Return to Transcripts main page
Several U.S. Servicemen Wounded after Attack by Afghan Soldier; President Trump's Tweets on Special Counsel Investigation Examined; Mistrial Declared in Bill Cosby Sexual Assault Trial. Aired 10-11a ET
Aired June 17, 2017 - 10:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
[10:00:08] UNIDENTIFIED MALE: This is CNN breaking news.
RENE MARSH, CNN ANCHOR: Good morning, everyone. I'm Rene Marsh in for Christi Paul.
VICTOR BLACKWELL, CNN ANCHOR: I'm Victor Blackwell. You're live in the CNN Newsroom. We're starting with breaking news just in. Several U.S. servicemen wounded after an apparent insider attack by an Afghan soldier.
MARSH: Officials tell CNN an Afghan soldier opened fire on troops in Mazar-e-Sharif in northern Afghanistan. U.S. special forces have been fighting alongside Afghan troops against ISIS there. Four foreign soldiers were also wounded in the attack. And investigators from Afghanistan's ministry of defense are looking into the attack at this hour.
This is the latest in a so-called green on blue insider attacks where Afghan soldiers ambush international service members. Just last week three American soldiers were killed when an Afghan soldier opened fire on them in eastern Afghanistan. Another was injured.
But again, several U.S. servicemen have been injured in this latest attack that we are bringing you the breaking news about today. No deaths have been confirmed.
BLACKWELL: Joining us now, CNN military analyst Lieutenant Colonel Rick Francona. So, good morning to you first. And your reaction to what we are hearing? This is not the first green on blue attack.
LT. COL. RICK FRANCONA, CNN MILITARY ANALYST: No, it's not. Following what happened last week, I wonder if we are seeing a pattern here. The timing of this is very suspect. Following last week's attack, this comes at the same time that the United States is discussing upping the troop levels significantly by as many as 4,000 troops. So if this is inspired or directed by the Taliban, they may be trying to create some sort of psychological event that would cause Americans to say hey, no more of this. We can't trust the Afghans.
It also points to a difficulty in the Afghan system of vetting their own troops, very, very difficult situation. When these things happen, it undermines the trust and the bond between the Americans and the Afghans and the Americans and NATO and the Afghan troops. Very, very problematic.
MARSH: And you brought up the Pentagon's pending decision on increasing troop levels in Afghanistan. Now we are hearing this latest report here. Do you think this attack will have any sort of impact on Mattis' decision or the Pentagon's decision on troop levels in Afghanistan? And if so, what would that impact be?
FRANCONA: Well, General Mattis, Secretary Mattis, is committed to winning the war in Afghanistan, and he's willing to send the troops there to do that. So I'm not sure that this will change that calculus but he's going to have to deal probably with some people in Congress and American popular opinion that's going to say, wait, why are we doing this? We are just sending more troops over there to a 16-year- old war that many believe is not winnable.
BLACKWELL: So what's this investigation look like?
FRANCONA: Well, of course, the Afghans are going to have to do the investigation of what's going on there. And you know, these things happen and we hear that somebody was turned by the Taliban or somebody infiltrated. We just don't know what happened yet, but it will be interesting to see if it was a Taliban-directed attack. That would make a lot of sense.
MARSH: So since we have you, lieutenant, we do want to also get your take on one other story we have been following this morning, and that's that incident that happened just hours ago, that U.S. Navy ship, that warship that collided with that merchant vessel. You are looking at some images there. This happened off the coast of Japan. At this point there is an ongoing search for some seven missing sailors. The ship is back at port. They are inspecting it. But your take on how this even happened in the first place?
FRANCONA: Well, that's going to be a big question. How does a 30,000 ton, 700 foot long ship get that close to a U.S. Navy destroyer? The Navy destroyer has all sorts of electronics and state of the art detection equipment so this doesn't happen. So we have to look at what happened out there.
There's an investigation going to find out what track was the ship on, what track was the warship on, and why did they collide. There's a lot of speculation and nobody really knows what happened out there. We have seen some tracking of the commercial vessel making maybe an odd maneuver that may have led to something happening out there. But we just don't know yet. I think the key, the principle focus right now is trying find the seven missing U.S. sailors.
MARSH: Right, absolutely. That is certainly the priority at this hour. Lieutenant Colonel Rick Francona, thanks so much for joining us.
BLACKWELL: Happening now, we are on verdict watch in the Bill Cosby trial. Day six of jury deliberations resumed just about an hour ago.
[10:05:05] MARSH: And the panel of seven men and five women did not reach a verdict last night. Cosby arrived this morning, but for the first time last night Cosby addressed both the jurors and his supporters. Take a listen.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
BILL COSBY, COMEDIAN: I want to thank the jury for their long days, their honest work individually. I also want to thank the supporters who have been here. And please, to the supporters, stay calm, do not argue with people. Just keep up the great support. Thank you.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
BLACKWELL: Let's go now to CNN's Brynn Gingras, who is following this. And we understand there's an update there, something just happened?
