Return to Transcripts main page

NEW DAY

Does Commercial Dieting Work Best?; Arizona Officer Rams Car Into Suspect With Rifle; What's Taking Aaron Hernandez Jury So Long? Aired 8:30-9a ET

Aired April 15, 2015 - 8:30   ET

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


[08:30:07] JOHN BERMAN, CNN ANCHOR: The seventh day of deliberations coming up. What is taking so long? That's next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

MICHAELA PEREIRA, CNN ANCHOR: Two-thirds of American adults are overweight or obese, millions trying to lose weight every year. So, which of those diets have science on their side?

Bringing us today's NEW DAY NEW YOU is chief medical correspondent, Dr. Sanjay Gupta.

You know I'm not missing this irony of the curvy girl talking to the super fit doctor about this. All right, doc, why is it so hard for us to lose weight? Not you.

DR. SANJAY GUPTA, CNN CHIEF MEDICAL CORRESPONDENT: I mean, you know, obviously as you pointed out, Michaela, this is an issue for a lot of people out there. Our bodies are sort of evolved, evolutionary designed, to put on weight, not to lose weight.

PEREIRA: Okay.

GUPTA: Because, you know, human bodies, human beings wanted to survive, and so we're part of our evolutionary history here for sure, but there's more to it than that as well. You know, people have high expectations when it comes to losing weight. If you do the math and just sort of look at how many calories really comprise a pound, you sort of get an idea of how challenging it is to actually lose weight.

[08:35:05] So, you know, 3,500 calories roughly is going to equal one pound. If you think about that, even if you cut out 500 calories out of your diet every single day for a week, you still lose one pound. And cutting out that much is a lot for people to sort of ask. So, it is just challenging. And as we get older, we don't burn calories as quickly as we used to.

PEREIRA: True.

GUPTA: If you eat the same, exercise the same right now as you did when you were 20, you're still going to gain about two pounds a year, so, it's - over 20 years that's 40 pounds.

PEREIRA: Well, that's a depressing fact, Dr. Gupta. All right, so, there's a study that looked at some of these programs. It found that some of them worked better than others. What else did it find out for you?

GUPTA: The thing I sort of took away from the study, which was kind of amazing because it looked at all these various commercial weight loss programs, the big takeaway was, for me, that there wasn't very much data at all, and hardly any long-term data, which means that first of all, a lot of these commercial weight loss centers really aren't studying their clients, or at least not providing that data.

PEREIRA: That doesn't make any sense.

GUPTA: And so few stick with the programs, so just keep that in mind, you know, as I give you some of this in terms of who did the best there was very little data overall.

Jenny Craig, you saw this was comparing that program versus just sort of going it alone, hitting your own sort of weight loss program. You had about a 2.6 percent better chance of losing weight with Jenny Craig, and with Weight Watchers about a 4.9 percent. These aren't huge numbers, but those are some of the best numbers out there in terms of what seemed to work best. Weight Watchers seemed to do the best, but it also had people who had the longest term data, 12 months at least.

PEREIRA: Was there any sort of comparison about how those programs do compare to just doing that old scam of, you know, eating less and exercising more, going it alone?

GUPTA: That was basically the control group, right? It was the people who do these programs and then everybody else.

PEREIRA: Right.

GUPTA: So, people who are trying to lose weight but they're not joining a particular program. Really what those two, Weight Watchers and Jenny Craig, they had the longest term data and they did show some, although modest, improvement over that going it alone.

PEREIRA: Well, this is why we always love talking to you. Dr. Gupta, thanks so much. We appreciate it.

GUPTA: You got it. Thank you.

PEREIRA: All right, Chris, over to you.

CHRIS CUOMO, CNN ANCHOR: I like that Sanjay Gupta.

So, in other news, an Arizona officer rams his cruiser right into a suspect who had been firing a gun on the street. Was this the best course of action? Was it justified? Was it excessive? These are questions for the chief to answer, and he is here next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[08:41:21] CUOMO: Police in Arizona are defending an officer's stunning actions to take down a suspect. You can see the dash cam video for yourself.

(BEGIN VIDEOCLIP)

CUOMO (voice-over): He drives his car into a man who had been firing a gun in the air and had been on a very violent crime spree. The question is, was this excessive force, or was it justifiable means by the police?

(END VIDEOCLIP)

CUOMO (on camera): Chief Terry Rozema from the Marana Police Department joins us live via Skype. Did I get Marana right, chief, first of all? That's very important.

CHIEF TERRY ROZEMA, MARANA POLICE DEPARTMENT: Good job, Chris.

CUOMO: Thank you, chief. When we look at this, it looks terrible. Do you think this was appropriate use of force by your officer?

(BEGIN VIDEOCLIP)

ROZEMA (voice-over): I am going to agree with you, Chris, it does look terrible and the first time I saw it, you know, I had the same reaction I think probably everybody else has.

When you look at the totality of the circumstances and the decisions that the officers had to make and the time in which they had to make it, I think they absolutely did the right thing.

