Return to Transcripts main page

CNN NEWSROOM

Marathon Bombing Trial Verdict; Charges Examined. Aired 2- 2:30p ET

Aired April 8, 2015 - 14:00   ET

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


[14:00:06] BRIANNA KEILAR, CNN ANCHOR: We have breaking news to bring you out of Boston to our viewers here in the U.S. and around the world. I'm Brianna Keilar.

And after just eleven and a half hours of deliberation, the jury has reached a verdict in the Boston Marathon bombing trial. Twenty-one- year-old Dzhokhar Tsarnaev faces 30 federal count, 17 of them could carry the death penalty. We have live team coverage of this breaking news and we're going to begin with CNN national correspondent Deb Feyerick, who has been following this trial.

Deb, catch us up. This is a key moment.

DEBORAH FEYERICK, CNN NATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Yes, it really is a key moment. There are a lot of survivors who are in the courtroom waiting to hear the verdict. We understand there are also members of law enforcement who are there as well. They also were affected by this tragedy that happened just two years ago.

It's a very tense situation in the courtroom. I'm checking in with some of my colleagues who were there. And right now, as of the last minute or two, Tsarnaev was not brought into the court yet. His lawyers are there. The prosecution is there. And so he will enter. And you have to wonder, you know, he sat through 17 days of this trial effectively of evidence. It's gone on a little bit longer what with jury selection. But there were 17 days of testimony over the course of four weeks. Prosecutors thought this case was going to go months. They thought this could be as long as six months. In fact, the actual key evidence was introduced in less than four weeks.

So, right now it's interesting. There are 30 counts, 17 of them make him death eligible. Some are not as straightforward as you would think, including whether he was the one who was brandishing the Ruger that was used in the killing of Sean Collier, but also the one that was used in the Watertown shootout where a police officer was hit and almost bled out, almost bled to death.

So those are probably some of the questions that stuck with the jury. But for the most part, the writing was pretty straightforward, but the jury had to vote close to 1,200 times. You think of the number of counts, the number of sub categories, the number of jurors and somebody in that court did the math and I think it was like 1188 votes had to be made during the course of those eleven hours. So they did have a big job ahead of them. And, again, we're expecting to hear the results of the verdict coming down. The question they had, conspiracy, aiding and abetting. Whether, in

fact, aiding and abetting were the same thing and whether conspiracy, in fact, had to happen over the course of several days or just one event. So they did ask good questions. Question that showed that they were paying close attention to language of what was being said. And now we're just moments away from hearing what they decided and maybe even get a glimpse of some of the conversations they had.

KEILAR: Yes. And the judge was able to give them some pretty plain spoken explanations of those questions that they had.

Deb, stay with us because we're going to be looking at this from all angles.

I do want to bring in Ashleigh Banfield as well, our CNN anchor, who has been following this trial from the beginning as well.

Ashleigh, this is - you have the defense that is admitting in this case that he did this. Here we are two years after this happened, almost two years after this happened. So the expectation is pretty much that he is going to be found guilty here.

ASHLEIGH BANFIELD, ANCHOR, CNN'S "LEGAL VIEW": So, yes, and here's what I like about this jury, that they took over 11 hours to go through 30 pages, one cover page and one signature page, 32 pages in total, and I will show it to you, as a jury form. The questions were very simple, Brianna, they were yes or no, they were guilty or not guilty, questions his attorney had already answered. If I did this, I could probably do it in just a matter of minutes. But this was a conscientious jury clearly or they would not have taken so many hours to meticulously comb through this jury form, as long as it is, and answer carefully every one of those questions.

And here's the other thing they did that makes them a conscientious jury thus far. They sent out two questions they needed help on. Help us understand what it really means to be conspiracy and help us to understand what it really means when you say aiding and abetting because his lawyer said he did it and yet Tamerlan was put out already as the ringleader. So conspiracy and aiding and abetting was really important to these jurors in order to mark yes or no, guilty or innocent.

KEILAR: All right, Ashleigh, stick with us as well as we await the verdict in the case of accused Boston bombing - the Boston bombing marathon suspect Dzhokhar Tsarnaev.

