Return to Transcripts main page

Jane Velez-Mitchell

Did Dad Kill Drunk Driver for Revenge?

Aired August 28, 2014 - 19:00   ET

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

JOEY JACKSON, HOST: Tonight, breaking news in an unbelievable case. In a jaw-dropping decision, a Texas jury finds a father accused of

murdering the drunk driver who killed his two precious young sons in a car accident not guilty. Now that`s even though the victim was shot in the

head and still in the driver seat at the accident site. So this grieving father, did he get away with murder?

A pleasant good evening to you. I`m Joey Jackson, filling in for my good friend, Jane Velez-Mitchell.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: A Texas jury has found the father not guilty in the shooting death of the drunk driver who killed his two sons.

DAVIS BARAJAS, CLEARED OF MURDER CHARGES: (UNINTELLIGIBLE) my life.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: The three were pushing it down the road when a drunk driver slammed into the boys, killing them both. That night in the

darkness, he was shot and killed inside of his car.

JEFFREY TOOBIN, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: What the defense did in this case, which I think was very clever, was they didn`t exactly say he had it

coming, he deserved it.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

JACKSON: Thirty-two-year-old David Barajas was charged with murder. Now, that`s after cops say that Barajas, in a fit of rage, shot the alleged

drunk driver dead after the driver plowed into and killed his two young boys.

Now, police say that it all started when the allegedly drunk driver -- that`s 20-year-old Jose Banda -- drove his car right into the boys while

they were pushing their father`s truck down a road. Prosecutors claim that Barajas ran between 50 and 100 yards up the road to his home, grabbed the

gun, put a bullet in it, and then you know what? He put a bullet in the drunk driver`s head. And it was all for revenge.

But the defense, well, they made this a whodunit case, claiming it wasn`t Barajas who fired the deadly shot. And no witnesses actually saw

the grieving father with a gun. What`s more, police never found the murder weapon. Nor was gunshot residue anywhere on Barajas`s hands. The jury

believed the defense and set him free.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

BARAJAS: I have a weight lifted off my back. I`ll still destroyed. I`m missing my sons. Always and forever.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

JACKSON: Call me at 1-877-JVM-SAYS. That`s 1-877-586-7297. We want to hear from you.

And please join the conversation by going to our Facebook page or by simply tweeting us throughout the show. We look forward to it.

Now let`s go straight out to the Lion`s Den. I have to ask you. Great Lion`s Den there. Looking at all the circumstantial evidence here in

this case, most people would believe that the father did it and would be guilty. So the big question is, did the jury get it right?

I got to go straight out to you, Eric Guster.

ERIC GUSTER, ATTORNEY: The jury probably did not get it right, based upon the facts, but the issue is about evidence, Joey. You know, in this

type of case, you have to put in evidence in order to prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt. And when you have a case where there`s -- there

are no physical evidence, there are no witnesses, there is nothing to tie him to it except the accident, that`s simply not enough, especially with

the sophisticated jurors that we have today. They want hard, concrete evidence, and they simply didn`t have it.

JACKSON: So Mark Harrold, former police officer, Eric raises a good point. Right? The prosecution needs the evidence. What went wrong here?

Was it in the investigation? Did they have the evidence? Was it a too overly sympathetic jury? What happened?

MARK HARROLD, FORMER POLICE OFFICER: Well, I think there may have been elements of nullification here. But basically, I think the

circumstantial nature of the case may have allowed the jury in good conscience to go where they wanted to go. You know, it was all

circumstantial. There really wasn`t a witness. There wasn`t a witness. There was no gunshot residue. They didn`t find the weapon, even though

they did find a holster and other evidence that he had that type of weapon that ballistics would have matched up if they`d found the weapon.

But yes, I agree. I think this probably came down to burden. I think the defense did a good job and weighed heavily on burden. There were

probably jurors who believe he did it or think he very well may have done it, given the likelihood of somebody else coming out there in that short

proximity or duration of time. But the jury, I think they may have wanted to go this way, and since it was circumstantial they felt that they could.

JACKSON: Mo Ivory, attorney and radio personality. Circumstantial evidence notwithstanding, Harrold`s point, which is a good one, is

evidence. And if the circumstances and the motive points to you, what then happens? And how and where did the jury go wrong, if you believe they did

at all?

MO IVORY, ATTORNEY/RADIO PERSONALITY: Well, I don`t necessarily think the jury went wrong. But I think that, as I watch this case, I really did

not feel that the prosecution put on a case that was strong enough.

But what I always say when we talk about any jury, is that juries are made up of human beings. So no matter how much we want to believe that,

"Oh, it`s only the hard evidence they`re going to look at," we just know that not to be true.

