Return to Transcripts main page

Wolf

Verdict Reached in Tsarnaev Case. Aired 1:30-2p ET

Aired April 08, 2015 - 13:30   ET

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

[13:30:07] JOEY JACKSON, HLN LEGAL ANALYST: The next stage, of course, will be the penalty phase. And at that stage we could expect that the jury will hear what we call mitigating factors. What does that mean? The prosecution will attempt in establishing death penalty here all the heinousness and atrociousness of the conduct. We heard that throughout the course of the trial. The carnage that was committed, the lives that were lost, four precious lives, the MIT police officer, Mr. Collier; Ms. Gamble also; Lindsey Lu, who lost her child; in addition, the child, Martin Richard. Therefore, all the carnage that was created, the radicalization. We've heard that.

Now the defense certainly will have an opportunity to explain why. Who is Tsarnaev? What was his background? Where does he come from? What if anything did his brother really have to do with him? I suspect as we move forward, we'll learn a lot about who he is and placing into context what he did. Will it matter? That's the open question. It was a heinous act committed against this country and Boston in particular. That's what the defense will do to -- attempt to do to spare his life.

[13:31:16] WOLF BLITZER, CNN ANCHOR: We're going to get to that in a moment, Joey. But as far as these 30 counts, you don't expect acquittal on any of the 30? You think he'll be found guilty on all 30? His own defense attorneys acknowledged he was there. He was the younger brother of Tamerlan Tsarnaev. But he was manipulated, they argued, by his older brother.

JACKSON: I do not expect a not guilty on any particular count. Jurors do what they do. But if you look at the counts -- and there were multiple counts, conspiracy, the fact that there was an agreement that was committed to engage in an act. What kind of act? An act of mass destruction, which relates to other counts. Did he use a weapon of mass destruction? Did he use that weapon maliciously? Did he use it in a public place, in using it, were people killed, were people injured? Those are the questions that relate to the particular counts the jury had to decide. But with regard to all of those counts, if you listen to the testimony from the beginning to the end, the reality is, in those 92 witnesses that the prosecution put forward, I think they established a very compelling case to meet their burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt that he's guilty.

BLITZER: Another 30 counts, 17 carry the death penalty, is that right?

JACKSON: Yes, that's correct. And therefore if there's a guilty count as to any one of them, it would make him death penalty eligible, of course. But, again, I think that will certainly be a moot point. The verdict will be rendered soon and I think thereafter we'll see he's guilty as to those counts. Were there mitigating factors that can spare his life, which the defense has been attempting to argue throughout, the brother was the controller, the ringleader, the mastermind?

BLITZER: Only minutes away from hearing the results of the jury. The verdict's about to be read out in that courtroom.

Stand by, Joey.

I want to bring in our national correspondent, Deborah Feyerick, joining us from New York.

You've spent a lot of time covering this case. Give us your analysis of what we should be bracing for.

DEBORAH FEYERICK, CNN NATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Whether or not they do find conspiracy on the first charge and also how they divide the counts that follow that, specifically where he intentionally meant to kill both Crystal Gamble, Martin Richard, Lindsey Lu as well as Sean Collier. I just read over the language of the verdict form. You have to believe that the jury was in there comparing the wording in the indictment against that verdict form to see exactly what that language indicated. They were very specific this morning in their questions asking about a conspiracy and whether it was over a certain period of time, asking about aiding and abetting because there are some charges that say that did Dzhokhar Tsarnaev use and carry a weapon of mass destruction to commit this crime or did he aid and abet? And so they really had to look at both parts of how that was written to come to their conclusion. There's no question that in terms of Martin Richard and Lindsey Lu, they were standing right in front of the bomb that he left by that tree just at the end of the finish line. So all of this is what they're looking at. You've got the weapons of mass destruction, bombing a public place, interference with interstate commerce, carjacking. There was also an interesting charge about brandishing this gun. In many cases, the defense made it clear that it wasn't Tsarnaev who was holding that pistol, it was Tamerlan, his prints were on that, although one of the bullets did have Tsarnaev's fingerprints. So they really had to look at all the details to see what he was guilty of. So there may be one or two surprises. I differ a little bit in this account. But there may be one or two surprises. But on the whole, likely he will be found guilty on the majority of these charges against him.

[13:35:05] BLITZER: If not all of them.

Joey, the fact that the jury deliberated for 11 and a half hours over yesterday and today, should we read much into that?