(END VIDEOCLIP)

ROZEMA (on camera): You have an individual who has a 30-30 rifle walking through a very busy business complex area. We don't know what his intentions are. Is he going to go into one of the buildings to take out his ex-wife or go on a shooting spree? And I don't think we had the luxury of sitting back and waiting to figure out what he's going to do.

Somebody had to stop the threat and somebody did. And is it unconventional? Absolutely, it is. But everybody walked away from that. The suspect even is okay and is awaiting trial for the crimes that he committed.

CUOMO: But we do have the benefit of what the others officers were doing there on video with their dash cams, they were not pursuing him at a high speed and bucking him off their hood. They were following him, recognizing him as, yes, dangerous, yes, armed, but also obviously disturbed.

And the question becomes, if they were doing that, why did this officer wind up being justified doing something so different and violent?

ROZEMA: Well, I think everybody's perceptions are going to be a little bit different. The initial officer on the scene comes across the individual and the subject has the gun, and he immediately turns around and puts the gun to his throat. What that officer doesn't see is that the individual does turn around at one point and points the gun directly at him and then turns and shoots the gun into the air.

So, when you look at the totality of the circumstances, you have an officer who is responding to the scene who is thinking big picture. You have an officer who is dealing with the individual who is thinking about what's going on right there with that individual.

The bottom line is, if that suspect continues to walk towards those businesses, officers are going to be forced into a situation where they are going to have to use deadly force with a firearm. So, this situation, we don't end up using firearms. We used a vehicle, the suspect is okay, our officers are okay, and all the citizens are okay.

CUOMO: Right, but chief, isn't that more about luck? I mean, I know that you don't train to use your car as a weapon against suspects as they're walking around. I know that this was somewhat of a freelance thought, but how could it not have killed him unless he got lucky? The guy was flying into him with a car, which is certainly legally recognized as a deadly weapon used in those circumstances. It was more luck than it was tactic that the guy is not dead, isn't it?

ROZEMA: Well, may very well be, Chris, that it's luck that he's still alive. The fact of the matter remains, though, deadly force would also (inaudible). So, if he ends up dying in that situation, he ends up dying, and that's unfortunate. That's not the desire of anybody. And the officer --

CUOMO: But he's still in a residential area. I get that he was approaching a business area, I get that there were exigencies that might have evolved down the line, but was it too much too soon? Could you have had an EDS guy, you know, an emotionally disturbed service person talking to him?

[08:45:12] ROZEMA: Okay, so here you go, Chris. We can step back and second guess if he would have waited another five or ten or 14 seconds, but the fact of the matter remains, the officer had a very difficult tough decision to make, and he made that tough decision. If he doesn't make that decision, we don't know that if he let's him go for another ten seconds he takes somebody out in the parking lot, and then we are answering some completely different questions. Why didn't you act sooner? This guy was a lunatic, this guy had a gun, he's shooting it off in the neighborhood, why didn't you stop this guy before he shot my wife, before he shot my husband, before he shot my child --

CUOMO: Right. And if he died when that car hit him, you'd be answering different questions also. Because I think the point of analysis that needs to be made, chief, is - I get what you're saying about the officer and I get what you're saying about evaluating his process, but you have these other officers who made very different decisions than that other officer, so which one was reasonable?

ROZEMA: You have one officer who was making the decision to try and talk the subject into putting the gun down. That subject did not obey those commands and did not do what that officer was saying and so you have another officer who sees and seizes an opportunity to end the threat and put an end to the situation. You know, I am not really sure that we'll ever know what the intent of that individual was, but I do know that we ended up in a situation here where we did not have mass casualties and we didn't have any casualties.

CUOMO: At this point, chief, is the officer involved under investigation or are they going to be back on the job? Do you expect any action to be taken?

ROZEMA: Obviously, this incident took place back in February, so the review took place by the county attorney's office and we received clearance from the county attorney's office on the officer's actions, and we are currently still doing a board of inquiry. The officer has been back to work for sometime as standard protocol, he was on leave for several days following the use of force and also saw a police psychologist before returning to work.

CUOMO: Chief Rozema, thank you for answering the questions. You know they're out there. We appreciate you doing it on NEW DAY. good luck to you in the course of your job, sir.

ROZEMA: Alright. Thank you, sir.

CUOMO: John.

BERMAN: Alright, thanks, Chris. The seventh day of deliberations in the Aaron Hernandez murder trial. Any possibility for anything now other than a hung jury? That's next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[08:51:18] BERMAN: Jurors are about to enter their seventh day of deliberations in the Aaron Hernandez murder trial. The big question. What is taking so long? Are we headed for a hung jury?

Joining us to talk about this, Paul Callan, CNN legal analyst and former New York City homicide prosecutor and Midwin Charles, a criminal defense attorney.

Guys, I want to break down the big questions here. Really, the biggest question right now as we head into the seventh day is -- it's flowing right off the screen, there is it. Six days, no verdict. Paul, is there any explanation right now other than this is a hung jury?

