Return to Transcripts main page

CNN Newsroom

What Happened to Flight 370?; Crisis in Ukraine; Will NSA Leaker Edward Snowden Drop Any Surprises?; Freed from Death Row; Innocent after Death Row?; Winter Storms A Blessing for Farmers

Aired March 09, 2014 - 18:00   ET

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

DEBORAH FEYERICK, CNN ANCHOR: Well, you are in the CNN NEWSROOM. I'm Deborah Feyerick, in for Don Lemon.

This hour, we're fast forwarding to the week ahead. We'll take a look at all the stories we'll be talking about and hearing about this coming week.

Let's begin with our five questions for the week ahead.

First, question one. Where is Malaysia Airlines Flight 307? It is a huge airplane. A Boeing 777 that left Kuala Lumpur Friday afternoon with 239 people onboard. It has not been seen since, more than two full days later.

The airline is dealing with the families of the passengers both in Malaysia and China. But they have little information beyond the incredibly frustrating "we don't know".

Airplanes and ships from several countries including the United States are scanning the water off the Vietnamese coast for any sign of wreckage, any sign of life.

CNN's Jim Clancy is in Kuala Lumpur.

And, Jim, it is more than 48 hours since that plane and all those people vanished. It is dawning a new day, 6:00 a.m. Monday morning. Are investigators finding any kind of clues that could give people hope that they at least know the whereabouts of where this plane may have gone down?

JIM CLANCY, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Clues is exactly the right word, Deborah. As we look at this story and the way that it's evolving, we keep getting clues. There was an oil slick that has been reported in Vietnamese waters. And now, there's word that there's debris that's been spotted. It has been examined right now. They're trying to ascertain is this pieces of wreckage from Flight 370, the Malaysian airliner that was en route to Beijing from right here at Kuala Lumpur International Airport.

The answers thus far have been inconclusive. We've had reports of debris before, but it has not come out to be something that was from the actual airliner. We have other elements of this story that are developing today. At least the airplanes, there'll be about 35 of them, will be in the skies an hour from now. They will be scanning this huge search area in the South China Sea.

In addition, there are some 40 ships involved, including, as you noted, some U.S. vessels as well as U.S. aircraft. The Vietnamese seem to be finding a lot of this because the plane was flying through Vietnamese waters. But yesterday we heard that it might have reversed course. It might have changed course and some of the search areas all the way to the Malacca Straits have been involved now.

So, it's a very expansive search area. But the relatives, the officials here, everyone hoping that somehow, some way, today, they will find a clue -- Deborah.

FEYERICK: And no ping from any black box, correct?

CLANCY: There's no sign of any automatic ping coming from the aircraft should it have gone into the sea.

But, again, this is an expansive area. This is a huge area for them to try to cover. They're trying to take it methodically, painstakingly, and somehow give some relief to the relatives who've lost their loved ones in this. We have been told that they have been advised to brace for the worst.

So, no one is really expecting good news at this point. But many people would like to see some closure. This has become a major mystery.

Back to you, Deborah.

FEYERICK: All right. Jim Clancy for us there, thank you so much.

Moving to question number two. What caused the Boeing 777 to vanish?

Several theories are emerging into why and how the aircraft disappeared. Investigators tell us they're now leaning towards the possibility that the plane broke apart in the air. While there's no concrete evidence of terrorism, CNN's Richard Quest talked earlier about that possibility.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

RICHARD QUEST, CNN CORRESPONDENT (via telephone): We shouldn't be necessarily embarrassed by putting the word "bomb" on the table now, because that is in the milieu. You've even got the CEO of Malaysia Airlines being asked about that. You've got people now quite openly speculating whether or not this could have been a device of some sort.