JACKSON: I don't know that we should, Wolf. Why? Because remember there's a verdict form. On that verdict form, consistent with what Deb was talking about, there are a number of charges that they needed to get through. And in getting to those charges, it appears to be that they took their time in evaluating it. We could see that through the length of time they took, in addition to the fact that they asked questions of the judge. They asked -- wanting to know about conspiracy, wanting to know what aiding and abetting means. In particular, whether they were two separate things, to aid and then to abet or is it aiding and abetting in conjunction? That shows the system of justice that we have at work. Jurors who are selected on a case, taking their time to painstakingly go through the facts and apply those facts to the law as they're laid out in that 30-count indictment.

BLITZER: Ashleigh Banfield is joining us from New York as well.

Ashleigh, you've spent a lot of time covering this case. Give us your sense of what we should be anticipating.

ASHLEIGH BANFIELD, CNN ANCHOR, LEGAL VIEW: Well, I'll tell you something, Wolf, I have to be honest, I did not expect a deliberation on this guilt/innocence phase to go beyond just a few hours. I'll say that only for this reason. Normally, I say give a jury as long as they want, especially when it's death penalty. But his own attorney conceded at the beginning of the case in opening statements and at the end of her case in chief in the closing arguments that there's no question, my client did this. Sure, she may argue later in the next phase that there was a leader in his brother. But there's conspiracy and aiding and abetting in every single one of those charges. So to actually go through this -- this is the verdict form right here. Yes, it's big. It's thick. It's 32 pages, including a cover sheet and signature page. But 32 pages of yes-or-no questions. I was surprised it took this long. I'm expecting we'll get meat and potatoes. That's common parlance for a death phase of why this man does not deserve the ultimate punishment as afforded in the United States justice system.

BLITZER: Were you surprised that the defense in this particular case really didn't put much of a defense up? They acknowledged he was there. They acknowledged that he was part of this two-brother team that was involved in the killing of these three people, the injuring of so many others, and then later a police officer who died? There wasn't really much of a defense. They basically said, yeah, he was there, he did it but the next phase, the sentencing phase, they don't think he necessarily deserves the death sentence, maybe life in prison.

BANFIELD: No. I'm not surprised in the least because defense attorneys work with what they're given. They don't get to create the script. They get stinkers of cases and they have to cope. And Judy Clark is probably one of the finest litigators and attorneys in this country. She has worked magic, alchemy, with cases no one thought was winnable. Cases where it's all too obvious that the perpetrator is guilty. So she sets all her eggs into the basket of saving his life. She is an ardent defender of getting rid of the death penalty and she's very good at saving lives. What's amazing is in this case it's probably pretty clear her own client may not want to save his own life because his own etchings on the boat in blood said he wants to be a martyr and wishes he could have been martyred sooner like his brother. So I can't imagine what it's like to be Judy Clark having a client like that and then having to do the work that she stands by and is so good at. BLITZER: Do you know, Ashleigh, if there was ever any serious

consideration to a guilty plea, a plea bargain, if you will, life in prison and avoid a whole trial? Just plead guilty, not necessarily get the death sentence? Was there ever even seriously considered by the defense and the prosecution?

BANFIELD: I'd have to go back over my notes as to whether there was even a whisper of an overture. But my spidey senses say absolutely not. The people of Massachusetts, while pretty much against the death penalty if you take the polls seriously, are horrifyingly offended by what was perpetrated against their neighbors and their own. And I don't know that any prosecutor would look at a fact pattern that they had gifted to them -- and I say that because it's almost open and shut. And then would make the overture of a deal. And let's not forget, this is federal, these are federal prosecutors, not state prosecutors. There's no state death penalty in that state. No, I think this is so open and shut and so easy and quite frankly, if you look at how long this case has taken, it's not been one of the more expensive cases to actually prosecute. There's not a litany of experts traipsing through that courtroom to try to get inside the head of this alleged killer. There's not a litany of forensic evidence to have to assess and analyze. There are videos and photographs beyond imagination available at this very public event. No, I would have to say just from straight memory, I doubt it.

[13:40:14] BLITZER: Let me ask Deborah Feyerick and Joey Jackson if they remember.

Was there ever any serious consideration to a possible guilty plea, avoiding a trial, getting life without the possibility of parole as opposed to the possibility of execution?

FEYERICK: Yeah, it's a good question. Once the attorney general put life or death on the table saying this was a death eligible case, then absent any mitigating circumstance, for example, that Tsarnaev had some sort of a brain tumor or personality disorder or there was evidence that showed maybe he had a twin brother or something like that, then it would be very difficult to negotiate. You cannot take a crime that is so horrible and heinous and cruel one day and then say the next day, OK, we've negotiated to life in prison. So you really needed those mitigating circumstances. There were some rumors that in fact Judy Clark did want to negotiate and say, let's put him in prison for life. But, again, you cannot take the death penalty off the table once it is there absent something so significant that you say, a-ha, OK. And that didn't happen in this case.