I want to bring in a panel that we have here. We have Paul Callan, CNN legal analyst with us. We have attorney Linda Kenny Baden, who was a member of the legal team for acquitted murder suspect Casey Anthony. And we have criminal and civil trial attorney Eric Guster.

[14:05:01] So, Eric, these questions came out about whether aiding and abetting are really different things. The judge said these are - this is a singular concept basically. And then this idea of conspiracy. Is conspiracy having to do with just one action that was taken in the course of this crime or was it a sequence of events. When you heard about those questions, what did you think about where the jury was at?

ERIC GUSTER, CRIMINAL & CIVIL TRIAL ATTORNEY: I thought the jury was actually paying attention to the trial and really wanted to make sure he was guilty of every single count. This is what we call a long guilty plea in the criminal defense world. We know our client is guilty but we're trying to save his life and that's what the defense was trying to do. So what the jury wanted to do was make sure that he was guilty of every single count and really pay attention to the verdict to make sure they made the right decision because this is literally a life and death situation for this young man.

KEILAR: If you have eleven and a half hours of deliberations, in this case, Linda, they started yesterday. The jury went into today, hours today. What does that tell you? You heard Ashleigh saying she could have complete that questionnaire, even though it's 30 pages, really in a matter of minutes.

LINDA KENNY BADEN, CASEY ANTHONY'S FORMER ATTORNEY: Well, you know, it's interesting because this whole case has been about the death penalty. That's how Judy Clarke tried it. And that aiding and abetting question may suggest that maybe they made a little inroad because was he aiding his brother or was he abetting the conspiracy? So was he just helping an older brother or was he involved in the whole conspiracy? That's how they were thinking. Because the question also said, we see a difference. And the judge said, well, there's no difference under the law. So I thought that that showed an inroad from Judy Clarke that the defense team can then argue, give me mercy because he was at the - the direction of his brother and you should have mercy, something he didn't have, but you should have mercy, jury.

KEILAR: Is this how you read it, Paul, this idea that maybe they're thinking, yes, he played a supporting role but he didn't necessarily conceive of this entire plan?

PAUL CALLAN, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: Well, the suggestion here is that maybe the defense did make some inroads here in this idea that it was the brother's idea and the brother pushed. And one thing I'd just put on the table. If you compare this to deliberations this other death cases, Texas for instance. We did a lot of talking about the American sniper case recently. There was a Texas case. Dealt penalty was in play. Two hour deliberation. So this is a fairly lengthy deliberation given the fact that the defense had conceded guilty on all of the counts. They're being very, very careful in obviously debating each count.

KEILAR: All right. And I'm going to bring in Jeffrey Toobin. But first I want to let you know we have reporting out of the courthouse there in Boston that the jury is being brought into the courtroom. So we know that this verdict, we are about to hear it very soon. It will be rendered very soon, the verdict in the case of the Boston bombing.

I want to bring in Jeff Toobin now. Let's talk about this, Jeff. Tell us how this is going to play out, this key phase, but certainly not the last phase of this case.

JEFFREY TOOBIN, CNN SENIOR LEGAL ANALYST (via telephone): Well, it could be the last if it was somehow an acquittal, but I don't think anyone believes there's any chance that he will be acquitted of all these counts. On the assumption that he is convicted of at least one of the 17 death penalty counts, there will be a move to a new trial. The same jury will begin - will hear evidence on both sides. The prosecution will put on evidence of what's known as aggravating factors, factors that tend to indicate the death penalty is appropriate and then the defense will put on evidence of so called mitigating factor, factors that argue against the imposition of a death penalty. The jury will then deliberate again.

There's a big difference between a deliberation in a guilt phase and deliberation in a penalty phase as it's known. Here, of course, in the guilt phase, the jury has to be unanimous. In a penalty phase, even one vote against the death penalty means no death penalty. So 11-1 or a death sentence means a life sentence. So that's what we have to look forward to in a penalty phase and it changes the dynamics somewhat. And we will presumably begin in short order to move to a penalty phase. And I think at that point the trial will really begin in earnest because everyone has known he's going to be convicted. The real question has been and is, will he get the death penalty?

