Return to Transcripts main page

LEGAL VIEW WITH ASHLEIGH BANFIELD

Soccer Star Takes Bite Out of World Cup; Minister Reinstated After Gay Son's Wedding; Mormon Woman Excommunicated; Court Votes on Smartphones; Brad Carter Progress Report

Aired June 25, 2014 - 12:30   ET

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


DEBORAH FEYERICK, CNN ANCHOR: See? There you go. His misdeeds have earned him a villain-like status in the world's most population sport, though he is beloved in Liverpool where he plays.

He's been suspended for also making racist comments. At the 2010 World Cup in South Africa, he deliberately handed the ball on the goal line in order to deny -- look, he's like a goalie there -- to deny Ghana a place in the semifinals in the World Cup.

Joining me to talk about FIFA's investigation in Suarez's biting problem, former professional soccer player and editor-in-chief of MLSSoccer.com Greg Lalas, along with host of CNN's "UNGUARDED" Rachel Nichols, and CNN correspondent Richard Roth.

My first question to you, Greg, FIFA just released a statement basically saying they're reviewing the footage of the game and they're going to decide any proceedings that they need to take.

But given his history, do they look at his whole body of infractions or just the one?

GREG LALAS, EDITOR-IN-CHIEF, MLSSOCCER.COM: I think it's impossible for them not to look at the whole body of infractions.

When you look at his history, they're going to take into account, just because, you know, they're people, they read the news too, they know this. Plus, FIFA oversees the entire soccer world, club and country, so they can think about all of the history in this when they look at this.

FEYERICK: And so, Rachel, one thing that I really -- first of all, let's just be clear. We'll give him his due. Suarez denies it, says he didn't do it.

RACHEL NICHOLS, CNN HOST, "UNGUARDED": He said the guy's shoulder ran into his mouth, which is sort of like telling the cop who arrested you the light post ran into my car, I don't know what happens.

FEYERICK: What I love about it is that Uruguay got so defensive, the coach even said, you know, he called the Italian player a great player but as a man he's disappointed me. Like, so now he's going after the Italian's manhood as far as this goes. What do you think can ultimately happen to Suarez? He's a great player, but this can't be tolerated.

NICHOLS: FIFA says they're going to collect all the evidence by 6:00 p.m. Eastern our time tonight, including a statement from Suarez. They're going to consider what would happen.

If they do decide to penalize him, it would be probably for at least two matches or up to two years, so they have the capability to certainly ban him from this World Cup and from play for the next two years. So there's a lot riding on this.

And the reason he's been allowed to proceed in this fashion so far is he's so good. And that is the problem here. His teams want him to play. It's why the coach of Uruguay is talking now about other players, the way he is.

They want him to play, and he's good for the game. When he plays well, he is exciting. They don't want to lose that, but they cannot let this continue. There's just no way.

FEYERICK: Richard, he plays for Liverpool. You're a huge Liverpool fan, so what does it do to the team if, in fact, they kick him out for two years?

RICHARD ROTH, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Well, he is a huge investment. They've sat and backed him, even after the racism accusations. It was pretty disgusting. The team even had support Suarez T-shirts they wore during the height of the racism conflict, even though there was all this evidence against him.

So they -- Liverpool, for you American viewers who follow the European Cup, are in. They got into this exclusive, expensive big money round in the European Cup competitions. They need Suarez for that. How long are they going to tolerate this? I actually wish -- I wish FIFA would also ban bite-puns for two years because they're all over the place.

(CROSSTALK)

ROTH: He's called "Cannibal." Can you imagine if LeBron James or any star player in any sport here in America did something pretty barbaric, some would say three times, with video --

NICHOLS: Mike Tyson.

FEYERICK: -- once, Holyfield --

LALAS: These are what's seen. Who knows what happened in other places?

ROTH: We don't know what happens in NFL scrums in the pile, but --

FEYERICK: You bite an NFL player, you're going to break your entire -- you'll break all your teeth, but besides that point. So what do you think though, do these star players -- all of you weigh in -- do they get special treatment because they are so good. To the sport, they are so good, bringing in fans. Is that something everybody kind of turns a blind eye on until all of a sudden -- Donald Sterling, right? I mean, nobody paid attention to him until the big one.

LALAS: I think star players across the board in every sport get a little bit of a preferential treatment or the benefit of a doubt, so a guy like Suarez, a tremendous player, will get certain benefits of the doubt in the moment, in the games. But at this point, there's so much evidence and there's so much rancor out there, and bad puns, that FIFA have to come down hard on this, I think, if it's true.