BLITZER: I ask the question, Joey, as you well know, in the next phase, these same 12 jurors will have to decide -- assuming he's guilty, they have to decide unanimously whether he gets the death sentence or whether he gets life without the possibility of parole or just life for that matter. It's got to be unanimous. If one member of that jury thinks he was manipulated by his older brother, there are other issues, he may not necessarily get the death sentence, right?

JACKSON: That's absolutely right, Wolf. What happens is in our system of justice, in order to get the death penalty, of course, the jury has to apply it. It doesn't come from a judge. And that jury has to be unanimous in its decision. We should also note that that jury that sits there is death penalty qualified. What does that mean? It means that every member of that jury has looked the judge in the eye and those attorneys and has said, under the right set of circumstances, I could apply. Not I will apply, or with certainty I believe I should apply, but if you convince me beyond a reasonable doubt of the heinous nature of this act, I will consider the death penalty. And the reason I raise that, Wolf, is because we often talk about the fact that in this particular state, what happens is -- in Massachusetts, what happens is there is no death penalty. But based upon the federal government, you can do that. So the standard is it's a jurisdiction that doesn't like it too much. That may be true because the legislature does not apply it and the governor hasn't signed it. But those jurors have said they could do it. The defense in a very calculated way has conceded guilt and is really moving to spare his life. That's what it's all about. Again, with the defense of, my brother made me do it. And final point is this, Wolf. You could see that in their defense. Yes, they only had four witnesses. But what those witnesses did was they said, look at the fingerprints. Fingerprints on all the components of the bomb that were found in the home, whose fingerprints were on them? Tamerlan, that's the older brother, isn't it? Look at the searches of the gun and things of mass destruction and all these things, who did those searches? It was the older brother. So they're setting that up and reminding that jury that he was 19 years old, a college kid. And he was more interested in girls and running around than he ever would be in doing this. It's the older brother. That needs to resonate to the jury. And if one of those members, as you point out, just one says, you know what, perhaps he doesn't deserve the death penalty, he will not get it.

BLITZER: Yeah. So it's by no means, Joey, based on your experience -- and you have a lot more experience in these matters than I do. Based on your experience, it's by no means a slam dunk that all 12 members of this jury will decide he deserves the death penalty. That's the mystery right now, right?

JACKSON: That's absolutely the mystery. You can look at this and you can say those members who were impaneled, it's a very tough decision. It's one thing to say to a judge and to lawyers, I could apply it. It's a very different matter to apply it. But if ever there's a case where perhaps this jury will dig deep and do so, this could very well be the case based upon the compelling set of circumstances. And we should remind viewers, in terms of what the prosecution did in this case, they did really three things. The first thing they did was talk about the compelling circumstances here, talk about the death here, the dismemberment based upon that bomb going off and his role in allowing that bomb to go off by having those victims testify, some of which did not have limbs when they did testify. The deaths that occurred. The second thing the prosecution did was talk about the issue of radicalization. Why did he do it? He did it because he hated America. They brought in tweets and "Inspire" magazine to showed you how to make a bomb. And the third thing they did was look at the aftermath. He's buying milk and returning it after the fact. And then you shoot a police officer right in the head because you want his weapon. So al these facts may point and may scream to the aggravating circumstances that the prosecution wants that jury to consider. And that's the callous nature of these actions that warrant murder. And that's why the mitigating or lessening factors that the defense will try to point out in the next phase are going to be so important. Yes, he did it, the defense will argue. But look at why and who made him do it, his older brother.

[13:45:57] BLITZER: Let's reset what's going on. We're only a fewminutes away now from getting the verdict in this trial that's been under way for weeks. Often very, very painful testimony over what happened at the Boston Marathon. Seven women and five men have now been considering the deliberations for about 11 and a half hours. Momentarily, they will tell us whether Dzhokhar Tsarnaev is innocent or guilty. We anticipate he will be found guilty. 17 of those counts do include the death sentence, potentially the death sentence. Three people were killed. Many, many others were injured. Later, one police officer died as well. There you see some of the background.

Ashleigh Banfield is with us as well.

As we await what's going on, I want to remind our viewers, Ashleigh, this has been a federal trial. So there are no TV cameras inside. We do have reporters and producers inside who will come outside and let us know precisely what happens as soon as they know, we'll know. We'll also get some of the atmosphere, what was going on inside. It will be a dramatic moment, Ashleigh Banfield, as we get ready to hear the verdict.