BRYNN GINGRAS, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Yes, we are learning that the jurors, or rather the reporters and everybody outside of the courthouse is being called back into the courtroom. I will say in the past just from covering this for the past five days or so, when this has happened we heard the deadlocked incident two days ago. Another time this has happened we heard that the jury had some questions. So it's really unclear just to determine exactly what's going on inside that courtroom. We know the doors just closed at this point and everybody is inside. So certainly we are going to learn more in just a little bit.
But here's the issue. Two days ago is when they said that they were deadlocked. They could not come to a unanimous decision on any of the three counts that they have been deliberating for the past five days. At this point they are now or have been deliberating longer than it took the prosecution and the defense to give its cases, so they are really trying to come to some sort of consensus on these charges at this point. But certainly we are waiting, just as you guys are, to figure out what is happening inside that courtroom. Do they have another question? They have asked 12 already, various questions, clarifications of the law. Or is there a verdict? We hope to find out very soon, guys.
BLACKWELL: Brynn, it's pretty peculiar that just an hour into deliberations this morning that they would be called back into the courtroom for maybe a verdict, maybe to say they are still deadlocked, considering most our legal analysts expected they would not take this into the weekend. And to come back into Saturday and just an hour in to be back in the courtroom, some serious questions there.
GINGRAS: Right. Here's the thing. This jury has been sequestered, so they haven't been able to go home as it is. They have been putting in 12-hour days. So they are really trying to come to some sort of determination here.
I will say, though, yesterday they called everyone back in at 9:30, only a half an hour into the time they started deliberations, and they had a question. So maybe they go into the day and they kind of reassess what they sort of went through the day prior, and then have another question and they ask it. Really, it is hard to determine at this point where their heads are at. We really don't even know a breakdown. Is it ten jurors versus two? Is it 11 jurors versus one? We have no idea. We just know basically they were deadlocked on Thursday around 11:30 and they were deadlocked on all counts that they are considering. So we don't know what sort of progress they have made since then.
MARSH: I know you are watching that. Keep us posted. As soon as the verdict is down, Brynn, Gingras, thank you so much for that.
And coming up, should Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein recuse himself, considering his role in the firing of the FBI director, the former FBI director Comey. That question is lingering as the probe into Russia's meddling in the 2016 election accelerates. We will have details on the friction that's happening right inside the Justice Department. That's coming up.
BLACKWELL: Plus an update on House Majority Whip Steve Scalise's condition, and new details surrounding a list of names that was found with the shooter.
[10:13:26] MARSH: This just in. President Trump tweeting his thoughts and prayers with the sailors of the USS Fitzgerald and their family, thanking them for their service and their Japanese allies for their assistance. Again, he is referring to that U.S. Navy vessel right now at this hour. As you know, they are still searching for seven U.S. sailors as a result of that incident.
BLACKWELL: We will continue to watch as that search goes on. It's now nightfall and that may hamper some of the search efforts.
All right, moving on now, President Trump adding a veteran Washington lawyer to his defense team amid the expanding Russia investigation. His name is John Dowd. He once led the investigation into the Pete Rose betting scandal for Major League Baseball.
MARSH: This as CNN learns tensions are rising at the Justice Department over the Russia probe. The man who named a special counsel to run the investigation after Attorney General Jeff Sessions recused himself now may be forced to do the same thing. CNN's Jeremy Diamond is live at the White House. Jeremy, are you hearing anything from the White House, any reaction whatsoever on this CNN reporting about this tension at DOJ?
JEREMY DIAMOND, CNN CORRESPONDENT: We are not yet hearing anything from the White House commenting on that, but certainly tensions are rising at the Justice Department as the probe led by Special Counsel Robert Mueller is widening. That probe now looking into whether or not the president may have interfered with the Justice Department's investigation into ties between Trump campaign associates and the Russian government during the 2016 election.
[10:15:07] All of this has led to questions about whether the deputy attorney general, Rod Rosenstein, should potentially recuse himself from this investigation. You will remember, of course, that Rosenstein recommended that the president fire James Comey from the FBI, and that firing may very well be a key focus of this widening investigation.
Rosenstein has said in the past that he would recuse himself if necessary. And that's not the only instance where we have seen Rosenstein have a role here. He recommended that Jeff Sessions, the attorney general, recuse himself from the Russia investigation. And of course, Rosenstein also appointed Special Counsel Robert Mueller to lead this investigation following the firing of FBI director James Comey.
And all of that over the last several weeks has led to rising tensions not just at the Justice Department, but also at the White House, where we have seen a president increasingly frustrated with this widening probe, lashing out not just privately but also publicly. The latest instance of that came yesterday as the president on Twitter confirms that he was under investigation, but also lashed out, it seems, at the deputy attorney general, Rod Rosenstein, accusing him of leading this quote-unquote, "witch hunt."