PAUL CALLAN, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: Yes, there's an explanation. I think that it's deceptive to think that they have been out this long in the sense that it took almost a day to a day and a half before they got all the evidence into the room to look over, the court was very unorganized about getting the case to the jury. A couple of the days have been half day sessions, so I am thinking it's not really six days. They have been deliberating a lot less and it's a complex case and I still think there's a possibility of a verdict here.

BERMAN: Yeah, but. Yeah, but, Midwin. Definitionally speaking, don't we know that there is at least one person in there, if they've been taking polls, that says, not so fast? MIDWIN CHARLES, CRIMINAL DEFENSE ATTORNEY: It's possible. But Paul is

right. I think the administrative process of all of this really boils down to just about 27 hours of deliberation, so it's still pretty early in the process, but if I would have to guess, I would say that this jury is struggling with motive. The prosecutors never proved it, they don't have to. But juries like to know, why is it that I am convicting someone to life without patrol or life with the possibility of patrol after 15 years? Those are the two options that they're taking here.

BERMAN: So Paul Callan, what about the prosecution? This is the D.A. here, one of the big charges has been they were out-lawyered, they did not prove a motive, at the end, the defense presented this possibility that yeah, Aaron Hernandez was there, but didn't pull the trigger. The prosecution out-classed here?

CALLAN: They have been out-lawyered. I think people who have been watching the trial closely say it's a superb defense team and they took what looked to be a very strong prosecution case and picked it apart, making it look like there is reasonable doubt. However, what I have seen for the most part in cases when a jury sifts through the evidence long enough, a lot of times, the truth emerges rather than the good lawyering. So I wouldn't rule the prosecution out, even though I think the lawyers on the defense side have done a better job of presenting their case.

BERMAN: We keep hearing this is all circumstantial, this case is purely circumstantial. We are hearing that now, but when this all happened a couple years ago, it seemed, oh, my goodness, there's all this evidence here, Aaron Hernandez was there and not only that, there are a couple other murders that he is allegedly connected to? What happened?

CHARLES: You're right. You made an excellent point in your question, which is there's all this evidence. It's circumstantial, which means the jury has to sort of sift through each and every testimony. They've heard over two months of testimony, so they have to go over the testimony, they have to go over all the evidence, the exhibits that have been entered into evidence, and decide whether or not it adds up to a conviction beyond the reasonable doubt, which is a very high threshold for them to meet.

BERMAN: You know, Paul, one of the interesting things here is that I am a Patriots' fan, right, and I actually, at this point, don't remember Aaron Hernandez playing that much. His actual play on the field doesn't come into my memory anymore. There was a notion, is this going to be a celebrity trial? Does the celebrity factor weigh in here? Do people still care, do you think, in that jury room, that he was a star for the Patriots?

CALLAN: You are a typical Patriots fan, you're trying to forget about him now, but he was a major player, a major --

BERMAN: But do you think they are looking at him as a celebrity, as a star, when they are in that room right now? [08:55:02] CALLAN: Yes, I do, and I think there's this - You know, I

have been involved in some high profile cases through the years, and the thing that I have always noticed is that jurors look at famous athletes, in particular, and they say he is rich, he is famous, he must be smart, how could he be stupid enough to do a killing like this and throw it all away? So I think that factor sort of looms over the case and I think he gets the benefit of an extra doubt with the jury because of his fame.

BERMAN: Midwin, quick last word on that?

CHARLES: I think Paul is right. Remember, Aaron Hernandez had a $40 million contract at the time that this killing of Odin Lloyd occurred, so he is right, why would he do this? Why would he risk such an excellent career and so much money, and the fact that they haven't given them any motive to work with, I think is probably what they are struggling with.

BERMAN: Heading into day seven right now. Could today be the day? Paul Callan, Midwin Charles, thanks so much.

CALLAN: Thank you.

BERMAN: The Good Stuff is next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

CUOMO: Right? Good song.

BERMAN: Dropkick Murphys.

CUOMO: Alright. So two years ago today, the Boston Marathon bombing, we all remember that, April 15th. What is being done going forward? That's what makes this one The Good Stuff. The mayor has asked that everybody in the city simply do something nice for everybody else on this day, as part of what will now be called One Boston Day.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

MARTY WALSH, BOSTON MAYOR: Do an act of kindness for somebody. Somebody that, you know, doesn't have to be in the press, it doesn't have to be public, it can just be a nice and quiet thing.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CUOMO: And in typical Boston strong fashion, people answering the call. One hotel collecting 500 pairs of shoes, one for each guest room for a local homeless shelter.

PEREIRA: How about that?

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: This ties in beautifully with the mayor's initiative, the marathon, it just all comes together and, of course, St. Francis House, they need these. (END VIDEO CLIP)

CUOMO: Now, we all remember what happened. The human toll and so much more that the Boston bombing caused. More than 260 hurt, three people lost their lives. But it's all about what you do with it. You know, John covered so brilliantly up there, this community took the worst and then became its best.

[09:00:02] PEREIRA: Absolutely.

BERMAN: It's even more meaningful now up there. It's great to see.

PEREIRA: It really is. Thanks for that, Chris.

Let's head to the "NEWSROOM" with Carol Costello. Good morning to you, Carol.