We're a very long way from making any further conclusions on that. But the evidence of what we know so far, is such. This plane stopped transmitting any information. It disappeared.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

FEYERICK: And the aircraft stopped transmitting any type of information at 35,000 feet. A fact that one aviation expert I spoke to believe indicates that that plane may have simply disintegrated.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

JIM TILMON, AVIATION EXPERT: Trying to make sure that you maintain some kind of contact with the people who can really help you, the ground control people. And you want to keep them advised as much as possible. And then when you consider the fact that you've got radio equipment onboard the airplane that sends information real time, you -- even if you fail to make that call, there would be information going to the ground, letting the ground know that there was a change that was taking place that was not planned before.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

FEYERICK: And counting down, question number three. Who was on that plane? How did at least two people get onboard with stolen passports?

Joining me from Washington with some fresh insight is Rafi Ron, president of New Age Security Solutions. Rafi is the former director of security at Tel Aviv Ben Gurion Airport in Israel.

Rafi, Interpol says that it's examining additional passports that appear suspicious from passengers. Aren't they supposed to see whether passports have been stolen and that the person actually handing in that document is legitimately the owner?

RAFI RON, PRESIDENT, NEW AGE SECURITY SOLUTIONS: There are two aspects to this. One is the integrity of the document, in this case the passport. Right now, we are not very strong on that point because the way we check passports in airports is not extremely technological. And a lot of it is up to the ability of the checker to find any elements of treatment to the document.

But in this case, there's another aspect which is, perhaps, even more worrying, and that is the fact that the two names on those passports were reported already as being stolen documents, stolen passports. And the fact that this information was not used when passengers were screened to board the flight is rather worrying, because a lot of what we do today relies on our ability to identify the passenger correctly.

FEYERICK: Right. And usually they can double-check to see what passports have, indeed, been stolen. But it would also suggest that if those were stolen passports, that the photograph may have also been doctored, no?

RON: That is possible. And this is why some countries, like the U.S., is now printing the doc -- the photo into your passport in a way that cannot be replaced. Why most countries including European countries are still using the old method of taking a photograph and laminating it into your passport. And that surely opens the door for the possibility of replacing the picture.

FEYERICK: Sure. You move the laminate, put in a new picture. Look, we don't know what happened to this plane. We don't know whether there's a possibility it may have been hijacked. But do you think that security needs to now be beefed up at airports around the world, or at least people -- security guards making sure that those passports, you know, are not on some list of stolen passports?

RON: Well, I think that we certainly need to start paying more attention to the real identity of passengers. And that includes running names against lists. We certainly have very long lists of stolen documents that we can identify. And there's always the ability of the officer who does the check to look in the eye and run the short interview when the document is being checked that will support any findings that he may have.

FEYERICK: Sure, which is exactly what we see at so many airports throughout Europe. It may have been a different standard of security at this particular airport.

Rafi Ron, thanks so much. Appreciate it.

RON: You're welcome.

FEYERICK: And this week, NSA leaker Edward Snowden will speak to a U.S. audience for the first time since fleeing the country last year. What will he say? Our five questions for the week ahead continue, right after this.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

FEYERICK: Tensions are skyrocketing in the Ukraine crisis. But so far, weapons have for the most part stayed silent.

Question number four, will the Ukraine crisis erupt into bloodshed? I want to bring in CNN International's Michael Holmes in Kiev, Ukraine, and correspondent Erin McPike in Washington.

Michael, first to you. Will the Ukraine crisis erupt into actual combat as each side gets closer to Crimea's controversial vote on joining the Russian Federation?

MICHAEL HOLMES, CNN INTERNATIONAL ANCHOR AND CORRESPONDENT: Well, no way to know for sure. But everybody, of course, hopes not, Deb.

It's certainly been extremely tense in some areas around Crimea. They're raising questions really about the state of rule of law. I mean, we've heard of pro-Ukrainian protesters being attacked by pro- Russian protesters. And also, no shortage of pictures of roadblocks man by really an odd assortment of people, some of them in uniform, some not, some armed, cars being searched. People really intimidated, having their papers examined, their baggage searched.

This is, while not crossing any international frontier, remember, this is while people are technically traveling around within Ukraine. They're just going to or from Crimea.

So, some very worrying developments in terms of how people are being treated in Crimea and these armed men who seem to be running the show, and very little in the way of official security forces -- Deb.