KEILAR: Dzhokhar Tsarnaev has a very capable attorney in his corner, Judy Clarke. She's been on a number of other cases where she's pulled out endings that you wouldn't have expected she could pull out. What do you think, Jeff, that she is going to put forward, assuming we do move on to the penalty phase as everyone is really expecting we will?

[14:10:07] TOOBIN: Well, I think it will be basically an elaboration of what she has put forth in the guilt phase, which is that this young man, who was 19 years old at the time of the bombing, was manipulated, was coerced, was influenced, was forced in essence by his older brother to become a part of a conspiracy that he, acting on his own, would never have gotten involved in at all (INAUDIBLE). And to punish him with the death sentence would be unjust.

I think the theme of the defense has been set, which is blame Tamerlan, the older brother. Whether the jury buys that is, of course, very much an open question. I don't know. There is plenty of evidence to suggest that Dzhokhar was in fact a willing, knowing, enthusiastic participant on his own. But I think that's going to be the heart of the conflict that we see in the penalty phase, which was how much Dzhokhar was influenced by his older brother Tamerlan.

KEILAR: All right, Jeff, stand by with us because we are awaiting this verdict in the marathon bombing case. We know that the jury has been brought into the courtroom there in Boston, an indication that this verdict will be rendered very soon. That's what we're waiting for. Stick with us as we wait for that.

I want to bring in Joey Jackson, one of our legal analysts, to talk a little bit about what we are expecting.

I do also want to remind our viewers, Joey, that the survivors and victims, their families, will be speaking. We will hear from them. So we definitely want to hear what they have to say after this key point in this case. So you heard Jeff there talking about the mitigators and the

aggravators. Which do you think will win out?

JOEY JACKSON, HLN LEGAL ANALYST: Well, you know, Brianna, just taking a step back and looking at the trial itself, because remember the jury has had an opportunity for hearing all the evidence to really evaluate the three things that I think the prosecution did very well.

KEILAR: Stand by just a minute, Joey. Stand by just a minute.

Count one, and this is key, conspiracy to use a weapon of mass destruction resulting in death. This would make Dzhokhar Tsarnaev eligible for the death penalty. He has been found guilty.

So we know already that this is going to the penalty phase. And I'll be calling these out as we go through the next counts.

Back to you - oh, count two. Here we go. This is use of a weapon of mass destruction resulting in death, aiding and abetting. This also makes him death penalty eligible. Guilty on the second count.

Joey, this may - and here we go, count three, and we're going to bring in Deb Feyerick as we go through these, possession and use of firearm in a crime resulting in death, aiding and abetting. Guilty.

Let's bring in Deb Feyerick as we do look at these counts.

Deb, take us through this as these are popping up on the screen here.

FEYERICK: And we want to get - some of the specifics. Count one, he was found guilty of using a weapon of mass destruction that caused the death of Krystle Campbell, Sean Collier, Lingzi Lu and Martin Richard. So they did find that, yes, that he was involved, that he intentionally tried to kill them.

KEILAR: And that's related to the pressure - the pressure bomb, number one, right?

FEYERICK: Correct.

KEILAR: That would be the bomb Tamerlan Tsarnaev, his brother, placed on Boylston Street.

FEYERICK: Exactly. And then also on count two, count two is interesting because count two is also the pressure cooker bomb, the one that Tamerlan placed. That was aiding and abetting. And that was connected to the death of Krystle Campbell. So they're going through each of these counts and how they relate to the deaths.

Count three, also guilty. Death penalty eligible. That relating to the death of Krystle Campbell. We are waiting for count four that has not been read out just yet. But, again, they have -

KEILAR: And I think - I think it's important - actually, it is just in. Here we go. Count four, Deb. FEYERICK: OK, and count four. So he is guilty. And that means that that is the bomb that he placed at the finish line and the jury found that it resulted in the death of one - one of two deaths. That would have been the death of Lingzi Lu and Martin Richard, and that he contributed and intentionally put that bomb there intending to kill people. So that's the - that's count two. So they're going through the first pressure cooker bomb and the second pressure bomb alternatively. But so far on the top four counts, all of them make him eligible for death penalty, Brianna.