BANFIELD: Yes and no because this is such a massive case. I remember during 9/11, the whole country felt affected even though the crime was committed in New York City. And I think that's a bit the same here. The whole country is affected by this because this is a crime against Americans and it happened at one of our venerated events, the Boston Marathon. So in that way, yes, the drama. But in the other respect, no. His own defense attorney has concerned the guilt. But, like you've been talking about, it's the aggravating and mitigating factors that are about to come out more than likely if the verdict is as we expect in the next phase. It's called the death phase. And it's the aggravators and mitigators that are going to force this jury to do some extreme soul searching and spend many, many hours if they're doing their job right in that jury room assessing the life, the value of that man's life in the bottom right-hand corner of your screen. And here's the hard part. For anybody who needs the primer on the death penalty and what aggravators and mitigators are like, they list all the good things about this guy and they list out all the bad things about this guy and the crime. And then the jury is left with no scientific formula to do this sort of strange balancing act. But they're pretty much allowed to do what they want. It's not what's heavier, what's lighter, what's worse, what's not. They're given a lot of latitude. That's where I believe the true drama in this crime and its justice will probably be found.

BLITZER: Ashleigh, stand by.

I want to bring in Deborah Feyerick once again who's been covering this trial from the very, very beginning.

Momentarily, we'll get word from the jury. Our reporters and producers are inside. They'll come outside and we'll get word on the innocence or conviction of Dzhokhar Tsarnaev for the Boston bombing massacre. 21-year-old Tsarnaev. He was 19 years old at the time of the Boston Marathon bombing. It was an awful, awful situation, as all of us, of course, remember. Give us a sense of what's happening right now, deb.

FEYERICK: I can tell you a couple of respected colleagues inside the courtroom saying that there are survivors who are inside waiting to hear the verdict. They include the mom and dad of 8-year-old Martin Richard. The father had testified during the course of the trial. And it was so fascinating because he almost seemed -- describing the death of his son and how he looked at him for the last time and made a split-second decision knowing that if he didn't grab his daughter whose leg was blown off, 6 years old, her leg was blown off, that he believed that not only would he lose his son but he would lose his daughter as well. They've been in that courtroom for the majority of the 17 days of testimony. We looked at the jury when they were listening to this testimony and they became very, very emotional at times listening to the autopsies being detailed in keen description. And also the experiences because we saw a lot of pictures of the Boston Marathon. We've all seen the loop of the video. It wasn't really until I sat there in that court listening to people whose faces I saw in the pictures, listening to what they personally experienced, did the reality, depth and dimension of that tragedy begin to really manifest itself. The fact that so many of those people this the immediate vicinity of the bomb believed they were going to die. How the heroic response of people there at the finish line saved numerous, numerous people and how in a matter of moments that area was cleared out. You have to think about the persona and demeanor in that court. I was sitting a couple rows behind where he was at the defense table. You look for anything. A bend or something you can read into. It's difficult to know what is actually going on in someone's mind. You can't know. For a majority of this trial, he sat slouched in his chair. He fidgeted a lot. He played with his beard going side to side. The only time I saw him engaged was when he was shown surveillance video of himself and his brother the night their pictures were released and the night they fled. That was the night they killed Sean Collier and carjacked a powerful witness, who, frankly, had he not been able to escape -- perhaps by escaping he may have prevented another attack. Look at the demeanor and say maybe is he remorseful? The jury had a much more direct view of Tsarnaev from the front. Not sure they saw the remorse. There was no respect you assume one would have when confronting or facing off victims you have accused of gravely injuring. We didn't feel the connection. His defense tried to humanize him. Marion put her arm around, tried to laugh and engage. Not in a light hearted way but to show this was someone who was 19 years old, who's family life was falling apart, who was flunking out of school and fell ultimately under the spell of his older brother Tamerlan that tried to meet radicals up in the woods. For some unknown reason he fled and came back to the United States. It's a lone would have theory. If you can't get over there to fight, fight where you are. It's interesting to see if that plays a factor in whether they decide for the death penalty, whether in fact there is some mitigating, some factor that nobody knows about that may in a sense lessen the extent of his involvement which is what his defense lawyers are trying to prove. [13:53:21] BLITZER: April 15, 2013 that these Tsarnaev brothers

planted that bomb there at the finishing line at the Boston Marathon killing those people injuring so many others. Almost exactly two years to the day he's about to be sentenced. Moments way.