FEYERICK: All right. Michael Holmes for us. So, Erin, the follow question, this could all hinge on a crucial meeting in D.C. this week. Who is coming in to talk face to face with President Obama?

ERIN MCPIKE, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Well, Deb, the interim prime minister of Ukraine is coming on Wednesday to meet with President Obama. Part of that meeting is simply to legitimize him on a world stage and also especially in the eyes of Russia.

Now, that referendum that you referred to, the interim prime minister of Ukraine has said that is not legitimate. President Obama agrees with him. As do a number of European leaders. And they'll likely talk about how to address that if that vote moves forward and what happens next Sunday.

Now, Ukraine also wants to hold elections in May. President Obama will likely talk about how to implement those elections, carry them out, and the assistance that the United States will provide. Ukraine wants to hold direct talks with Russia. They will talk about how the United States can help facilitate that.

Also, Russian President Vladimir Putin has been speaking with President Obama. Those talks will continue as will the talks between Secretary of State John Kerry and Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov.

And the last thing that the United States will be doing in the next week or so is that legislation has been moving through Congress on potential additional sanctions against Russia. So we'll likely get some more details on that this week, Deb.

FEYERICK: Watching all the borders. Michael Holmes, Erin McPike, thank you so much for us.

And question number five. Will NSA leaker Edward Snowden drop any surprises when he speaks to thousands of people in Texas tomorrow? These are live pictures from Austin, the site of the South by Southwest interactive film and music festival. That's where Snowden is expected to speak via satellite live from Russia.

CNN's Money Tech correspondent Laurie Segall is in Austin.

And, Laurie, who invited Snowden to speak and why?

LAURIE SEGALL, CNNMONEY TECH CORRESPONDENT: You know, the ACLU has partnered with Snowden to put on this talk. It's a pretty big deal, because he hasn't really addressed as many folks as this group of -- this group of people. I mean, this conference is all technologists. So, the people that are going to be in the audience are the people that have been affected very much so by these NSA revelations, who are unhappy. And they're going to have the opportunity to actually ask questions.

You know, one thing he's going to be addressing is how tech can protect people against mass surveillance. I'll say this, Deb. He said before he's only released a little bit of what he's got. So, I can imagine a lot of folks are probably going to ask what else do you have? That's probably going to be a conversation happening here.

FEYERICK: My guess is he's probably not going to tip his hand as far as that goes. But clearly he's got enough that the U.S. government very worried about that. But how can he address questions about how to protect tech privacy when he's sort of -- did the greatest invasion of tech privacy of all times, in a way, stealing all that information?

SEGALL: You know, it's such an interesting question. Now is the opportunity for people to actually ask him those questions. We can have the opportunity to ask those questions. But, you know, one sentiment you really get here at South by Southwest and what's moving the conversation forward and what we're going to be talking about is the fact a lot of folks are very angry at the government for overreaching. A lot of the tech folks on the ground who are building out this technology.

And there's also a bit of a tension that sometimes it seems as though Washington can't keep up with Silicon Valley. There are people, you know, this is the conversation people are having. And this probably, you know, what will be addressed, parts of this will be addressed, when Snowden speaks.

FEYERICK: Yes. Absolutely. Knowing when there's an intruder in your system, clearly of crucial importance to anybody who uses any sort of digital device.

All right. Laurie Segall for us, thanks so much. We appreciate it.

SEGALL: Thank you.

FEYERICK: Well, a big week ahead for Pope Francis. The pontiff will celebrate the one-year anniversary since being elected. What may be in store for year two? We're going to explain that, coming up on the other side.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

FEYERICK: Hello from tomorrow. It's just after midnight in South Africa where in just hours, the trial of Blade Runner Oscar Pistorius resumes in Pretoria. The Olympian is charged with the murder of his girlfriend, model Reeva Steenkamp.

In the week ahead, testimony is expected to shift from witnesses to a series of forensic experts. A judge, not jurors, will determine Pistorius' fate after all the evidence is presented.

Well, it's been a good year for the head of the Catholic Church. This time last year, Pope Francis got the pick for the top job. Since then, unlike some of his predecessors, he has not bought into the richness and the trappings of the papacy. And that has catapulted him into rock star popularity.