MARSH: Right. So what's the sense? He's lashing out at his own deputy attorney general. Does Rosenstein at this point seem like he's safe? There's talk that perhaps Trump is considering even firing him, too.
DIAMOND: Well, it's not clear. But certainly the president has in private expressed his frustrations not just with Mueller but with Rosenstein as well. And let's remember, Rod Rosenstein was previously at the Justice Department. He was U.S. attorney for Maryland under both George W. Bush and President Barack Obama, but he was only appointed to this position of deputy attorney general by the president, by President Trump. So the fact that we are now seeing the president lashing out, signaling perhaps that he's regretting this decision, is certainly something very much out of the ordinary.
MARSH: Thank you, Jeremy Diamond, live for us at the White House.
BLACKWELL: Let's continue the discussion with Ron Brownstein, CNN senior political analyst, Laura Coates, CNN legal analyst and former federal prosecutor, and Timothy Naftali, CNN presidential historian. Good morning to all of you. And Laura, I want to start with you. Here's the standard Rod Rosenstein set for himself when it comes to recusal, this is from an interview with A.P. earlier this month. He says, and this is a quote, "I will recuse if anything I did winds up being relevant" to Mueller's investigation. Mueller, "The Post" is reporting, is now looking into potential obstruction of justice. CNN says it's heading that way. Is this a question of when and not if, and if so, why not now?
LAURA COATES, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: I think it would be premature for him to recuse himself at this point, but it may in fact ultimately end up being imminent because, of course, when he wrote the memo to the president about why to fire or why he should fire James Comey, I think he unwittingly and inadvertently inserted himself into the deliberative process the president was already under way and undergoing about the decision to terminate Comey. And in doing so I think he thrust himself into the land of recusal. However, the president's own statement that he independently had come
to the conclusion that he would, in fact, fire Comey irrespective of whatever anyone else said I think puts the urgency a bit on hold in this context. If he hadn't made those statements, I think the recusal would be far more imminent. But I think because of those statements, I think that Rod Rosenstein already has in effect established himself as a recused person by giving the reins over to Robert Mueller, who will autonomously lead the investigation regardless.
BLACKWELL: Timothy, let's talk about this tweet that really stunned a lot of people when it came from the president. He says "I'm being investigated for firing the FBI director by the man who told me to fire the FBI director. Witch hunt." Appearing to talk about Rod Rosenstein here. Is there an impact on this investigation from the president's tweets?
TIMOTHY NAFTALI, CNN PRESIDENT HISTORIAN: Well, one would hope not. And I think the president would hope not, because if there is an impact on the investigation, then the case for obstruction of justice just gets deeper and deeper.
The question I have is whether the president would like to see Rod Rosenstein recuse himself, because what he has done by this tweet is to actually pull Rosenstein deeper into the chronology and the history of the firing of Comey. And now that the president knows he's being investigated for the firing of Comey as a possible obstruction of justice, by tweeting that way he's saying, by the way, look at Rod Rosenstein, too. So if the president had a strategy, it might be in trying to get Rod Rosenstein out of the way.
BLACKWELL: Ron, do you see a strategy here? Are these just the comments from a frustrated president?
[10:20:02] RON BROWNSTEIN, CNN SENIOR POLITICAL ANALYST: No, I agree with Tim. Look, we have seen the precedent before. The president fired Sally Yates when she was investigating Michael Flynn. He fired Preet Bharara. He fired James Comey. He has shown himself willing in many way, in his attacks on "so-called judges" and the "fake news media," to show himself willing to really do by any means necessary to resist any institutional force that he believes can threaten his presidency.
And I think these tweets of the last few days reinforced by the accounts of his prior behavior send a very clear signal that it is not inconceivable that at some point down the road he will attempt to fire the special counsel. And the question I think really is going to be what will Republicans in Congress do. So far, each time he has broken a window in effect they have obediently swept up the glass. And if they really don't want him to do it --
BLACKWELL: Ron, I have to go. We will come back to the panel. We have breaking news. I've got to go to Brynn Gingras who is following the Cosby trial. Brynn, what do you have for us?
GINGRAS: Victor, we just learned from our reporters in the courtroom the judge in the Cosby trial has declared a mistrial. That means none of the jurors could come to a consensus on all three counts of the charge of aggravated indecent assault against Bill Cosby.
I want to read some quotes that we received from, again, Jean Casarez and our producer Lawrence Crook who is inside the courtroom. He asked to the jurors, he asked each of them, polled each of them, and said "Does this indicate that the jury is hopelessly deadlocked?" And the Madam Foreperson said "Yes." The judge again then asked all jurors "Do you agree that there is a hopeless deadlock which cannot be resolved by further deliberations?" And each juror then again answered in the affirmative.