FEYERICK: It's got to be a tipping point, right? You get special treatment and benefit of doubt until you don't. And then once you don't, everybody is -- you're getting so much attention, the spotlight is so great, then the punishment is probably going to be heavier and harder.

ROTH: There was a whole PR campaign. He had changed this year, 31 goals and after six games suspension from the biting incident. He did it for his children. And now what? I want to know if he got any therapy or any guidance regarding the problem, which is a -- the biting problem, besides the anger and the racism. I'd really love to see.

FEYERICK: I looked it up on KidsGrowth.com, and it says biting is primitive behavior, it's a form of communication and it's unacceptable, and people who do it, children specifically between the ages of 1 and 3, need a time-out.

And Suarez will probably get that time out.

ROTH: The problem is more people biting themselves, not others, also. There's an obsession --

NICHOLS: That is a different segment --

FEYERICK: I'm so with Rachel on this.

ROTH: Look it up, look it up.

FEYERICK: OK. Greg Lalas, Rachel Nichols, Richard Roth, thank you so much. We appreciate it, as always.

And coming up, a woman gets excommunicated from her church. The reason? She's trying to convince church leaders to allow women to have the same rights as men to become priests in the church. Sounds reasonable? Well, her church doesn't think so.

She joins me live to tell her story and explain why her fight for reform will go on, coming up.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

FEYERICK: Welcome back to LEGAL VIEW, everyone.

The Pennsylvania minister who was defrocked for officiating his son's same-sex wedding got some welcome news today.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REVEREND FRANK SCHAEFER, REINSTATED BY UNITED METHODIST CHURCH: The verdict was I am reinstated as an ordained minister of the United Methodist Church. Yes!

(END VIDEO CLIP)

FEYERICK: Well, Frank Schaefer was suspended for 30 days with the condition that he would never officiate another same-sex wedding. When he refused, he was defrocked.

A committee heard his appeal, and yesterday, he got an e-mail, telling him that his credentials were being restored. Another hot button issue in the church, the role of women, a lifelong Mormon who is actively rallied for women to receive the priesthood has been excommunicated, the harshest punishment you can get.

Kate Kelly got an e-mail from her former bishop that read, in part, quote, "The difficulty Sister Kelly is not that you say you have questions or even that you believe that women should receive the priesthood. The problem is that you have persisted in an aggressive effort to persuade other church members to your point of view and that your course of action has threatened to erode the faith others."

Kelly is the leader of Ordained Women, a Mormon women group which advocates for gender equality in the faith with the ultimate goal of allowing women in the lay clergy.

But an LDS, Church of the Latter Day Saints, spokeswoman says what she's promoting is contrary to the word of God.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

ALLY ISOM, SPOKESWOMAN, LDS CHURCH: In the church, we want all to feel welcome, safe and valued, and there is room for questions.

But how we ask is as important as what we ask. We should not dictate to God what is right for His church.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

FEYERICK: Kate Kelly joins me from Salt Lake City. Kate, you called your excommunication akin to a spiritual death. How serious is this for you?

KATE KELLY, EXCOMMUNICATED BY MORMON CHURCH: For me, it is extremely serious. It's a tragedy for my family.

In Mormonism, it's not that I'm kicked out of the church and, you know, weekly rituals, it's that my ordinances that have been performed, my baptism, my marriage, all of those are now void.

FEYERICK: So let's talk about this. You have been accused of threatening to erode the faith of others. Is that how you see it? Because you make the case that, in fact, the Book of Mormon allows for women to be ordained.

KELLY: I don't think this erodes the faith of others. I see this as an investment in the church I love. The women I have with me, we think the church can be a more inclusive place, and we see a lot of precedent. There are examples in the bible. There are examples even from the early church that women can participate more fully and be ordained.

FEYERICK: Have you considered going to or following a religion that is -- that allows or is more inclusive to women being ordained?

KELLY: Mormonism really is my spiritual home. And I'm just the type of person that when I see something that needs to change, whether it's in the U.S. government or in my own religion, I don't leave, I invest. I try to improve it. I try to make it a better place, not just for me, but for my nieces and my friends and all the other women I know and love.

FEYERICK: When we look at this issue within the Mormon Church, how significant is it? How many women do want to be ordained as priests?

KELLY: The number is growing rapidly. This conversation, when we launched the Web site, OrdainWomen.org last year, you could count on one hand the people who publicly support women's ordination within the church.