So I think in this case, that even if there had been the hard evidence, which there was not, I think there still would have been jurors

that would have been reeling for this father, would have been reeling for these children and, at the end of the day, they are human beings making a

vote.

JACKSON: Point well made.

So even after the verdict, the prosecution stood by that case. They said, "You know what? We put the right guy on trial."

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

JERI YENNE, BRAZORIA COUNTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY: I would never proceed on a case on someone that I believed to be factually innocent.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

JACKSON: But was the case just too circumstantial? Now let`s review the evidence here. There was no witness that ever saw Barajas with the

gun. The gunshot residue test done on Barajas, it came back negative. No gun was ever found. Barajas`s blood, which was found in the victim`s car,

was explained away by the defense. And the defense claim that the victim`s cousin or half-brother did it.

So was there just not enough solid evidence, Kent Zimmerman?

KENT ZIMMERMAN, ATTORNEY: I think the defense did a great job in this case. Listen, under our system, as you know Joey, you are innocent until

proven guilty, as you said. This is a jury of his peers. His peers, as Mo pointed out, have sympathy. They understood what he went through, and it

was easy, the way the defense put on their case, to put reasonable doubt in the prosecution`s case.

It certainly didn`t help, as you pointed out, No gun powder residue. It really isn`t surprising to me the jury acted had way hay did. I

personally think, based on the facts that were presented, based on the law in our system, the jury got it right.

JACKSON: Well, Kent Zimmerman, we have Dr. Dion Metzger.

And you know what, Doc? I have to ask you. Take us through the psychology of this whole scenario. Was this jury connecting with the

father who had lost a 12-year-old, an 11-year-old boy? And was that something you think they took into consideration when they came back and

said, "Not guilty."

DR. DION METZGER, PSYCHOLOGIST: Well, it`s possible. Like Mo said, they`re humans on the jury, especially if you have parents who can

sympathize with the trauma of losing not even one child but two child -- two children. I mean, so it`s possible that could have, you know, taken

into account how they came up with the decision. But we truly can`t know.

But just to deal with such a severe trauma as both a victim of seeing it and also a jury to decide the verdict, it`s very difficult for

everybody.

JACKSON: Dr. Metzger, it certainly is.

Now prosecutors had very few suspects in this case. Listen to this.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

YENNE: We knew going in that a circumstantial evidence case was tough. We know the emotion attached to it. We`re all human. But I

believe the sheriff`s department did a thorough investigation with the facts as they had. And we needed to bring it before a jury.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

JACKSON: So Jose Banda`s cousin and half-brother both witnessed the crash. The defense claimed that they attacked his client, and they also

suggested that one of them might have shot Jose.

Both the cousin and half-brother told investigators that they fled the scene, but is it possible that one of them shot Banda or that the shooter

was someone else? And you know what that would mean? That the real shooter is on the loose? Are you buying that, Eric Guster?

GUSTER: Not really. However, you have to look at the total set of circumstances in this type of case. You have the sympathy factor, where

this man lost both of his children because this other man was a drunk driver.

And everyone has the type of emotions that are tied to this type of situation. Because we always say, "What would you do if something happened

to your family like this?" And a lot of people would act out on revenge, and a lot of people want to forgive revengeful acts from someone protecting

what they believe is their family.

LEMON: You know, it`s a very good point, Mo Ivory, that`s made, you know, by Eric Guster. But in the final analysis, it`s about reasonable

doubt, right?

And I look at this case, and at first moment I say, you know, "This is jury nullification." We all know what that means, right, Mo? It`s

clemency. It`s the fact that a jury is going to say, "We`re going to pardon you because we relate to you."

But I really feel that there was some kind of circumstantial evidence, and since it was only circumstantial evidence, there was a lot lacking;

there was a lot of doubt in this case. You don`t have any eyewitnesses. You don`t have anything that -- a gun that was found in the case. You

don`t have a firm connection of someone to say, "He did it and I saw him." That must have played big too. Do you think?

IVORY: Oh, absolutely. Listen, this is one of those cases where everybody sort of comfortably goes to sleep at night. Because it`s like,

when it first started, you`re thinking, "Well, if I was a parent and watched my two children get smashed by a drunk driver, I`d want to kill

them myself." I don`t think there`s any parent that wouldn`t think that.

But then the lawyer in you or the legal system that we follow says, "Well, everybody has a right to due process and is innocent before found

guilty."

So it`s really like the case didn`t have enough evidence to send him away. And then we were happy that if, maybe the jurors had some sympathy,

well OK. Because it worked out just fine.

It`s one of those rare cases where we get to say, "Well, the prosecution didn`t do the greatest job. They didn`t prove it beyond a

reasonable doubt. And you know what? We`re OK with that."