The Cosby's defense, they asked for a motion for mistrial and that was granted. And then the judge made this comment to all the jurors. "Probably one of the more courageous acts, the selfless acts that I have ever seen in the justice system. I feel bad for you all." And he also said "I'm compelled at this stage to grant a motion for mistrial based off manifest necessity."
So again, they have been deliberating for about 53 hours since they received this case on Monday. They have been trying to come to some sort of agreement on three counts of aggravated indecent assault, assault without consent. That includes assault while the victim was unconscious, assault with the use of drugs, and they cannot agree on any of those counts. And so again, they have declared a mistrial.
We are still waiting for Jean Casarez and Lawrence Crook to get outside of the courtroom. They were told they have to remain in there. But you can see Bill Cosby, some video of him, I'm not sure if this is live, actually, but certainly we will get more information as to what happened inside the courtroom, the reactions of the jurors, how they look, also the reaction from Bill Cosby, Victor.
BLACKWELL: All right, we have this video is from Friday. We saw Bill Cosby spoke last night. We will see if he speaks again. Let's bring Laura Coates back in, our CNN legal analyst. Your reaction? Fifty- three hours of deliberation in this case and now a mistrial.
COATES: I'm not surprised that a mistrial resulted. Remember, it was the length of the deliberations but also the actual testimony that came in. Remember, this case really largely began in the court of public opinion with dozens of women who came forward. But ultimately when it came down to the court of law, only one other person besides Andrea Constand was allowed to testify about analogous situations that were alleged against Bill Cosby.
And in that vein, the defense counsel did a very dynamite job in the respect in trying to undermine the credibility of Andrea Constand. Of most note in the testimony that she gave was there were a couple of instances where she had mis-recollected. They call it lie, but mis- recalled what she actually said. There were 72 phone calls between Bill Cosby and Andrea Constand following the alleged assault. There was a request by Andrea Constand for tickets to a comedy show in which he appeared in Canada, and she brought him a gift, as well as there was mis-recollection about whether or not the date of it and who was present.
And finally, there was of course the civil testimony that resulted in an undisclosed civil settlement. So all those factors were used against Andrea Constand to undermine her credibility. It wasn't just the idea of victim blaming being a social construct. It in fact is a weapon used by defense, and I think fairly so by defense, to undercut the prosecution's argument.
I have specialized many times in delayed reporting sexual assault cases, and the strategy is always trying to figure out and put a seed of doubt in the jurors' minds to say why, did this person delay? Was there nefarious motive? Was there an ulterior motive? And is there a question of credibility? Those factors combined I think to put reasonable doubt in the minds of the jurors.
And remember, each of the three counts that were listed, by sexual assault by unconscious, by the use of a drug or other debilitating agent, and also without consent, these all stem from the same underlying conduct, but they are separately charged.
[10:25:11] And the jurors had to be able to come to a unanimous decision among each of them. So what are you are seeing here, I think, with the number of questions that came in, Victor, between saying what was reasonable doubt, what does that really mean, that was the biggest clue we had that there would be a mistrial in this case.
BLACKWELL: Let's go back to Brynn Gingras. You've got a new development there. Brynn?
GINGRAS: We are just learning that they are opening the courtroom, Victor, at this point. We saw the doors open by one of the bailiffs in there. And so that means soon we are going to see the press filing out of the courtroom and eventually we're going to get some more idea of what went down exactly.
I told you I had the transcript from our producer inside the courtroom of exactly what was said. I do want to add to that, though. So basically when we were told everyone was to head back into the courtroom, that's because the jury did send a note to the judge, and the exact wording of that note is "We, the jury, are deadlocked on all counts." Then, again, the judge verified with each juror, was that what the determination they individually made.
So certainly we're going to get some more information. Hopefully soon we will see everyone leaving the courtroom. And as you even mentioned, Victor, we heard from Bill Cosby last night. He had wished everyone a happy Father's Day. He also thanked the jury at that point for all of their work that they were putting in this week. And so it wouldn't be a surprise if he said something again to the press once everyone exits the courtroom, Victor.
MARSH: All right, thank you so much for that, Brynn. Keep us posted. I understand we have Danny Cevallos here also giving us some analysis. Wow, this is, you know, we know over the last five days they have had some issues and difficulties in coming to a consensus, but now you get the real deal here. They are officially deadlocked. Wow, in the sense that he faced the rest of his life behind bars. What happens now? I mean, the prosecutors can try to retry this, but will they? Is this smart to do? What do they have to weigh when they make this decision what to do next?
DANNY CEVALLOS, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: They can. Typically, double jeopardy attaches upon the swearing in of the jury, but in the case of a mistrial, that's one of the exceptions where double jeopardy doesn't attach and Cosby can be retried again. The court will simply in Pennsylvania just reschedule the trial for another date.