On the phone with me now, religion processor Brent Strawn of Emory University.

And, Brent, what are some of the most memorable moments? I mean, I personally love that selfie that he took of himself with some of the people down in St. Peter's Square.

BRENT STRAWN, EMORY UNIVERSITY (via telephone): Yes. He's had quite a year, like you said. And there's a lot of moments that stand out for me. But two that really went viral come to mind. One is the little boy who interrupted him during his talk in Vatican City, you know, going up on stage, hugging his leg, sitting in his chair. Couldn't even get lured off the stage even with candy. That was a great moment.

And the other one, I think, this time last year when the pope went to the Roman prison and washed the feet of 12 inmates on Maundy Thursday. This is something the pope normally does. But that's the first time ever he washed the feet of two women inmates. And one of those was a Serbian Muslim, also a first.

So, these are memorable moments among many. Both of which highlight the pope in his best case scenario in Roman Catholic thought, which is that he is representative of Jesus Christ and very much acting like Jesus Christ in both moments.

FEYERICK: What is so clear, and you see it in his response to that little boy, is the humility and the sort of love that he brings to this work that he's doing. He came from simple beginnings. He worked as a bar bouncer and a janitor before he was a priest.

Do you find him having a much deeper and much different connection to the people that he leads? And how is that impacting this papacy?

STRAWN: Yes. I mean, I think in some ways Pope Francis is not very different from previous popes. He's traditional and conservative on a lot of the hot button issues. And it's important to point out that these things that we like about him, that has drawn all this attention, he's compassionate, humility, his care for the least fortunate, these are also not novel things but classic, traditional markers of Christianity. Not just Catholicism but really Christianity at large.

And I think these are the things that have endeared him to so many people and have really produced what some people call the Francis effect -- you know, this massive improving of the public image of the church, which is drastically needed at this particular moment in light of all these church scandals. And he's done this through these -- these virtues of poverty and humility and compassionate ministry.

I think for me, that shows that a lot can be achieved even by very, very small changes and renewed emphasis on traditional Christian virtues and practices.

FEYERICK: Well, he certainly seems much more approachable, much more relatable. And certainly even the fact that he doesn't have the pope mobile makes him seem much closer to the people.

All right. Brent Strawn, thank you so much.

Well, what would it be like to be on death row? To be told that you're going to die on a certain date? Even worse, what would it be like to be told that knowing that you're innocent? Just ahead I'm going to talk with a man who was on death row. Spent more than half his life in prison for a crime he says he did not commit. Next to him is the woman who saved his life.

We'll tell you why you'll be hearing a lot about them in the week ahead.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

FEYERICK: Now to a story you'll be hearing a lot more about this week. Right now in the U.S., there are more than 3,000 people waiting to be executed. At the same time, there are death row inmates that are being exonerated through DNA testing and other evidence. One of those exonerated inmates is Edward Lee Elmore. He won his freedom at the age of 53, having spent 30 years behind bars for a crime he did not commit. He probably would have been executed had the case not been reviewed by Diana Holt.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REPORTER: A 34-year-old law student named Diana Holt came to the South Carolina death penalty resource center as a summer intern. One of her first assignments was reviewing Elmore's case.

DIANA HOLT, LAWYER: The first time I saw the name, Edward Lee Elmore, I was reading through a transcript.

REPORTER: Diana started having suspicions that Elmore's trials weren't fair. She was troubled that Elmore's defense attorney didn't call any expert witnesses and rarely challenged any of the prosecution's evidence. Diana knew that an incompetent defense was grounds for an appeal.

HOLT: I felt like there was something wrong. I needed to meet Eddie. And give him an eyeball up and down, size him up.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: And who she met wasn't what she expected.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

FEYERICK: Edward and Diana's story will be featured in the first episode of CNN's upcoming series "DEATH ROW STORIES," which premieres tonight at 9:00 Eastern. Well, they join me now from Columbia, South Carolina.

And Diana, I want to start with you. You looked at the evidence and it just simply didn't make sense. There were things that had been overlooked. Tell me what those things were.

