the Virginia heiress, and Fred Barron, the Texas trial lawyer, gave hundreds of thousands of dollars to support Rielle Hunter who had John Edwards' baby. That's not disputed. Both sides agree on that.
The question really comes down to John Edwards' intent. Was his failure to report those hundreds of thousands of dollars as campaign contributions, was that a criminal act? That's what this case is really about.
Edwards' defense is, I thought this money was to be used for protecting my family, protecting my wife from the truth, deceiving my wife. The prosecution is saying, no, that money was to preserve and sustain the presidential campaign. So Edwards' intent about what that money was for is really what this case is about.
BOLDUAN: Now, let me quick check with the control room. Bear with me, everybody. Is our Joe Johns ready yet? I see him in one of the monitors because I saw him running out of the courtroom. Is he ready yet?
OK, so we'll continue. I know he's miking up -- hold on? OK, I'm going to hold on and wait for Joe Johns to bring this to us. Tell me when he is ready so we can get this verdict right away. Joe johns just ran to the camera coming out of the courtroom. Joe, what do you know?
JOHNS: Right, count three only. They've reached a verdict on count three only. You know, this is a six-count indictment. And that is the only count that they have apparently agreed upon and reached a unanimous verdict.
They didn't deliver that unanimous verdict in the courtroom. The judge instructed them to go back into the jury room and apparently was going to talk over with the lawyers precisely what they're going to do now.
Count three would be one of the -- well, it depends on how they're doing this. If they're looking at the indictment, count three is a count relating to -- is a count relating to Bunny Mellon.
This is one of the two counts that the rich woman from Virginia who gave hundreds of thousands of dollars to John Edwards. The issue, of course, is accepting illegal campaign funds from her.
So that's what we know. I mean, there were five other counts in this indictment that they either still have to work on, and I know Jeffrey Toobin can probably tell you, Kate, better than me.
But I have seen it before in federal cases. Typically if the jury hasn't reached a decision on any of the other charges, at least as to those charges, the judge has the option of issuing what's called an Allen charge.
An instruction to the jury that you need to work a little bit harder. I'm going to send you back to deliberate some more. We have a graphic on that and I can talk to you a little bit or you can ask Jeff Toobin about it if you so desire.
BOLDUAN: Thank you so much. You're doing a great job. If this case wasn't complex and dense in the facts of the case and the fact we're dealing with campaign finance law, it sounds like the verdict is equally as complex and confusing.
We're not quite there yet is the laymen's terms of what I'm gathering. Let me bring in Jeffrey Toobin. Joe, thank you so much for the hassle.
So Jeff, what we know now is that the jury reached a unanimous decision on count three. This is the count dealing with allegedly illegal campaign contributions by Bunny Mellon.
I think it's somewhere in the area of $725,000. But from what I'm gathering, we don't know yet, which way the jury has decided on that. Is that what you're hearing as well?
TOOBIN: Absolutely, yes. No, Joe Johns got right to the point. We don't know whether it's guilty or not guilty and that's obviously what we all want to know. But let me put it simply this is a mess. This is not how trials are supposed to end.
BOLDUAN: For our viewers, how is this a mess? I mean, the verdict is difficult to understand.
TOOBIN: No, I assure you the legal term for this is a mess because juries are supposed to resolve an entire case. They are supposed to reach verdicts on every case -- on every count before them.
Now, if they reach a partial verdict, it is possible for the government to accept the verdict, whatever it may be in that count, and then go back and retrial the defendant on the remaining counts.
But that is a cumbersome, expensive, inconvenient, some people would say unfair way to end a criminal trial. So everyone involved, certainly the judge, wants to get a complete resolution of this case in this trial, not an extended trial.
And what makes the situation particularly messy and difficult to resolve is that often when you have a hung jury, it's a hung jury on all the counts. And that at least you can just sort of start over from scratch.
If you have a partial verdict, that makes retrying the case even more difficult and complicated. It's not to say it's impossible, but it is more difficult for everyone concerned to have a partial verdict than no verdict at all.
Again, I don't want to assume too much, but what most judges would do when informed that, we, the jury, have reached a verdict on one of six counts, the judge would invariably say go back to work.
Keep trying. You know, there are lots of good reasons to resolve this now. And I am certain the judge is not going to just dismiss the jury and say, well, that's all --
BOLDUAN: I will tell you, Jeff, you are essential in understanding a lot of stuff a lot of times, and you are very essential today because I'm going to need you to analyze when this all comes down.