Jeffrey Toobin is joining us on the phone, our CNN senior legal analyst.

Jeffrey, guilt or innocence is the mystery. We assume he'll be found guilty on if not all 30, most of them, and the 17 that involve potentially the death sentence. The next phase determines whether or not he gets life in prison or executed the death sentence. One of the key questions we are all a waiting to hear is whether he will take the stand in his own defense. Will his attorneys recommend he make personal appeal in the next sentencing phase, Jeffrey, or do you think he'll stay silent?

JEFFREY TOOBIN, CNN SENIOR LEGAL ANALYST (voice-over): I think he will stay silent. I cannot imagine anything he will say that will help his cause. Everyone knows what the defense is, that he was manipulated by his brother. If he takes the witness stand, the prosecution can a walk him through each action he took, particularly on the day of the bombing. You put the bomb down, saw it go off. As the 8-year-old boy was lying there bleeding to death, what were you doing? Well, I was going to get a sandwich, which is what he was doing. Can you imagine how a jury would respond to someone saying that as he would have to? The defense here can be put in through relatives, psychiatrists. I cannot imagine savvy defense attorneys, and these are savvy defense attorneys, taking the risk of cross- examination of Tsarnaev given the fact of this case.

[13:55:27] BLITZER: Let me get Joey Jackson to respond to that.

Do you think we'll hear from Tsarnaev or will he remain silent in the next phase, sentencing phase?

JACKSON: I agree with Jeffrey Toobin on this. The reality is it's a difficult situation to put a witness, your client, the defendant on the stand for the following reason. When ever you put the defendant on the stand, you risk everything you created, and there's a measure in lack of control you have over him. The whole theory of Judy Clark and defense team has been to spare his life. What if he gets on the stand and goes rogue, I want to die, want to be a martyr, jealous of my brother, put me to death. That may be the fear. Does he really want to die, does he not? We don't know. When you put him on the stand, it becomes risky. There's a mitigation specialist. There's a person who has looked into the family his, who is he, where's he from, what has he done to his life? That will give compelling testimonies or investigated facts and circumstances to allow others to give testimony which he could otherwise give. Why allow him to get on the stand to do something so many other people can do on his behalf?

BLITZER: Let's not forget three people were killed at the finish line of the Boston Marathon almost exactly two years ago. 264 people were injured and later a police officer was killed in the process of their attempted escape that went on as we know for a few days. Let's bring Julia Kayyem, our CNN national security analyst, joining

us from Boston.

This whole trial, Juliette, has had enormous impact on the Boston area hasn't it?

JULIETTE KAYYEM, CNN NATIONAL SECURITY ANALYST (voice-over): It has. I was sort of against the trial. I thought let's get this over with. Over the last couple of weeks as you heard, the process and the fact this took place in federal court. It was important to the city let alone the nation. We can't say enough how important it was that he wasn't treated as a military tribunal. This happened in a normal court our justice system can handle. Overall, the city has been watching it and I think is grateful for the trial. We assume what the verdict is. I think the next phase will be more difficult given the population here is mostly against the death penalty. Two weeks from Monday we're running again. The marathon is less than 14 days.

BLITZER: Amazing, almost exactly two years to the day this verdict is about to be announced from what happened at the finish line at the Boston Marathon April 15, 2013.

Ashleigh, as I say you've been covering this from the very beginning. We're waiting for this verdict to be announced. There are no cameras inside the courtroom. This has been a federal trial. No cameras in federal trials. Our reporters will come out and brief us on those verdicts on all 30 counts, 17 of which carry the death sentence.

BANFIELD: Yeah, and 17 of which are simple yes or no questions as well to which I cannot stress enough his lawyer has conceded. The issue becomes, did his big brother make him do it? I'm going back to what someone just said. There are ample photographs that show Dzhokhar Tsarnaev standing coolly and coldly behind a family of four in which one 8-year-old boy was blown to bits, literally. And his father had to make the choice between treating his almost dead son and his nearly dead daughter. Dzhokhar Tsarnaev was nowhere near that backpack when it blew or his brother, Tamerlan. It's going to be a really hard piece of evidence for anybody in that jury to get beyond. That said, there are mitigators and there are many.

[13:59:41] BLITZER: We're only moments from hearing the verdict from this federal jury in Boston, the Boston Marathon bombing. We're going to hear guilty or not guilty. Everybody is bracing for guilty on all counts. We'll see what happens.

That's it from me. But our breaking news coverage of the Boston Marathon bombing trial continues. Right now, Brianna Keilar is standing by -- Brianna?

ANNOUNCER: This is CNN breaking news.