DIANA HOLT, FORMER ATTORNEY, SOUTH CAROLINA DEATH PENALTY RESOURCE CENTER: They weren't overlooked. They were never going to look at these things because they decided that Mr. Elmore was guilty on the same day the victim's body was found. The focus was always on what -- how to make the evidence fit such that it was -- pointed to Mr. Elmore.

FEYERICK: And, Edward, you spent 30 years in prison, incarcerated. What kept you going? What did -- what gave you hope?

EDWARD LEE ELMORE, FREED FROM PRISON AFTER 30 YEARS: Well, like I say, Mrs. Holt, she had (INAUDIBLE) I didn't do it, right, so I knew some day, you know, the truth will come out, right? So I just hang on to that. Good lawyers like Mrs. Holt. I made it.

FEYERICK: You certainly seem to be an optimist. There are a lot of people on death row, many of them don't have hope.

But, Diana, you found holes in the case. But there was also a suspect, a potential suspect. Just take a look quickly.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: In order to solve the mystery of who did murder Dorothy Edwards, Diana began looking for alternate suspects. And she found one in the neighbor who discovered the body, James Holloway.

HOLT: I read the testimony of James Holloway, and my head just about spun off of my little spindly neck. I was like, wow.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Holloway had spent an unusually long period of time at the crime scene before calling the police.

HOLT: He goes inside Dorothy Edwards' house. He sees that wall of blood for the first time. But he doesn't call police. He decides that he's going to go to the other side neighbor and get her to come in the house with him. So he's at the closet door again, and he decides to put gloves on. Then he opens the door. And lo and behold, there she was. Really? He put his gloves on before he went to open the door?

(END VIDEO CLIP)

FEYERICK: You know, you think about that, and you just have to wonder, why didn't investigators look at this man originally? Isn't the person who finds the body usually one of the first suspects that's questioned?

HOLT: That's accurate. And in fact, he was the first suspect. But, again, there was no investigation. The -- Mr. Holloway is the one who did -- who laid out all the clues and then fed them to police that same day. And they were -- all the clues were set for a time when he had an alibi instead of when the killing actually occurred, which was the next day when we didn't have an alibi.

FEYERICK: And so, sir, Mr. Elmore, I want to -- I want to conclude with you. You were on death row for decades. There were a lot of people on death row with you. Do you believe that some of them may have gotten a bum deal as well?

ELMORE: Yes. I really do. I mean, there's been a couple of them I met over the years probably have, you know. So you just have to really look at that, you know. Because sometime when they arrest a person, they don't really -- you know, they don't really do a thorough investigation right. Sometime they just want to clear the books or whatever. The person look like he may be, you know, they just go ahead and say, OK, well, you know. But like I say, there have probably been some that probably, you know, were (INAUDIBLE).

FEYERICK: So, Mr. Elmore, you got a second chance at life. Diana Holt, your guardian angel there?

ELMORE: Yes, ma'am.

(LAUGHTER)

HOLT: You better say that.

ELMORE: Yes.

FEYERICK: All right. Well, both of you, Diana Holt, Edward Lee Elmore, thank you so much.

And coming up, a sad truth about a man put to death for killing his kids. New evidence 10 years later has revealed that he may have been innocent. That's next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

FEYERICK: He always maintained that he was innocent. But that didn't prevent Cameron Todd Willingham from being executed in Texas. Found guilty of murdering his three children, Willingham was sentenced to death a year after he was convicted of setting this house fire which killed his three young daughters.

Although the arson investigation was found to be flawed, information from a jailhouse informant sealed Williams' fate. But newly discovered evidence shows the case wasn't as cut and dry as once thought.

Joining me now, Bryce Benjet, an attorney for the Innocence Project, and CNN senior legal analyst and former federal prosecutor Jeffrey Toobin.

Bryce, walk us through the new evidence that you've got.

BRYCE BENJET, STAFF ATTORNEY, THE INNOCENCE PROJECT: YES. We've discovered really three kind of smoking gun documents in this case. The first is a handwritten note that was on the Navarro District Attorney's file that says that this witness who had testified that Willingham confessed was given a deal. It says based on cooperation, Willingham was given a lesser charge.