[14:14:51] KEILAR: And this is - this is pretty interesting and significant when you're talking about counts one through three because these are talking about this pressure cooker bomb that his brother placed. And I guess I would wonder, Deb, the idea that certainly he was involved in that. This was a plan that they - the conspiracy that they had this plan to do this together, that this may be something that gives us a little preview of where the jurors are, perhaps when you're talking about the dealt penalty phase.

FEYERICK: Yes, absolutely.

KEILAR: And let me just also say, count five in now. Can we talk about this. Another - this is another firearms charge and it's in relation to the pressure cooker bomb. To the second one. That would be the one that Dzhokhar Tsarnaev placed.

Let's go back to the - oh, count six, here we are, conspiracy to bomb a place of public use resulting in death. And this is - this has to do - this is interesting because of the language about intent. I think we should mention. This elevates really it to a terror charge, right Deb?

FEYERICK: Yes, that's - that's exactly right. And that also is a death penalty eligible charge. So right now he's been found guilty of the first six counts against him and that also implicates him in the deaths not only of the two people he was standing next to, but also the woman he's accused of killing, Krystle Campbell, or his brother's accused of killing Krystle Campbell, near the finish line. And also the officer, Sean Collier, who was murdered when the two brothers made their escape or tried to make their escape out of Boston.

KEILAR: The - I want to let our viewers know that we are going to be going through all of the counts as they are coming in from the courthouse in Boston. This count seven just coming in. This has to do with the bombing of a place of public use resulting in death and that he was aiding and abetting. Guilty as well.

Just to recap, so far, the counts that have come in, the verdict has been rendered for seven of the counts so far. All of them he is guilty. That is what the jury has found. Some of these pertaining to the first pressure cooker bomb. Some pertaining to the second pressure cooker bomb. The use of firearms. And here in this number six, in count six, it names all four of the victims, not just the three who were killed, in the bombing at the Boston Marathon, but also the killing of MIT Police Officer Sean Collier.

And we are awaiting count eight. But I want to bring in - here's count eight, possession and use of a firearm in a crime resulting in death, aiding and abetting. This has to do with the first pressure cooker bomb, which is the bomb not that Dzhokhar Tsarnaev placed there near the finish line in the Boston Marathon, but the bomb that his brother placed.

I want to bring in our panel as we discuss this. Paul, you're looking at this come in. Eight counts here so far, all of them guilty.

CALLAN: And many of them are death penalty counts. So we obviously know that we're going to be in the death penalty phase. There are 17 death penalty counts in the indictment and it would look like now we've already hit a majority of those counts with guilty findings.

KEILAR: And I just do want to note that we've been getting in some information from the courtroom. Obviously we don't have a camera in there. But it's intriguing to note from our eyes that are there in the courtroom that Dzhokhar Tsarnaev apparently has not shown any emotion as these counts have come down and he has learned that he is indeed facing the death penalty. His hands have been clasped in front of him as he is standing there and this verdict has been read. Is that what you expect, Linda?

BADEN: Yes. As a matter of fact you tell your client not to have any emotion. You don't want to have any (INAUDIBLE) screaming (ph) because what you want to say to them, look, he expected this, he's resigned to it, he knows what the consequences are, but we're still going to talk on his behalf and try to let you give that mercy that he didn't have. So that's where we're heading. It's all about those five words.

KEILAR: So this moves into the next phase and this is where Judy Clarke is going to be doing her work and trying to save him from the death penalty, from getting death. How does she argue that and how does she make the case to this jury?

GUSTER: Well, from the beginning I'm sure she has been working on mitigation. But she has to put forward as much mitigation evidence as she can. I'm sure there will be experts to talk about his childhood, to talk about his brother influencing him and other people in order to make sure that the jury understands that he was under the influence of his brother. And that may give them enough to not give him the dealt penalty.

KEILAR: Count ten in right now, this is possession and use of a firearm in a crime resulting in death, aiding and abetting. This is related to the second pressure cooker, the pressure cooker that Dzhokhar Tsarnaev personally put down near the finish line which killed that little boy, Martin Richard, and an exchange student, Lingzi Lu.