JACKSON: Absolutely.

And Kent Zimmerman, if I could ask you, though, it relates to motive. Let`s look at motive. And I know you don`t have to prove motive, Kent.

But in the final analysis, who would have done it? Who has the motivation? Who would actually do this thing but a father who`s grieving and upset?

ZIMMERMAN: Listen, it`s easy to point to the father, but the reality is, as the defendant, it`s not his job to figure who did it. He just has

to prove the reasonable doubt, as you pointed out. That`s the key thing.

Who else could have done it? The answer is we don`t really know, but that`s not the defendant`s job. It could have been a lot of people for a

lot of reasons that we`re not aware of.

JACKSON: And there n lies the problem. It`s not the defendant`s job. It`s the prosecution`s job. And you have to know at home...

ZIMMERMAN: Exactly.

JACKSON: ... that we`re just getting started. All right? On this case we want to know kid the dad get away with murder? Did that jury

connect with him because he lost his son? Was it about revenge or was it about something else? We`re going to let you know. More with the Lion`s

Den when we return.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: A witness testified he saw Barajas leave the scene, come back a few minutes later, then put his head inside Banda`s car.

He described hearing a gunshot, but nobody saw the actual shooting. No gun was ever found. The defense argued it was someone else who killed Jose

Banda.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

BARAJAS: There was a lot of photos that I wanted the jury to see of me and my children at the accident, and the state was one-sided about it

and didn`t let the jury see none of that. They got to see Banda, but nobody got to see what I seen that night.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

JACKSON: Now Jose Banda`s murder, well, it happened about 30 miles south of Houston in Texas in a small town called Alvin. Barajas`s friends

and family, they packed that courthouse to show a lot of support.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Already losing half of your life and then accusing a man of doing something that they`re only speculating is not

right. It`s not fair.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

JACKSON: The big question is do you think the jury gave this grieving father, who just lost two precious sons, 12 and 11, the benefit of the

doubt? It makes you wonder, especially given public attitudes about drunk drivers. And remember that this driver was driving at over twice the legal

limit, and he was driving recklessly enough to cause the debt of two children.

So I go back to you and our psychiatrist on the panel, Dr. Dion Metzger. If I could ask you, what role again does this play in terms of a

jury`s thinking? And then I want to ask you a follow-up about the two families, Doctor.

METZGER: Sure. It definitely plays a role. You know, witnessing the death of a child is one of the most traumatic things that you can go

through. And to witness the death of both of your children, you can imagine it`s just -- it`s like you can`t even -- you can`t even quantify

it. That`s how much trauma it is. So I definitely think it plays a role with the jury.

JACKSON: And you know what, Doctor? It`s also about relatability, right?

METZGER: Right.

JACKSON: Because if you think about it, I mean, we can connect with that. And we have very little sympathy for people who drive drunk and who

wreak this kind of havoc.

METZGER: Definitely.

JACKSON: Right?

And if I could just pivot by asking you this question. What about the families now? It seems as though -- I know we talk about the issue about

closure. It seems as though no one really has closure here. Would they ever get it?

METZGER: That`s difficult to say, because everybody grieves differently, and it may take longer for some than others.

One thing that I noticed that he had mentioned is that there`s a death of, really, three sons here. Not just the two that were killed in the

accident but also the death of the driver.

So it`s closure. But everybody gets closure at different times. And some never truly get over that grief of the loss of a child.

JACKSON: Absolutely. You figure, you know, there`s a 12-year-old dead, Doctor. There`s an 11-year-old dead. Of course, the 20-year-old who

caused this, he`s dead.

Let me go to you. Mark Harrold, you`re a former police officer. A lot in this case happens to deal with police reports. Apparently, there

were some omissions of police reports concerning gunshots that were fired. There was evidence that was left out of police reports.

How does this help or hurt the prosecution when you try to get a conviction? We have to rely, Mark, on police.

HARROLD: Well, absolutely. I mean, if the investigation`s not airtight in a case like this.

Look, I agree with what everybody is saying. The burden was pretty high here. You know, beyond a reasonable doubt, reasonable is pretty

fluid. Different juries hold you to different standards.

In this case the victim here, most people saw the defendant as the victim more than the victim of the crime itself. So any -- any holes in

the defense, I think the defense did a good job. But you know, a lot of this comes down to the evidence, the chain of custody, what`s admissible,

the chronology, all sorts of things.

And when they find that the police investigation, if it wasn`t as tight as it was or they`re able to point out inconsistencies, it gives a

jury like this that seems highly sympathetic, even more reason to say, "We can find reasonable" or "We can -- reasonable doubt hasn`t been proven

here."