We have another note typewritten associated with this prosecutor that says the same -- essentially the same thing. That if the prison calls, tell him he got a lesser charge than he testified to. And then finally we have a letter that was written by this same gentleman who had then become a district judge, which appears to have provided inaccurate information about this same incentivized witness.

FEYERICK: So basically the informant cut a deal to lie is what you're saying. BENJET: That's what it said --

FEYERICK: That's what the evidence shows.

BENJET: Absolutely.

FEYERICK: OK. Which is always tricky when you're dealing with an informant because they've got a reason to perhaps make prosecutors happy, to get a better deal for themselves.

Jeff, if this man is found innocent 10 years after he is executed, what does that mean for the justice system? Isn't this sort of at the heart of the death penalty debate?

JEFFREY TOOBIN, CNN SENIOR LEGAL ANALYST: Well, Todd Willingham has been proven innocent already. But anyone who may have read David Grant's famous "New Yorker" story about this has to know that an innocent man was executed.

Now this is icing on the cake, this bad deal. This secret deal that was just uncovered by the Innocence Project. But if you look at this case in full, it's like a Petri dish of everything that can go wrong. You have phony witnesses. You have junk science. The arson science in this case was a total outrage.

So, you know, this is exhibit A when people claim innocent people have never been executed because Cameron Todd Willingham was innocent.

FEYERICK: OK. Well, I want you to hold your thoughts for just a second. We've got so much to talk about. This Willingham case sparked protests, political debate and even an award-winning documentary. And in 2009 CNN's Randi Kaye sat down with the defense attorney who represented Willingham in his 1992 trial. He remained even after all the doubts, all the questions, that his client was in fact guilty of murdering his own kid.

Take a listen.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

RANDI KAYE, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): Cameron Todd Willingham charged with arson homicide for a fire that took the lives of his three little girls was facing a death sentence. He was counting on this man to save him.

(On camera): Did you think Todd Willingham was guilty?

DAVID MARTIN, WILLINGHAM DEFENSE ATTORNEY: After I had seen all of the evidence, it was overwhelming that he was guilty.

KAYE (voice-over): David Martin was one of Willingham's court- appointed defense lawyers at his 1992 trial. So "Keeping them Honest," what exactly did Martin do to defend Willingham?

(On camera): The prosecution had two arson investigators on the stand to prove that Willingham was guilty. Did you have an expert testify? MARTIN: We couldn't find one who said that it wasn't arson.

KAYE (voice-over): Couldn't find one, but since the trial, nine -- that's right -- nine different arson experts have concluded the fire was not arson.

(On camera): What evidence did you present to help defend Willingham?

MARTIN: What evidence would you have to present? The witnesses were dead, the kids. Every time you cross-examine a witness, you're presenting evidence.

KAYE (voice-over): Martin says he did his best, but admits he believed the prosecutor's experts, who said they found patterns on the floor indicating an accelerant had been poured. But again, nine leading forensic experts since have said those patterns were not the result of an accelerant.

And what about this? One of the jurors told us she had alerted both the prosecution and the defense that her family was friendly with deputy fire marshal, Doug Fogg, whose testimony helped send Willingham to death row.

(On camera): Today, would that be cause for a mistrial?

MARTIN: No.

KAYE: Not a conflict of interest?

MARTIN: In a small town like Corsicana, lots of people knew Doug Fogg. Almost everybody knew Doug Fogg. And I don't remember the details about the jury selection, don't know why she was stricken. But so what? Let's say, say, OK, she was friends with Doug Fogg.

KAYE: So what?

MARTIN: So what? Look at the evidence that was presented at trial. Would any reasonable mind conclude, after the presentation of the evidence, that he was not guilty?

KAYE: She now has doubts and doesn't sleep at night. And she wonders if Todd Willingham really was guilty.

MARTIN: She need have no doubts in my mind. He really was guilty. And it doesn't matter how many people talk about it, the evidence is irrefutable.