We have hundreds of profiles on the site. We have thousands of people supporting us. We've had two direct actions in Salt Lake City attempting to attend a male-only meeting. We've had hundreds of people show up. This conversation is really breaking wide open in the faith.

FEYERICK: When you think about it, you've also cited a precedent from the founder of Mormonism, Joseph Smith. What is it he says you believe allows women to take part in the ritual?

KELLY: When Joseph Smith founded the Relief Society, which is the women's organization in the church, he said he wanted it to be, and I quote, "a kingdom of priests, like unto Paul." He intended women to be organized as priests.

FEYERICK: Do you plan to fight this? Will you continue to follow Mormonism but perhaps without the church?

KELLY: I intend to appeal. There are two different levels of appeal that I'll pursue. And I'll pursue it all the way to the first presidency of the church because I consider this to be my spiritual home.

FEYERICK: All right, Kate Kelly, thanks so much, good luck with your fight.

KELLY: Thanks for having me.

FEYERICK: Of course.

And the Supreme Court rules today on cell phones. More specifically, what do police have to do in order to get access to your information on your phone?

We're going to break this down and what the ruling means, coming up just ahead.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

FEYERICK: This just in to CNN. A federal judge has just struck down Indiana's ban on gay marriage, calling the law unconstitutional, possibly clearing the way for same-sex marriages to begin in the state immediately. The Indiana attorney general's office says it will appeal.

And the U.S. Supreme Court has just handed down a ruling that could affect a wide range of privacy issues in the digital age. Police will now need a warrant for cell phone searches. The unanimous ruling denies police easy access to your personal information on personal electronic devices, iPhones, cell phones.

In his opinion handed down this morning, Chief Justice John Roberts writes, quote, "the fact that technology now allows an individual to carry such information in his hand does not make the information any less worthy of the protection for which the founders fought. Our answer to the question of what police must do before searching a cell phone seized incident to an arrest is accordingly simple, get a warrant."

Well, Justice correspondent Pamela Brown is joining me live in Washington with the details.

Pam, big win for privacy rights. What is law enforcement saying? Are they unhappy about this?

PAMELA BROWN, CNN JUSTICE CORRESPONDENT: Yes, that's right, this is a big defeat to law enforcement, Deborah, a big blow to law enforcement and a big win for privacy rights. This really is a sweeping endorsement of privacy rights from the justices and the sweeping unanimous ruling today essentially setting a new standard for law enforcement, saying, from now on, they must obtain a search warrant before searching the cell phone of a criminal suspect incident to an arrest.

So essentially police can no longer treat cell phones like they treat other objects when they're arresting someone, when there's probable cause, such as wallets and purses, the glove compartment on a car. They can search those items without a search warrant, but now with cell phones they must obtain a search warrant.

This is stemming from two separate cases with two different defendants that were convicted in part from information taken from their phones without a search warrant. They said that their phones should be treated differently. The police came back and said, we need to search a cell phone without a search warrant because we need to preserve evidence. You know, this has to do with officer's safety. Well, today, the justices making it clear, a very strong statement, saying that cell phone privacy rights trump that. And also, Deborah, it's really interesting to note, because

historically the Supreme Court has ruled in favor of law enforcement. Not so today. And this ruling also brings into question, what's going to happen to all those other defendants behind bars right now serving time for convictions that happened, in part, because of information taken from their cell phones without a search warrant? That is the big question.

FEYERICK: All right. Pamela Brown, thanks so much. Good insight there on what we can expect.

And joining me now on the phone now, CNN's legal analyst Jeffrey Toobin.

Jeff, you heard Pamela just now. Officer safety. That's what law enforcement was advocating. Is there an exception? For example, when, perhaps, either public safety or officer safety may be at risk.

JEFFREY TOOBIN, CNN LEGAL ANALYST (via telephone): Well, that's something the courts will undoubtedly be dealing with as this ruling comes into wide use. But I think the principle is very clear. As I think most people know, when someone is arrested, the police pat you down. They look for any weapons. They make sure that they or the public is not at risk.

What the Supreme Court is saying is that if you find a cell phone in the course of that pat down, which, of course, is very common, most people now have them, is you can't just rummage through it. You can't look for texts. You can't look for a record of phone calls. You can't look for Internet searches unless you get a warrant first because the Supreme Court said it is not a matter of public safety to look through someone's -- to look through someone's phone calls right away. All you need to do is check if that person has a weapon. Once you know they don't have a weapon, then you have to get a warrant.