JACKSON: Absolutely. But Mo Ivory, I have to go back to the issue of motive, which I was talking about Kent with earlier. I understand that

cases are about facts. They`re about evidence. They`re about what happened here. But doesn`t motive play a role? If it wasn`t him, who else

would have had the motivation to do this? Doesn`t that alone assist the prosecution?

IVORY: Well, sure. I guess that assists the prosecution in saying it wouldn`t make -- building the story, sort of like. It doesn`t make any

sense that it could have been somebody else, right?

So trying to make a foundation with the jury that there is no doubt here. How -- how on earth could somebody else have come out of the woods

or come out on the road and been a part of this whole scenario?

JACKSON: Exactly.

IVORY: Yes. And that would be an argument that a prosecutor would, you know, obviously try to put forward.

But it didn`t work in this case. Even if they used part of that, which they didn`t really use that as most of their case. It just didn`t

line up in this case. There just wasn`t enough evidence. There just -- everything was just -- it had so many holes.

And then you cannot ignore the human factor that went into this. So while motive in other cases might have been exactly a proper use by the

prosecution, it didn`t seem to play too much in this. Nor did the prosecution use it in that way.

JACKSON: And therein lies the issue. And it`s always about that human element, Mo. At the end of the day, as you mentioned, jurors are

people. And as a result of that, they can sympathize. The emotion comes into it, notwithstanding the facts.

I want to talk a lot about this. Because you know what? This obviously is a very sad case. And both families have lost sons. Listen to

this.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: None of this makes sense. None of it. You know, I pray for the other family. I know that they lost. You know, we`ve

all lost here.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

JACKSON: And both have lost, and they have lost a lot. But the question then becomes, can Jose`s family still get justice?

Now you remember O.J. Simpson was famously found not guilty of the murders of his ex-wife, Nicole Brown Simpson, and Ronald Goldman. But

Goldman`s family sued O.J., and he was found liable for wrongful death of both of them, Nicole Brown and Ronald Goldman, and he was ordered to pay

over $30 million in damages.

Now of course, this is not the O.J. case. We get and understand it. But it demonstrates a very important principle. And that is that you could

be found not guilty criminally, yet still be held responsible in civil court, Kent Zimmerman. Can you not?

ZIMMERMAN: Absolutely. And the burden of proof in a civil case is going to be lower, easier to get a conviction. There`s a preponderance of

the evidence instead of beyond a reasonable doubt. So it`s entirely possible there could be a civil case. It`s possible they could get a

conviction because of the lower burden, and it`s entirely possible that the victim`s family could get money damages as a result of this. That`s

entirely possible.

JACKSON: Absolutely. Do we have Susan from Illinois?

CALLER: We do.

JACKSON: Can we have Susan from Illinois? Welcome to the show. What do you have to say?

CALLER: Well, first I want to say, if he did it, he did get away with murder. But I understand the torment that he has to go through every day

of his life for the rest of his life. But my question is, was there a rush for justice? Because now you have double jeopardy.

JACKSON: This is true. You have double jeopardy, and we know, Eric Guster, what double jeopardy means. Right? You cannot be charged for the

same offense twice.

But I think the caller, you know, raises a good point. But double jeopardy, Eric, doesn`t apply when you talk about a civil case and a

criminal case, does it?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Exactly.

GUSTER: Absolutely. Because double jeopardy does not apply in a civil case, because this man will be sued. Actually, both estates would be

sued, the driver of the car and the dad who was accused of shooting him. Because although they don`t have enough for a criminal conviction, just

like what was stated earlier, they may have enough for a civil case to proceed.

So I believe there`s a big chance that both families would sue each other, based upon the different deaths. And it comes down to who had

insurance and who can pay the judgment at that point.

JACKSON: I can`t wait to talk about that with you, Eric and the rest of the Lion`s Den. A lot more on this story. Now did he get away with

murder? Or did the jury make the right call? More of that discussion when we return.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: In December 2012, Barajas and his sons, 12-year- old David Jr. and 11-year-old Caleb, were on an unlit road in Alvin, Texas, where their truck had run out of gas. The three were pushing it down the

road when a drunken driver slammed into the boys, killing them both. Twenty-year-old Jose Banda would never be arrested. Instead, that night,

in the darkness, he was shot and killed inside of his car.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

YENNE: I would never proceed on a case on someone that I believed to be factually innocent.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

JACKSON: The big question: Did this father get away with murder? Was it that the jury was able to connect with him, relate to him, as a result

of losing a 12- and 11-year-old, young precious boys, to a drunk driver?

I`m getting back to the Lion`s Den to continue our discussion. But before we get to the Lion`s Den, I`ve got to get to Ronnie in Alabama. Go

ahead, Ronnie. What`s your question?