KAYE: You sound like the prosecutor, not the defense lawyer.

MARTIN: What is it that people expect the defense lawyer to do? I've said this before, just go in there and swallow the story? No.

KAYE (voice-over): Randi Kaye, CNN, Austin, Texas.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

FEYERICK: And you heard it. Even Willingham's own defense attorney believed that he was guilty.

Next, more from my guests and what this possible exoneration means for others who are sitting on death row.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

FEYERICK: In the coming weeks, the family of Cameron Todd Willingham hopes that there will be good news. It has been 10 years since Willingham was executed and newly found evidence in his case may make him the first person to be exonerated after death. This case was heard in Texas.

Back with me, Bryce Benjet, an attorney for the Innocence Project, and CNN's senior legal analyst and former federal prosecutor Jeffrey Toobin.

Before the break we heard Willingham's own attorney still insist that his client was guilty. That aside, isn't a defense attorney supposed to mount the best possible case to get their client off? You have a lot of defense attorneys there. They can't all believe that their clients are innocent. But isn't it incumbent upon them to give them the right kind of trial to at least attempt to get them off? Jeff?

TOOBIN: Sure. I mean, they are -- every defendant is entitled to zealous advocacy. You know, you can argue about how zealous the defense was in this case. But what's really important is how bad the evidence was in this case. You know, combining two of the worst kind of evidence that you can present. One is so-called jailhouse confessions, which are notoriously unreliable. And now we know there was a secret deal.

But also since the advent of DNA evidence, the other kinds of so- called forensic science is often junk science. And the arson investigators here were peddling junk science to the jury. And that's why Todd Willingham died.

FEYERICK: So is it the jury's fault, then? Is it that -- or is it the prosecution for basically throwing something in front of the jury that seemed legitimate that, in fact, had no legitimacy, Bryce?

BENJET: I think you have to look at the era and the place where this was tried. I don't think anybody in that county believed that this arson testimony was false. We've had years of lawyers and scientists looking at this. We've had an incredible support by a large law firm Schulte Roth & Zabel, a great team of volunteer lawyers in Texas working on this, and we've discovered that this evidence was actually false. And now we've discovered that document showing that the corroboration was also false.

FEYERICK: The one thing that I do want to point out is, look, not everybody on death row is innocent. There's got to be some threshold that you look at to say, we need to review this case. It doesn't make sense. There's at least some possibility that this person did not commit the crime. So I don't want to lump everybody together and make it appear that, you know, everybody who's on death row has a legitimate argument why they shouldn't be on death row. TOOBIN: Well, they might have a legitimate argument that they shouldn't be on death row even if they are guilty. I mean, as far as I can tell, the vast majority of people on death row are guilty of the crimes for which they're charged. But if they -- but that doesn't answer the question of whether they should be executed.

Are they the worst of the worst? Did they get the kind of representation in the penalty phase of their case that they should have? So, you know, it's one thing to say people are guilty, as certainly most are. But it's a very different question to say they should be executed because that threshold should be considerably higher.

FEYERICK: And there's also the issue, obviously, about mental illness because a number of people on death row are also mentally ill. Is that a just system?

Talk about the Willingham case a little bit more. In terms of this -- this confession, did the prosecution, did they just go into it guns blazing to make sure that this outcome was the outcome that they wanted from the very beginning? Did they stop for a moment to question what the motive of a father in killing three children could possibly be?

BENJET: I think that there's always this risk that that kind of thing will happen. That a prosecutor is convinced of a defendant's guilt and does whatever it takes to get the conviction. In this case, we're not sure what happened. And that's why we're asking for an investigation.

This has been now 10 years after the execution. And there are very basic questions that have not been answered. And we're asking the Board of Pardons and Paroles in Texas, Governor Perry, to take another look because the information provided to them at the time we now know was just not accurate.

TOOBIN: You know, the sad truth is, when children die, when family members die, parents are always the top suspect. Now we don't ever want to believe that, but that -- that's just the truth. And so I don't -- I don't fault the prosecutors for looking at Willingham as a suspect. But the problem with being a prosecutor can be, you start to become committed to your own case and don't want to be dissuaded when there's contradictory evidence. That's the real risk in being a prosecutor.