We have some additional information I want to bring to our viewers, that the judge is -- has told -- the judge is taking a five- minute recess, that the defense is asking for a mistrial.
The prosecution though wants the jurors to continue to deliberate. Obviously wants to work more on that. I want to now go back to Joe Johns who was in the courtroom, hustled out, and is now with us from right outside the courtroom in Greensboro, North Carolina. Joe, what are you hearing now?
JOHNS: Right. That was actually what I wanted to tell you. The judge essentially has been asked by the prosecution to send those jurors back into the jury room to try to get resolution on the other five charges.
The defense, of course, has taken a completely different tact. They want to know now what the decision is on the one charge, on that count three, and as to the others, the defense has actually asked the judge to declare a mistrial.
So that is what the judge has to sort of ponder, and if past practice is any indicator, what she does typically is take 5 minutes, sit there and think, and then reach a decision as to what she's going to do next.
But it's pretty clear that this is kind of an unusual situation because they've only got, you know, a decision on one count out of six. The defense is probably feeling pretty good about that even though they don't know what that decision is.
BOLDUAN: Right, and that's a good point especially since they're now in their ninth day of deliberations. Stick with me for a second. I want to head back to our john king who has been following this as well.
John, Jeff Toobin called this in legal terms, this is a mess. One thing I found kind of surprising, I think many court watchers did throughout the trial, is that John Edwards himself did not take the stand.
Rielle Hunter did not take the stand. You'd almost think that John Edwards, him being a well-known attorney himself, would want to take the stand and kind of have his day and his say, right?
KING: He has a very strong lead defense counsel, Abbe Lowell who has handled tough cases, very high profile cases for years. And a lot of people who know John Edwards think, yes, his DNA and his reflexes give me a chance with that jury because that's how he made his name, as trial lawyer, persuading juries to go his way in big cases.
My understanding is that Abbe Lowell made a very persuasive case to John Edwards that the risks would far outweigh the benefits if that were the case. They thought if they argues as Jeff Toobin said, the facts aren't really in dispute.
The question is was the money hush money out of a campaign or was it funnelled through a campaign. Was it about having a viable presidential campaign or just having John Edwards keep this from his family members, specifically his late wife.
And so the legal questions got to the point where I am told that Abbe Lowell said we do not want to put you on the stand that would turn this more into theatre and add more risks to it.
There are very complicated legal questions here. The jury is clearly after nine days of deliberation asking a lot of questions, asking for the exhibits, clearly having a very hard time with this one.
So we look at the legal questions. There's not really a political question here. John Edwards is done. He's done politically, but there's a personal toll. There's a personal toll.
This family, we've seen Cate Edwards going in and out of court every day. There are two other younger children. They have lost their mother and they are going through this.
So from our personal standpoint, you shake your head. There are some people who are asking why did the government prosecute this case because John Edwards has no viability in the future?
There are others say why didn't John Edwards take a plea deal? Again, on that front, the plea deal question. The plea deals put before him I'm told all required some jail time and giving up his law license and he was adamant he wouldn't do that.
BOLDUAN: I think you make a great point about the personal toll. Obviously, we are awaiting to remind our viewers, for more information about the verdict. The judge has taken a five-minute recess here. But we know a verdict at least on one count has been reached. But one thing that often gets lost in kind of the spotlight of a trial and kind of the pomp -- I don't know, the circus around it is the personal toll.
Cate Edwards has not only -- and her siblings have not only lost their mother and seen the down fall of their father, she has endured being in the courtroom with him almost every day.
There was some question if she would even take the stand at one point because she seems to be such a strong voice, if she was going to make the case to kind of save her father.
KING: And there was one day when she left the courtroom quite emotionally when they were getting into testimony about, I believe, I could be wrong about this, but I believe it was about what did Elizabeth Edwards know and when did she know it essentially and Cate Edwards left the courtroom.
I don't pretend to know Cate Edwards . I met her a few times back in the 2004 campaign, perhaps in the 2008 campaign may have encountered her at some early events. I just remember her from very brief encounters at events with her father as a young, much younger woman then than she is today.
With just remarkable poise and a bubbly personality, a very friendly person, someone who was always asking questions about what we did in our business when you met her. She wanted to know about politics and events and the media coverage of politics and the media coverage of politics.
She's a very curious, charming, delightful young lady who is a bit older now and being very loyal to her father in what has to be an incredibly painful experience.
BOLDUAN: All right, John King. Thanks so much, John. I'm sure you have to get ready for your show at some point. But thank you so much for the perspective.