CALLER: Yes, good evening. I`d just like to say, look, I enjoy the show. I watch it when I can.

I believe that justice is served. I believe that -- that the victim put his self in his own situation there. He had a choice whether to drink

and drive and get behind the wheel and all. And the father losing his children like that. I feel like justice was served. If I`d been on the

jury my mind would have done been made up.

JACKSON: Aha, for Ronnie, he raises a great point, Lion`s Den. He speaks to the issue, right, of a juror who`s out there evaluating it. But

I ask is this not vigilante justice, Kent Zimmerman?

ZIMMERMAN: I -- well, if that`s what happened, I would say think it`s vigilante justice. Listen, it`s about reasonable doubt, as you pointed

out. Is there reasonable doubt in the prosecution`s case? And if there is, he should get off.

Should it be about your personal emotions, your sympathies? Listen, it`s normal, it`s human to have sympathies. It`s a horrible thing what

this father went through, losing two kids, but that`s not why he should be acquitted.

You know, and when you`re picking a jury, Joey, when you`re picking a jury, you know that you always are trying to make sure, "Listen, you`re not

going to let me your personal emotions get in the way of how you decide the case." It shouldn`t be about personal emotions. It should be about

reasonable doubt, but I agree it`s natural to have emotions.

JACKSON: We try to do that, Kent. It doesn`t always work that way. Right.

IVORY: Joey, it`s...

ZIMMERMAN: I agree. Completely agree.

JACKSON: Is that Mo?

IVORY: Yes, Joey. Yes. If we could ever find a formula for being able to pick jurors and know for sure that emotion wasn`t going to be

involved. How many times...

JACKSON: Can you tell me if you do, Mo?

IVORY: Yes, absolutely. I`d like to have the patent on that.

But, you know, how many times have we seen a jury make a decision, and everybody is, you know, "Oh, my goodness. I can`t believe it."

And then they interview a juror later, who says, "I didn`t even want to vote that way."

JACKSON: It`s so true.

IVORY: "I felt pressure. I didn`t know what to do."

Of course, we know that emotion plays into it. And it sometimes works out for us when emotion plays into it, and then other times it doesn`t work

so well.

JACKSON: You better believe it.

IVORY: And unfortunately, that`s our justice system.

JACKSON: It is indeed. Dr. Metzger, if I can ask you...

METZGER: Sure.

JACKSON: ... regarding this whole case. Listen, the family, there may be civil litigation. You heard us talking about that. A wrongful

death action. How does a family who lost a 12-year-old and 11-year-old get by this, if they can. And then the other family, who lost their 20-year-

old, take us through that whole process.

DR. DION METZGER, PSYCHIATRIST: It`s difficult whichever way you look at it. And to think -- also going through a trial again, if this were to

go to a civil suit -- that is another like stressful event that they`d have to go through in addition to the grief that they are already suffering.

JACKSON: Absolutely. And then it becomes problematic. And so in the final analysis, Eric Guster, do you think that they get the civil lawsuit?

And do you think either side prevails?

ERIC GUSTER, CRIMINAL DEFENSE ATTORNEY: I believe both sides can easily prevail in this type of case. Based upon the evidence that they

will put forward, I believe that both will actually settle.

(CROSSTALK)

JACKSON: Well you know what, Eric -- we`re certainly going to find out. When we come up, when we get back to you -- we`re done with this

case, we`re moving on.

There is a nine-year-old boy and he was stabbed to death. The killer you are going to learn was 12-year-old himself. He was only 12. Now, did

years of horrendous abuse drive him to kill? And did that result in the murder?

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: It is a tragedy that shakes a community; one that leaves people with more questions than answers.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I still have to figure how to break it to my children that they lost a friend. It`s -- I don`t know. How do you tell

another eight-year-old little kid that their friend is no longer because of a stupid decision of another child?

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: The nine-year-old victim stabbed at least once in the back with a kitchen knife.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: He was calling 911 to say "I stabbed someone please pick me up and I`d like to end my life."

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: It appears as if the two do not know each other.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: The family is in shock.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I thank you from the bottom of my broken heart right now.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: His little brother carried his broken body home from the playground.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: If I die this is not your fault. I love you.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: If anything happens to me, it is not your fault.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

JACKSON: Did a horrific life of abuse turn a 12-year-old into a killer? Right now Jamarion Lawhorn sits in a cell. He`s accused of

stabbing nine-year-old Connor Verkerke to death with a kitchen knife. It happened on August 4 on a playground in their Michigan neighborhood. Now,

the two boys didn`t even know each other. A neighbor was one of the first to talk to Jamarion after the stabbing.