But the commonwealth, that's the prosecution in Pennsylvania, has a difficult decision to make whether or not they want to retry this case. They have all the evidence pretty much prepared. They are going to have to bring the complaining witness down from Canada. But other than that, there's also the political factor, whether or not they want to risk another mistrial in a case where they have gotten a message that maybe their case isn't so strong, which is something they were aware of for the last 10 years.
The other thing to look at in the coming weeks is whether or not or what conditions the mistrial was granted under. In other words, jeopardy doesn't normally attach, but there are situations where it might attach in the case of a mistrial. So that's something that the defense team will certainly be looking at. And they will want to know what charges, what counts they were close on, did they have a guilty verdict on one or not guilty on others. And they have to parse all that out in the coming weeks.
BLACKWELL: Back to Brynn Gingras. What do you have?
GINGRAS: Victor, we are learning that, again, from our producer and Jean Casarez in the courtroom, that the prosecution said it will retry this case. I know you were just asking Danny about that. So it has -- the prosecution has already made that decision. We do know that if there was a verdict, we were told that the D.A. was going to hold a news conference about a half hour after that. So it's very possible that will stay and we will hear from the prosecutor himself. But we do know he said he will retry this case.
BLACKWELL: Laura, what do you make of that bit of breaking news, that they will retry this case, having not yet heard the breakdown on these individual charges, if it was 10-2, 11-1 on these three counts?
COATES: What it signals to me, remember, this case came in under a political agenda, not saying that was the sole motivation, but, remember, this was a person who campaigned on the promise of prosecuting Bill Cosby. And so it seems politically sound that he would intend to try to carry that out, because, remember, there has not been a verdict, a resolution in this case. So I'm not surprised they want to continue going with the case, but, remember, they have a very uphill battle at this point.
All the evidence is out there. They sequestered this initial jury and took them into Allegheny County as opposed to Philadelphia proper because of that political campaign that dealt with the issue of Bill Cosby and the D.A. was elected on that campaign promise in part. And so the idea they are going to be able to find a jury pool at this point, number one, who is not impacted by the campaign promises in Philadelphia, is not a sequestered jury from Allegheny County who did not hear all of the information.
[10:30:06] You now have got all the testimony out there in the public eye. It's a very uphill battle to try to get a successful jury who will be able to be objective and also one that may result in an ultimate verdict.
But Danny is absolutely right on one point -- on many points, Danny, but one point in particular. Until you know the breakdown of how this actually went, it may not be professionally prudent to pursue the case again. If, for example, there was a lone holdout in favor of perhaps acquittal or in the guilty context, that breakdown is very, very important to guide the prosecution in an effort to retry the case in a way that actually could convince a jury beyond a reasonable doubt.
And on the flipside, if you are the defendant you want that breakdown to know what you need to now beef up in your defense in terms of testimony. Only one person testified and it wasn't Bill Cosby on the defense. What do you need to make that pendulum swing in your direction? So I think it's probably a campaign promise, but it may not be prudent to pursue prosecution further.
MARSH: Danny, on this whole issue of, you know, retrying this entire case, which the prosecutors very quickly are saying they plan on doing it, I'm curious how the people who are involved in this case play into it. What if Andrea Constand decides I don't want to go through this again, how does that impact prosecutors?
CEVALLOS: It doesn't have a lot of impact on a subpoena to come to trial to testify. But prosecutors will take into consideration what a complainant wants to do. There are certain instances where the law requires that they ignore the complainant's desire to proceed to trial, but in a case like this they can take that into consideration.
But as we have talked about, as Laura pointed out, this is a political prosecution. That's not an opinion. It was part of a campaign for district attorney here in Montgomery County. So you can be sure that that is going to factor into the decision.
And it is in some sense a little bit premature to announce already that they are going to retry the case, unless the district attorney is confident they know the jury's breakdown or they were able to read their faces or have an understanding of where they broke down. If, for example, the majority was going for the defense, then that does not bode well for a future prosecution. And a prosecutor has to consider not only the resources expended but the expense to the courts and to the D.A. and to the county in general, in re-prosecuting this case and bringing everybody back. There are a lot of logistics and a lot of resources spent in a trial like this.
BLACKWELL: Everybody stay with us. You are looking live here. This is just outside the courtroom here in Norristown, Pennsylvania, where the Judge O'Neill in this case just announced a mistrial in these three counts against comedian Bill Cosby. We heard from the judge, he said probably one of the more courageous acts, the selfless act I have ever seen in the justice system. The judge saying to the jury "I feel bad for you all." This is day 11 of this trial. Sixth day of deliberations, 53 hours, and the jury said quote, "We, the jury, are deadlocked on all counts." And just about 20 minutes ago a mistrial was granted by the judge in this case. Stand by. We will get back to the breaking news coverage. Quick break now. We'll be right back.