FEYERICK: Then you move on. You know it's very interesting because the justices said that the term cell phone is misleading. These are mini computers. You know, they can be called cameras, video players, rolodexes, calendars. So they're not just cell phones. Is -- could this have an effect or an impact on other areas? For example, schools that confiscate phones or even, for example, the data mining that's being done by the NSA, does this impact - does this decision impact either of those?

TOOBIN: You know, what the Supreme Court always does is look for ways to translate the 18th century Constitution into the 21st century life. And that comes up in all sorts of ways. There was another decision today about the rights of broadcasters versus the rights of innovators to have new technologies broadcasting television. All of which are difficult to resolve using the words of the framers. But I think certainly this is a case that -- where the Supreme Court recognizes that we have to apply these rules in light of the way people really live today, not in the light of some sort of imaginary past where we lived.

FEYERICK: Right. It's fascinating. TOOBIN: So all of this will continue in further cases.

FEYERICK: Yes. Very much. All right, Jeffrey Toobin, thank you so much. We appreciate your insights on that.

Well, a four-year-old girl foils a home invasion plot. And what she calls the worst day of her life, she turns from a victim to a hero. That four-year-old's story coming up next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

FEYERICK: An update now on Brad Carter. Remember him? OK, you saw him here on CNN. This video went viral. Brad Carter playing guitar, fully awake, during surgery on his brain. And he wasn't just fooling around. It was necessary to help doctors put electrodes on the correct spots. Well, a lot has happened since then, including a second surgery. It is this week's "Human Factor." Here's our Sanjay Gupta.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

DR. SANJAY GUPTA, CNN CHIEF MEDICAL CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): Brad Carter is an actor. He's been on shows like "True Detective," "CSI." But one of his latest roles might surprise you. Carter starred in this video. He played guitar while undergoing deep brain stimulation.

BRAD CARTER, DIAGNOSED WITH "ESSENTIAL TREMOR": I said, who's ever going to see this?

GUPTA: It went viral. What led Carter to the operating room, a condition called essential tremor.

CARTER: The slower I try to play, the harder it becomes.

GUPTA: But for years before that diagnosis, he was told nothing could be done.

CARTER: Oh, you just have a tremor that you can't do anything about. Well, I had made it 30-something years with no tremor, so it didn't make sense to me that they'd just comes out of nowhere.

GUPTA: As his tremors worsened, Carter spent years being misdiagnosed, Lyme disease, Parkinson's. Meanwhile, tremors began affecting his ability to act.

CARTER: How am I going to be on sets and how am I going to hide this?

GUPTA: And play music. Carter refused to give up, especially with so much on the line. Deep brain stimulation was his best chance. An electrical current curses through his brain in an attempt to control the tremor. Although it's hard to see watching him there, Carter was frightened.

CARTER: As scary as that is, I'm going to take that chance rather than keep living my life in misery, in a secret hell. People see Brad Carter, actor, comedian, you know, the funny guy, fun to be around. But when I get home, I'm dealing with this thing that is eating me up inside.

GUPTA: And, get this, weeks after the viral video, Carter's tremor came back. He had to prepare for yet another brain surgery. And the prospect that, once again, the operation would not work.

CARTER: It's not perfect. You know, it still tremors. But you got to admit, it's a lot better.

GUPTA: The second surgery did work. Perseverance, fighting to be well, overcoming, led to this, an album, due out this fall.

CARTER: I think I've got something that's going to be really -- I'm going to be really proud of.

GUPTA: Dr. Sanjay Gupta, CNN, reporting.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

FEYERICK: Great story.

Well, a bad babysitter tried to pull off a very sneaky home invasion, but the four-year-old girl she was watching foiled her plans. Police in Ferndale, Washington, says the 17-year-old babysitter orchestrated a robbery along with her 16-year-old boyfriend and another male. She tried to pin it on a black neighbor but four-year-old Abby Dean said, huh-uh, the suspects were white, like her. That's when the babysitter fessed up.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

ABBY DEAN, FOILED HOUSE INVASION: The bad guys stole my kitty bank and they stole my iPod. They also stole my X-Box and my Wii. They got it back because of me being a super hero.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

FEYERICK: And that she is. She is an incredible superhero. Four-year- old Abby says it was the worst day her life. The babysitter and alleged accomplices could face robbery, burglary and perjury charges. You're never too young to fight back.

Thanks for watching. Wolf Blitzer starts right now.