Look at this.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: So he approached me over at my house. I offered him my phone. I assumed he was calling his mother. Behold he was calling

911 to say "I stabbed someone. Please pick me up and I`d like to end my life."

(END VIDEO CLIP)

JACKSON: Now police say that not long after they took young Jamarion into custody they discovered bruises all over his body. According to

Jamarion the injuries were caused by his stepdad. Now the home where the boy lived with his mom, his stepdad and three siblings was in deplorable

condition. No water, no electricity, no sheets on the children`s bed, very little food and drug paraphernalia that tested positive for cocaine.

Now child abuse allegations against Jamarion`s mom, they date way back to 1996 when her two young daughters were found with multiple broken bones

and cigarette burns. Mom surrendered parental rights of those girls but just last year child protective services found proof of child abuse in the

family`s home.

So the big question why was this couple even allowed to maintain custody and did their action or inaction turn Jamarion into a murderer?

I`ll go to you on that Kent Zimmermann, what is wrong here?

KENT ZIMMERMANN, ATTORNEY: I mean what is wrong with these people? It`s such a cad case. My wife and I welcomed a new baby boy last week and

when I heard about this case --

JACKSON: Congratulations Kent --

ZIMMERMANN: -- incredibly -- thank you.

JACKSON: -- that`s a big deal. Congratulations, God bless you.

ZIMMERMANN: -- I appreciate that, thank you. It`s such a sad thing for anybody but especially for me as a new parent, such a sad case to hear

about.

Listen, the parents just sound like they were not fit to be parenting. It is obvious that that was the case. They shouldn`t have been the people

to be trying to take care of this kid. I think the important question as this case goes to trial is -- is this young boy competent to stand trial

even in the juvenile system? And did he know right from wrong when he committed this act?

JACKSON: Big question.

ZIMMERMANN: And I`ll just -- yes, that`s the big, big question.

And a lot of people would say Joey, when you are that age, when you`re 12 years old, your brain is not even fully developed and a lot of 12-year-

olds know that it`s wrong, of course, to stab somebody, but do they know the finality of the action? Do they know that they can`t take it back?

They can`t undo that? So those are some of the questions that I think are going to be relevant.

JACKSON: Absolutely, they will be.

Now Bernard Harold, that`s Jamarion`s stepdad, he`s been arrested multiple times for drug possession. Anita Lawhorn`s record revealed one

arrest and that was for theft. In 1996, she surrendered custody of her two daughters who were one and three years old at that. Now child welfare

workers found severe physical abuse including unexplained fractures and cigarette burns.

Now Lawhorn was investigated for child abuse again in 2004 then just last year social workers found evidence of child abuse against Jamarion,

his mom and stepdad went through parenting, a program but were never charged. All too often we hear about Child Protective Services being

overwhelmed and being accused of dropping the ball.

So the question then becomes Marc Harrold, did their action or inaction lead to 9-year-old Connor`s murder?

MARC HARROLD, FORMER POLICE OFFICER: Well, as far as the inaction of the Child Protective Services, I don`t have the information to know exactly

what was in those reports, the progression and whether there are other authorities involved -- a judge or somebody like that who didn`t take the

action Child Protective Services wanted them to.

I think when you look at this case the idea that a 12-year-old would actually that he wants to die, he was in a certain state when he did this,

a very hopeless state of despair. But it sounds like his home life was just deplorable and this is one of the saddest cases I can think of

covering recently. This is just unbelievable that this even happened. And you have to just feel for these parents in some way, in some small way

because of their loss. But I just have to think that the child`s home condition really led to this.

JACKSON: Yes, you have to believe that.

Now, we are fortunate to have Troy Campbell. Troy, you are a reporter. I know you`ve been following this. You have been covering it

all. What can you tell us about this?

TROY CAMPBELL, REPORTER WXMI (via telephone): Well, you know -- you know, most of the neighborhood they all kind of say the same thing. He`s a

very standoffish kid, very quiet kid, small for his age. He would be very present in the neighborhood but yet not saying much.

And one neighbor I spoke with, he said that he would try to talk to him on a daily basis, he would ride his bike across -- you know, this is a

kid in this neighborhood. He`s homeowner. He wants to say hi to him. He said all he would do is just kind of give him a look and not say a word and

just continue to pass by. So there were neighbors that said that they would have an uneasy feeling with that.

I also spoke with the mother of Jamarion Lawhorn`s brother. They share the same father. She told me, her name is Ashley Flint, they live

over in Geneva, New York and they said that Jamarion had actually -- had a history of leaving Michigan and going to stay with his father in New York,

to try seek some sort of peace, to try to get away from an unhappy home life; to get away from an unhappy school life.