[10:37:45] BLACKWELL: You see here just moments ago, Bill Cosby leaving the courtroom in Norristown, Pennsylvania, after the jury in this case, after 53 hours of deliberation announced they are deadlocked and the judge has just granted a mistrial in this case. Let's go to Jean Casarez. She was in the courtroom for that announcement. Jean, after several days of deliberations and several questions, this final answer from the jury.
JEAN CASAREZ, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Right. This just came down minutes ago. I just got out of the courthouse. The prosecution made the announcement inside that courtroom, they will retry this case. District Attorney Kevin Steele stood up outside of the presence of the jury. They had just left. The judge asked him the question and he said yes. So it will be within 120 days, four months, but the prosecution already making that decision.
I sat in court, the judge told the entire gallery, including Andrea Constand, her mother was there, before the jury even came in that the jury was deadlocked, that they had provided a note saying they were hopelessly deadlocked.
I watched the jury file in. They were solemn, stoic. I didn't see a lot of emotion. I saw one male juror as he entered the room look straight at Andrea Constand as she was sitting in her seat. I saw a female juror after she was seated look straight at Andrea Constand. And then the judge polled them one by one, asking them a simple question, are you, is the jury, is the jury hopelessly deadlocked? Juror number one stood up, who was the foreperson, a woman, "Yes, yes, your honor, yes," all the way down the line. The courtroom was silent. The judge had forewarned the courtroom what the decision was so there was no outburst of emotion. And that was basically it. But the judge --
MARSH: Jean, we want to interrupt you just for one second because we are seeing these first live pictures as Bill Cosby has walked out. It sounds like his attorney is speaking. Let's listen.
[10:40:00] ANDREW WYATT, BILL COSBY'S PUBLICIST: But as I look up, I see the rain coming down, it reminds me of what my grandmother used to say. These are God's tears. And this is the day the Lord has made, and let us rejoice in it. We want to thank the brothers of the Omega Psi Phi Fraternity Incorporated, their friendship. We want to thank all of the people that came out from Keisha Knight-Pulliam to Mr. And Mrs. Atchison, Sheila Frazier, Joe Torre, all of those people that came out to support Mr. Cosby and came here to see the truth and hear the truth.
On behalf of his family, we want to thank them. We want to thank our entire team from our social media team, Keo (ph) Wilson. We want to thank Debbie Meister (ph), our tour manager. We want to thank the Attorney Tom Larkin. But let's get to the best. Let's get to the best. Let's get to the greatest of all time attorneys that exists at this day and time. Let's hear from attorney Angela Agrusa, and then we will hear from Brian McMonagle. So Attorney Angela Agrusa?
ANGELA AGRUSA, ATTORNEY: Thank you. I'm sorry, we can't. Simply, I wanted to say today was very important. We have worked very hard to present a case to this court, to this jury, to these 12 people who worked tirelessly to listen. This is what happens. Juries are stuck when a prosecutor seeks to put someone in prison for things that are simply not presented in the courtroom.
And the jury stuck to what they were asked to do, and that is to review the evidence before them. And there simply wasn't enough. We are grateful for the time that they put into it and for the court in Allegheny and the court here in Montgomery County to allowing this process to complete at least through this stage. So thank you.
WYATT: Now we will hear from the guy who gave the most amazing closing and one of the top criminal attorneys in the world, and Johnny Cochran is smiling down, Attorney Brian McMonagle.
BRIAN MCMONAGLE, ATTORNEY: I just want to thank the court, the people of Montgomery County, this court system, it was tremendous. The people of Pittsburgh that came here and deliberated long and hard over days, 52 hours of deliberations. The judge is right. Justice is real, it lives here in Montgomery County. I'm proud to have been able to represent Mr. Cosby. We came here looking for an acquittal, but like that Rolling Stones song says, you don't always get what you want, sometimes you get what you need. God bless you all, and happy Father's Day.
QUESTION: Mr. Cosby, how do you feel? Any comment, Mr. Cosby?
WYATT: All right, everyone. We want to get the attorneys out of the rain. Right now, I'm going to introduce my associate with Purpose P.R. firm. She is going to read a signed statement from Mrs. Camille Cosby.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: "How do I describe the district attorney? Heinously and exploitively ambitious. How do I describe the judge? Overtly arrogant in collaborating with the district attorney. How do I describe the counsels for the accusers? Totally unethical. How do I describe many but not all general media? Blatantly vicious entities that continually disseminated intentional omissions of truth for the primary purpose of greedily selling sensationalism at the expense of a human life.
Historically people have challenged injustices. I am grateful to any of the jurors who tenaciously fought to review the evidence, which is the rightful way to make a sound decision. Ultimately that is a manifestation of justice based on facts, not lies. As a very special friend once stated, truth can be subdued but not destroyed.