[14:20:01] Let's talk about - so we now have 10 - 10 counts coming in. I believe all of them death penalty eligible. All of them guilty. So as this moves on to the next phase, Linda, what really, in the case of someone who at the time of this crime is 19 years old, a college student. This is someone of above average intelligence.

BADEN: Right. KEILAR: How does Judy Clarke really - how does she make this case?

BADEN: Well, let me tell you, I'd bring in - there was some question about his parents being militant. I would show that this kid came to the United States trying to escape that militantly. He came, he became a citizen, he went to school but he just couldn't escape the militancy, the tunicate around him that really he was born with. And, ladies and gentlemen, you have to show something different than he showed. You can escape the death penalty here. Put him in prison for life. It doesn't (INAUDIBLE).

CALLAN: But you know -

KEILAR: But, you know, at this point he's away at college, Paul, when this happens. He has the exposure to so many people who are not of a mind like this.

CALLAN: Not only that, and I think we've just passed what I considered to be the most important count in the indictment, the Martin Richard count. That's an eight-year-old child who was killed by this bomb. And the, you know, the maiming of children, the killing of children who were close to that bomb, that's the thing that's going to resonate in favor of the death penalty here.

And getting back to your question, you know, a case like this - Judy Clarke, the defense attorney, has such an uphill battle because, number one, he's almost functions as an officer of a military organization attacking the United States. The claim, of course, that he's an Islamic radical and that this is almost an army like attack on civilians. And the second thing, it was so well planned and so callously planned so that civilians would - would die, so that children would be maimed. And all of this she has to get around and convince a jury he's not worthy of the death penalty. Boy, she's climbing the Mount Everest of death penalty cases in this case.

KEILAR: She certainly has her work cut out for her.

Let's recap what has happened so far. There are 30 counts in this case. So far the verdicts for ten of them have been rendered. Counts one through ten. And these are key because they are death penalty charges, meaning that as he has been found guilty of all of them, Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, the Boston bomber suspect, now stands guilty of having committed these crimes before him.

I want to bring in Mark O'Mara. He is - you likely recognize him. He's a CNN legal analyst. He's also the attorney who represented George Zimmerman in the Trayvon Martin case.

Mark, you're watching this.

MARK O'MARA, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: Sure.

KEILAR: You're watching these counts come down. And I should mention here, we have some different - some new ones in. Count 11, guilty. Count 12, guilty. Count 11 is conspiracy to maliciously destroy property resulting in personal injury and death. This has to do with the killings of all four of the victims, the three at the Boston Marathon, as well as MIT Officer Sean Collier. Count 12 - now, count 13 in, guilty.

Count 12, this has to do with the malicious destruction of property resulting in personal injury and death, aiding and abetting. This has to do with the killing of Krystle Campbell, who was killed by the bomb that Dzhokhar's brother Tamerlan Tsarnaev placed there.

And guilty on count 13. This is a firearm count, having to do with that first pressure cooker. And count 14, guilty as well. So 14 out of 14 guilty counts at this point. This has to do with malicious property destruction. And this is to do with the second pressure cooker bomb, the one that Dzhokhar Tsarnaev personally put down there at the - at the Boston Marathon.

So, Mark, you're watching these come in. Fourteen of 14 guilty. What does this tell you about where the jury is as we move forward into the penalty phase?

O'MARA: Well, look, from the first day that Judy Clarke had this case, her only job, the battle that she had, was to set herself up, set her client up to convince at least one juror not to impose the death penalty. This was never a question of whether or not he would be found guilty of enough counts that he would face the death penalty. The whole point that a good defense attorney like Ms. Clarke had to do was, one, maintain her own credibility so the jury would listen to her in the penalty phase, and to be able to come up with some evidence, begin it in the guilt phase, as she has done, lay some of the framework, call your client an adolescent, blame the brother - the dead brother for as much as you can, only because you have to get to at least one juror and say, knowing he's going to spend the rest of his life in jail, can we do something other than kill him as well.