So, you know, at the age of 12 he already had a history of spending years, you know, traveling across the country to try to find that peace.

Which I, you know, obviously not everybody every 12-year-old is doing that.

JACKSON: Absolutely. Now Troy Campbell, we know you`re a reporter with WXMI in Grand Rapids Michigan, if I can just ask you, what are they

doing now in terms of the agency to correct it so that this doesn`t happen again? Is there any investigation under way to see where the breakdown was

so that there can be adjustments made moving forward so we don`t get 12- year-olds, 13-year-olds, whoever olds stabbing and killing other people?

CAMPBELL: Well, you know, there are steps that are being taken. We are finding word that there is actually some local legislature that are

kind of jumping on board with this to make sure the right agencies are looking into it. There was another incident here a little while back where

a child was killed. And then they also looked at the parents and the parents were, you know, at fault in that situation and they look back and

there was a history in the house.

At the same time, you know, abuse in a house, you know, you have to come from a place where you would fathom that a 12-year-old would commit a

murder. Do you know what I mean? This is happening all over country. There are kids, more than we want to talk about sitting at home without

electricity and without water, you know, very unstable home lives -- they are not becoming murders.

So we have to figure out, you know, where is that line drawn and what actually caused this? And it could quite possibly just come down to more

of a psychological level.

JACKSON: Absolutely. Well Troy, we appreciate your reporting on this issue. Hopefully it doesn`t happen again. You know, one life lost is way

too many. Troy Campbell, thank you so much.

Now Jamarion`s neighbor who says that he used to see him almost daily made this chilling comment about his arrest. Take a look.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I knew it. I knew it. Damn it, that`s him man. Damn it, I knew it. Sad but to tell you the truth no surprise -- he`s the

first one that came to mind.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

JACKSON: So Dr. Metzger, I have to ask you. The big question is how does our system handle this? Something like this, we know as it relates to

juveniles, we try to rehabilitate juveniles but is he too damaged, Doctor to be rehabilitated? What happens here? What is the cost of treatment?

METZGER: No, I would never say that he`s too damaged to be rehabilitated but we have to take into consideration that if there was

physical abuse in the household that that has an effect mentally and sometimes they may imitate the behaviors that they are seeing at home. I

don`t think this is a lost cause. I do think that with good treatment and extensive mental health treatment that he can get better.

JACKSON: Let`s pray so. Eric Guster, do you agree?

GUSTER: I do agree. I do agree. At a young age like this, children can be molded. They can be taught different things. And he can be

rehabilitated, perhaps.

However I`d like to address one issue Joey. Where were the neighbors? Where were the teachers? Where were the family members who saw all this

abuse and did nothing?

MO IVORY, ATTORNEY: Exactly.

GUSTER: And that is what bothers me the most about this case. They saw the abuse and did nothing.

JACKSON: And there in lies the issue. You spoke for Mo Ivory as well, I believe. So thank you very much, panel. Let`s that hope this gets

fixed and doesn`t happen again.

Up next an award winning TV and movie producer says that he simply fit the description -- yes fit the description -- when he was mistaken for a

bank robber. He was then handcuffed and detained for hours. The story has blown up. It`s online and we`ll speak to him about this story -- that`s

next.

Don`t go anywhere.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Wrongly arrested.

CHARLES BELK, TV AND MOVIE PRODUCER: One came right out of the car and immediately came over to me, approaching me very aggressively.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: A producer on his way to an Emmy party in Beverly Hills is arrested and held for hours.

BELK: Had me stand up, patted me down, put handcuffs on me.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Police thought he had been involved in a robbery. Was it because he was black?

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

JACKSON: Tonight, an award-winning African-American television and movie producer heading to a pre-Emmy party ends up hand cuffed on a curb in

Beverly Hills. Why? Because police say and I quote "he fit the description".

Look at this picture -- you see it there -- of Charles Belk. It`s gone viral. He was detained six hours on Friday after he walked out to

simply put money in his meter -- he`s checking the parking meter. Charles says that he was suddenly confronted by several police officers because he

matched the description of a nearby bank robbery suspect. He said that he was handcuffed, force to sit on the sidewalk, never given a phone call,

never read his Miranda warning before police finally realized they had wrong guy.

Now Charles to be clear is a big-time movie producer, TV producer, not a bank robber. Not a suspect at all. Here`s one of the movies -- take a

look at the clip -- "The Greatest Song".

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: We live in a community that has been devastated by black and brown (inaudible) -- we need to send a message.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: We`re all children of God. We have to unite for our ministries to survive.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: We are different. We should stay separate.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Have you ever been in a choir?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I made a commitment and now we have to stick to it.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I just want to sing. (inaudible) sing for God.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: "The Greatest Song" is a new romantic comedy starring Lamman Rucker, Aida Rodriguez and Joe Clair.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: He got the whole world except for that rhyme.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

JACKSON: Now, the Beverly Hills Police Department says that they regret the incident.