Moreover, I express humongous gratitude to the counselors Brian McMonagle and Angela Agrusa for their hard work, Mr. McMonagle for his passionate and powerful articulations of truth, Ms. Agrusa for her thorough research to bolstered counsel McMonagle, to Mr. Andrew Wyatt for his skills in public relations, to our team who worked diligently and intelligently, to our staffs for their continuous commitment to our family and me, and to our children, grandchildren and other family who love us, and to our dear friends and supporters who never gave up on us despite it all. Camille Cosby."
[10:45:06] WYATT: Guys, before questions, before we leave, I want to say something in the words of Huey P. Newton. Power is the ability to define phenomenon, making it act in a desired manner. Power is the ability to define phenomenon and make it act in a desired manner. Mr. Cosby's power is back. It's back. It has been restored. The jurors, they used their power to speak, and Mrs. Cosby's power is back. So the legacy didn't go anywhere. It has been restored. And for all those attorneys who conspired, like Gloria Allred, tell them to go back to law school and take another class. Thank you.
BLACKWELL: So there you have the words of Andrew Wyatt, Bill Cosby's long-term P.R. representative, and a couple of the attorneys, Angela Agrusa and Brian McMonagle. Do we still have Jean Casarez there? Jean, were you able to hear everything that was just said?
BLACKWELL: You heard all of that. Your response?
CASAREZ: Yes, I heard it.
BLACKWELL: Also this statement read from Camille Cosby as well. Your reaction?
CASAREZ: Well, I was surprised a bit in hearing some of what I heard. Obvious a lot of editorial on the part of the defense. The prosecution has already said, they stood up in court and said that they will retry this case. So there is a potential jury pool that in the next 120 days will be asked to serve on this retrial of the criminal trial of Bill Cosby. So the defense has a right to say what they want to say. They've held their feelings inside. And obviously, I think the commonwealth and, most importantly, the judge I'm sure would disagree.
MARSH: Jean, we just saw Bill Cosby standing there. We didn't hear anything from him. But I'm curious, you were inside of the courtroom. At that moment when the jury said that they weren't able to come up with a unanimous decision, please take us through the color of what he did at that moment.
CASAREZ: There was no emotion. It was stoic. The entire defense team was stoic because this was not a win for anyone. This was just sort of a nullity as the judge said. And so Bill Cosby didn't crack a smile, he didn't crack a frown. He was just serious and he listened. And we heard it before the jury came in so I think that helped quell any emotions of the moment, of the anticipation of what exactly was going to be happening.
BLACKWELL: Laura Coates is still with us, CNN legal analyst. And Laura, we did not hear from Bill Cosby today, but we heard from these attorneys, we heard from this P.R. representative who has been with him for a long time. Often after these trials, these high profile trials, it's a bit of a melee outside of the courtroom. But have you seen or heard something like what you just saw and heard?
COATES: Allow me to pick my jaw up off my chest from the comments from Camille Cosby and also from his publicist. Remember, the publicist, his role is to kind of be the person to, no matter what happens, to be the person to advocate and champion for Bill Cosby. And you would expect his wife, who did not come notably through the entire case of the prosecution, but did come on the first and only day of the defense's case, make several statements that kind of demonized in a way the judge in this case, the judge who is expected to hear the retrial in this case, and was accused of actually colluding somehow with the prosecution. Obviously her comments was that of somebody who had had a very emotional response to this entire court of public opinion and now court of criminal law.
But the most poignant moment I heard was from the very first attorney in this case. Neither of them talked about him being innocent, the word did not come out of their mouths. Instead they said they asked the jurors to send a man to prison for that which was not presented by the prosecution. And what they are trying to do is, number one, not taint a future jury pool, although this would be a fine opportunity to say the man is innocent and hasn't done anything wrong, if that's your goal in the retrial.
But also, recognize one thing. The burden was never on Bill Cosby to actually present why he was innocent. That seems very counterintuitive to people when have you got dozens of accusers that were there, that were in the background, that were in across the mainstream media and otherwise. But the role is always on the prosecution to actually build their case. And we have seen their whole case at this point. And what's not going to likely change in a retrial, number one, is the judge, number two, is the prosecution's meaty evidence, and most importantly, you only heard from one of the other alleged accusers who talked about this issue.
BLACKWELL: Laura, we have got to jump in here.
MARSH: Gloria Allred is now speaking. Of course she represented some of the people who brought these allegations against Bill Cosby. Let's take a listen.
GLORIA ALLRED, ATTORNEY, REPRESENTS COSBY ACCUSER: Linda Kirkpatrick, she is with me today. She will be making a statement. And then we also have with us Jewel Allison, and she'll who will make a statement as well.
This is my statement in reference to the mistrial. We can never underestimate the blinding power of celebrity. I'm sorry. Just waiting. Ready? We can never underestimate the blinding power of celebrity. But justice will come.