[14:24:55] They're not going to find sympathy just in this defendant. But if you can get to that societal sympathy, if you can get to the jury and say, we have to be better than those enemies who attack us like him at 19 years of age, who was blinded by whatever he was blinded by. Because, again, the reality of this case has always been, convince one juror not to kill him and you've done the best job that you can. The only job you have as a defense attorney in this case, which is to avoid the death penalty.

KEILAR: And this breaking news just in to CNN, as we are having some ears there on the ground in the Boston courthouse where Dzhokhar Tsarnaev is currently standing as these counts are being read. The first 15 counts he has been found guilty of. Fifteen of 15 so far. We're awaiting the verdict on the other 15 counts.

This is very significant. This means the trial moves into the penalty phase and that Dzhokhar Tsarnaev is going to be eligible for the death penalty.

Count 16 now. Sixteen of 16, he has been found guilty on. Count 16 has to do with possession and use of a firearm during a crime of violence resulting in death. This is pretty important because this has to do with the fact of brandishing and firing the Ruger 9 mm semiautomatic that caused the death of MIT Police Officer Sean Collier. So, Mark, you look at that, this was something that, you know, some folks had said maybe - maybe the jury may not be completely convinced of what his role was in the death of Officer Collier.

O'MARA: Agreed, again, with the overwhelming evidence, even though a jury is not supposed to consider other evidence for each individual count, a juror is going to look at this case and look at everything from the beginning. As Paul said, the planning, the execution, and even the manifesto afterwards in his own blood as he was about to be captured and look at this and not offer this defendant much sympathy at all. So if it's a close call on did you - were you part of the scheme that caused the officer's death, I think they're going to go with the prosecution. They did in this case. I expect another - the next 13 or so to be guilty as well. But, again, I don't think the defense is worried about convictions. They're worried about the penalty.

KEILAR: Count 17 now in, also death penalty eligible charge, guilty. So on 17 of 17 so far and we await the other 13. But so far, 17 of 17 guilty.

Before I bring in Ashleigh Banfield, the final question to you, Mark. You said that when this moves into the death penalty phase, there - and we will go through the aggravators and the mitigators, those arguments in that case with Ashleigh Banfield.

O'MARA: Yes.

KEILAR: But Judy Clarke, Dzhokhar Tsarnaev's lawyer, will be trying to make this case that he deserves some sympathy. But at the same time, isn't what he wanted - you know, some have made the case that this is someone who is a true jihadist, that he would have wanted to die in the case of this - in the case of this crime or in the process of this crime, but he seemed to want to live. He drove away. He tried to escape. Very different actions than his brother Tamerlan. Do you think that the jury, looking at that, may say, you know what, the death penalty is a fitting punishment for someone like this?

O'MARA: Well, look, there's no question that if we look at this analytically, this is a death penalty case and a death penalty is an appropriate sentence for somebody who did what they did to individuals, to our country, and the way they did it. But Judy Clarke's job is to try and do whatever she can to convince this jury, again, that we have to be better than what we would normally consider, that vengeance that we want to give, that retribution that we want to give. And what Judy has done a masterful job of so far is to plant some of those seeds during the guilt phase.

The idea of acknowledging responsibility is great because, again, it's going to come back that acceptance of responsibility is something a jury can consider in determining whether or not to impose the death penalty. Everything she has done has gone towards the only battle, as we talked about, which is to try and convince this jury, let's be better to him than he was to us and not kill him.

KEILAR: OK, so let's look. And that may be something we'll see that might stick in a state like Massachusetts where there is some resistance to the death penalty. It only dos take one juror after all.

We've gotten a few more counts in now. Count 18, guilty. County 19, guilty. Count 20, guilty. And now count 21, guilty.

Some of these had to do with the firearm that was used in the killing, not only of MIT Officer Sean Collier, but also in the serious injuring of Officer Richard Donohue, the transit cop who nearly bled to death.

Count 21, this has to do with the robbery of Dun Meng, who was driving that Mercedes. And after 90 minutes with Tamerlan and Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, managed to escape.

[14:29:56] I want to bring in Ashleigh Banfield. And also, I should mention, Ashleigh, that 17 of these 30 counts, capital offenses. They were death penalty eligible. They are all included in what we have seen so far. So he's been found guilty on 17 of 17 of these death penalty eligible charges - counts.