FEYERICK: Well, I've been around a lot of lawyers. Sometimes I feel that there's always sort of a black and white argument to their case. That it's either all one way or all the other. This whole sense of nuance -- and, Jeff, you and I have covered a lot of cases together. You know, we've sat there when we think it's going one way and then it goes the other way. It's fascinating to watch. And you can't ever really know which goes not to the question of guilt, but to perhaps the --

TOOBIN: Well, this is the great contribution that the Innocence Project has made because -- DNA evidence is scientifically valid evidence. So we do -- you can know. You can know if semen found at the scene comes from one person or not from that person. You can know blood, skin, hair. And what that proves is what so much else that we have supposedly relied on, hair and fiber evidence, ballistic evidence, arson evidence, is lousy. So, I mean, there are black and white cases. And unfortunately they often are --

(CROSSTALK)

FEYERICK: And that's what Innocence Project does.

TOOBIN: Turn out the wrong way.

FEYERICK: And just so we know, because there are thousands on death row, but, Bryce, how many people has the Innocence Project been able to get off of death row because there was evidence that just suggested they didn't do the crime?

BENJET: I don't have the exact number of death row. There have been 312 DNA exonerations in this country since we've been doing forensic testing. The Innocence Project has been involved in roughly half of those. And again, when you look at questions about innocence, truth is often stranger than fiction. And the validity and the strength of DNA is that it's science. And we can find out the answers.

FEYERICK: Yes. No question.

TOOBIN: And jurors have been more reluctant to impose the death penalty in recent years. The death penalty is going down. In large part, I think, because they are worried about sentencing the wrong people to death because of the --

FEYERICK: The death penalty is so controversial that now even drug manufacturers that have been providing the drugs have basically said they're not going to provide it if used for lethal injection.

Bryce Benjet, Jeffrey Toobin, thank you so much. We appreciate all your insights on this very interesting story. Thank you.

BENJET: Thank you.

FEYERICK: Well, a program note. Don't miss the premiere of CNN's original series "DEATH ROW STORIES" tonight 9:00 Eastern and Pacific right here on CNN.

And coming up at the top of the hour, we're digging into the disappearance of a Malaysia Airlines passenger plane and the two people who were on the plane with stolen passports.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

FEYERICK: As we get out from under the snow storm, CNN's Tom Foreman takes us on an "American Journey" that shows how the snow melt is turning into a blessing for America's farmers.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE) TOM FOREMAN, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): Through all the bitter cold and blowing snow, through the misery and madness, the long- running winter has brought long awaited water. And the head of the Maryland Farm Bureau, Chuck Fry, says after some dry years, that's a big relief.

CHUCK FRY, MARYLAND FARM BUREAU: Whether it's a dairy farmer on the East Coast, whether you live in D.C. or wherever you live, your food comes from a farm and it's all hedged upon that water.

FOREMAN (on camera): Winter water counts.

FRY: Absolutely counts.

FOREMAN (voice-over): As a rule, every 20 inches of snow will melt into just one inch of water and that may not seem like much. But a year ago, well over half the country was in drought conditions. Now the dry spots are down to around 35 percent and that's mainly in the west, places like California.

BRIAN FUCHS, NATIONAL DROUGHT MITIGATION CENTER: They are not going to even get to normal by the time their wet season ends later this spring.

FOREMAN (on camera): In simple terms, it comes down to this, with enough snow and enough rain, a farm like this can more than double its output of corn and soybeans and so much else.

(Voice-over): So, as Jon Sewell prepares for planting --

JON SEWELL, FARMER: I hope it does this in the summertime. Not snow but precipitation.

FOREMAN (on camera): If this keeps up?

SEWELL: Yes. If this keeps up, that would be fantastic. That's all we hoped for.

FOREMAN (voice-over): High hopes amid the high waters that winter is leaving behind.

Tom Foreman, CNN, Tuscarora, Maryland.

(END VIDEO CLIP)