Now, I want to go straight out to our special guest, we have Charles Belk. He`s on the phone. Charles set the stage for us and tell us exactly

what happened, can you?

BELK: Absolutely --

JACKSON: And thanks for joining us.

BELK: -- thank you, Joey. I was casually walking down La Cienega Boulevard. All of a sudden I`m stopped by a police officer on a

motorcycle. He tells me to give him my ID and sit on the curb. Within two or three minutes there were five or six other police cars that swarmed

around. One got out of the car, kind of came at me fairly aggressively like I was a threat, asked me to stand up, patted me down, put me in

handcuffs. And for the next 45 plus minutes I sat in that position on the curb, handcuffed with my head down.

I was convinced for the majority of the time that this was going to be easily cleared up without a problem. And that just didn`t happen.

JACKSON: So Charles, take us through what you`re thinking at that particular point. I mean I`m glad you`re alive. There wasn`t anything in

terms of any fires that rung out, any discharges of weapons. But take us through your mindset. Were you in disbelief? Were you saying what`s going

on? Did you know what was happening to you?

BELK: You know, it started off being patient, calm, because it was clear that something had happened. And it was clear that they felt they

had some type of probable cause to detain me. So I was making sure that I gave them no reason to think that I was not going to 100 percent cooperate

with them.

After about 15 minutes or so, it became kind of embarrassing because I realized it`s Emmys weekend. I`m sitting on one of the busiest streets

handcuffed. Then about 30, 45 minutes it became really frustrating and just inconvenient. And I`m thinking this is just absurd. What is going

on?

They put me in the car, took me to the station. And it was at the point when they started fingerprinting me and taking my photos that I

realized that this was now real. I said to one of the booking agents that "Hey, this is like a bad dream." And she looked at me and said, "Yes,

that`s a serious crime you committed."

JACKSON: That you committed. So in other words you were accused of that. Now, was bail set? I understand $100,000?

BELK: Yes, I did not know exactly what I had been accused of. They didn`t tell me what I was being booked for. They did not read me any

rights. I asked them specifically can I make a phone call. They said you could when the FBI agents arrive. I said how long will that be? They said

about an hour. FBI agents didn`t come until three and a half hours later.

And I later found out that I had been booked for armed robbery of a bank and accessory to robbery of a bank. And I had a $100,000 bond set for

me.

JACKSON: That`s crazy. So $100,000 bond was set to you. And when you said you finally realized or you learned what you were charged with,

how did you learn that? Did they then say to you hey you know what you`re charged with this? Were you able to determine that by looking at police

paperwork? How did you know that?

BELK: At 1:00 a.m. When I was walking out of the station with the friends that were there for me, they told me all of this. They told me the

$100,000 bond. They told me what the charges were.

JACKSON: So that`s how you found out. Friends told you about that.

BELK: Correct.

JACKSON: Now, the police department of course they`ve apologized. Is that enough for you, Charles, based on the fact they say look we`re sorry.

We thought you met a description. We regret this?

BELK: As I told the FBI agent that night, at the end after about three and a half hours, after they wouldn`t let me speak to my attorney

initially, they indicated to me that I had been coming in and out of the bank from the ATM machine, distracting the employees. I said if that`s

true I`m sure you guys saw the videotape it`s not me. And the detective said he had not reviewed the videotape.

And I was completely just lost from the standpoint of how could you bring me in here when you have access to video on the spot and would not

review that. When I went and talked to my attorney right after I finished talking to the detective, within five minutes the detective came in and

said we reviewed the tape. Your client is innocent. We`re releasing him. It took them five minutes.

So while I`m never going to get my six hours of my life back, I think that it`s blatantly obvious that there`s something wrong with the process.

And I want to see some process changes.

JACKSON: You know what, Charles, the question then becomes if it could happen to you certainly it could happen to anyone. And you know, a

good man of you to have your photo out there, to go on record and to speak to this issue so that it doesn`t get any worse, right?

BELK: Exactly.

JACKSON: And listen, we appreciate you coming on. I think that you have a message. You certainly wanted to post this to send that message.

And you know what, we`re just sorry that you had that experience.

BELK: Hey, Joey, thanks so much.

And the interesting thing is, the Beverly Hills police chief just within the last hour or two released a press release.

JACKSON: Charles, we got to go. Appreciate you coming on. Nancy Grace is next.

BELK: Sorry. Thank you.

JACKSON: Have a great night. Thank you, Charles.

BELK: Thank you.

END