I hope that the prosecution will try this case again, and that the next time the court will permit more prior bad act witnesses to testify as the prosecution had requested for this trial.
For the trial that just ended, the court only allowed one such prior bad act witness to testify, and that was my client, Kelly Johnson, rather than the 13 such witnesses which the prosecution wanted to call. If the court allows more accusers to testify next time, it might make a difference. In other words, it's too early to celebrate, Mr. Cosby. Round two may be just around the corner. And this time, justice may prevail.
I also want to commend the courage of Andrea Constand as well as Kelley Johnson and their mothers in testifying, and all of the accusers whom I represent who have spoken out, they have taken risks, they have refused to be silenced, and I want them to keep their spirits up. And I also want other persons who believe that they are assault victims of anyone to report it to law enforcement and to stay strong and to consult private attorneys, and to know that there can be justice, and there may be justice in the future.
I'm returning to court in Santa Monica on June 27th on our case against Judy Huth versus Bill Cosby. And we'll look forward to the court's setting a trial date, and to working for justice in our civil lawsuit against Mr. Cosby. And now this is Linda Kirkpatrick.
LINDA KIRKPATRICK: My name is Linda Kirkpatrick. First thing I would like to say is what great respect and admiration I have for the jury, unquestionably the hardest working jury in the country over the last 50 plus hours of deliberation. He thought he could bury us. He didn't know we were seeds. We are sprouting up, we are looking for reform, uncovering the rape culture in this country where victims are blamed and shamed. We are continuing looking for more reform to represent all victims of sexual assault, male or female. Only two percent of rapists in this country ever spend one day in jail, 98 percent of rapists are walking among us to prey upon us again, men and women. It's time for reform, people, open your eyes. That's all I have to say.
Reform, what the policy, statute of limitations in California, I was part of only eight people that got the statute of limitations abolished in California for the benefit of 38 million people. In Nevada we just made some headway there. There are still 25 states that have a statute of limitations on rape assault. We've got to change that.
[10:55:00] UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I wrote something here to make sure that I said what was really in my heart, but I got to digress for just a second and start with talking to the black community. I just want to say I feel your pain. I understand that. But in the words of the late great Reverend Martin Luther King Jr., he said "We must accept finite disappointment but never lose infinite hope." It is time for rape and violence -- that's the end of the quote -- it is time for rape and violence to stop so the healing can start. Let's walk together as one family to solve our differences peacefully. Clearly we must work towards creating a peaceful egalitarian society. God is watching all of us.
ALLRED: Are there any questions? Pardon me? What about her?
QUESTION: Is she coming to speak?
ALLRED: I have no idea. I don't represent Andrea.
QUESTION: Gloria, aan you look into the camera and answer this question?
QUESTION: Your reaction to this mistrial? The jury had said they were hopelessly deadlocked and the judge sent them back. And now a couple days later, they said they were hopelessly deadlocked. Are you surprised by what just happened? Just your reaction.
ALLRED: I'm never surprised by what a jury will do. And as I said the other day, it's not over until it's over. And it may not be over yet. It's over for this jury, but the prosecution can still re-file and empanel a new jury. I have seen it many times in cases all over the country, and sometimes a second jury will render a different outcome than the first jury. And sometimes that's conviction.
So we don't know. We have to await the prosecutor's decision as to whether or not he will re-file. Has he already announced this morning? OK. Well, that's good, because sometimes prosecutors wait to know how many jurors have voted for conviction or not. But if he's already said that, then I am very happy because that's important.
And again, I emphasize that I would like to see a court decide that more prior bad act accusers can testify, because that's relevant on the issue of whether Mr. Cosby had a plan, a scheme, to drug and sexually assault women. And I think the jury will be better served if they can hear from the other accusers and then they can make that decision as to whether or not they would convict or not, and whether an alleged victim was in the position to consent or was incapacitated by drugs.
QUESTION: Other than adding more women to a case which they weren't able to do before --
ALLRED: Because the court did not permit it although the prosecution argued for it.
QUESTION: What would you advise them to do next time that they didn't do this time?
ALLRED: I think they did a very, very good job, and I want to commend District Attorney Steele, law enforcement, the detectives, everybody on the team.
QUESTION: What could they do differently?
ALLRED: I would like -- they should, again, argue for more accusers to be able to testify. Other than that, I'm sure they will analyze what they might want to do differently, and I will await their decision.
ALLRED: It's relevant as a matter of law on the issue of consent. Did he know they didn't consent? If they believe he is drugging a number of women, then sexually assaulting them, then that could prove that he knew that they could not consent if they were incapacitated, could not consent, and that there was a plan, a scheme, to do what he did. And that's why I think it's really important that the other accusers be able to testify, and on those two points, as a matter of law, that's why the prosecution argued that they should be allowed to testify.