tv CNN Newsroom With Brooke Baldwin CNN May 15, 2015 11:00am-12:01pm PDT
>> a great talent. b.b. king we all loved b.b. king. that's it for me. i'll be back 5:00 p.m. eastern in "the situation room." for our international viewers "amanpour" is next. for out viewers in north america, "newsroom" with brooke baldwin starts right now. you're watching cnn. i'm brooke baldwin. we have to begin in philadelphia where at any time this train driver in this amtrak crash, the engineer will tell investigators exactly what he remembers about the minutes before that derailment. he is brandon bostian. he's in the hospital apparently suffering memory loss after his train rolled. but really a bigger question right now is this. what the nine-year amtrak veteran can add to what the evidence already shows. his lawyer says he does want to cooperate fully, but the thing is he can't remember the crash. but the evidence here in this case doesn't lie. what we now know is that not only did the train not slow down
as it entered that dangerous curve, we've actually learned now it sped up from 70 miles an hour to more than 100 miles an hour. it happened in just more than a minute. bostian isn't saying much right now, as we mentioned, but his friends, his colleagues are speaking out on his behalf saying he never would have been deliberately reckless. it was a claim made by philadelphia's mayor in the hours after that train derailment. we'll hear from one of those friends in just a minute. first, let's go straight to the scene to my colleague, cnn's erin mclaughlin, for more on the investigation today. there was some back and forth, but now this engineer he has agreed to talk to investigators, yes? >> reporter: yeah that's right, brooke. ntsb investigators say when they do meet with 32-year-old brandon bostian, they're going to hand him a blank piece of paper and a pen and ask him to paint a picture of everything he remembers from that tragic
night. his testimony really being seen as crucial in all of this. a key question at this point, of course is why did that train accelerate? the ntsb says they believe that a little over a minute prior to the crash, the train began to speed up at a time when it should have been slowing down. just before it approached the curve, they say they believe the engineer hit the emergency brakes. at that point, it was too late. seconds later, they say the train crashed. that timeline comes from a detailed analysis of footage that was obtained from the camera positioned at the front of the train. of course that footage doesn't tell them why. they hope to learn more from bostian when they meet with him. but failing that they say they do have that black box, the data recorder that was on that train, and they can analyze information from that as well. >> i know you've been looking through some of bostian's social media posts. we're trying to learn more about
this train engineer. what did you find out, erin? >> reporter: bostian seems to have been someone who's very concerned with train safety. he's very worried about that. in a series of online postings he sort of laments the fact that the railroads did not do more to -- were not more proactive in implementing safety systems such as the positive train control system the very same system the ntsb says could have potentially averted the amtrak 188 tragedy. let me just read to you one of the postings that we believe was from bostian on a train forum, dated back to march 11th 2011. in that posting, he writes i wish the railroads had been more proactive in adopting active signaling systems from the get-go. it's easy for them to cry foul that the 2015 deadline is
unreasonable. but the reality is that they have had nearly 100 years of opportunity to implement some sort of system to mitigate human error, but with a few notable exceptions have failed to do so. he's referring there to the 2015 congressman dated deadline for the implementation of positive train control. we've also been hearing from his friends, talking about just how important train safety was to him. >> all right. erin mclaughlin thank you so much. obviously hearing the train whistle, not everything shut down behind you. thank you so much in philadelphia. let's stay on this engineer brandon bostian. we're hearing more from his friends and acquaintances, who have been speaking out since this deadly crash. earlier today, cnn heard from bostian's best friend james wier. he and bostian had previously discussed the difficulty of this particular route, the northeast corridor. just two hours after the crash, wier spoke to bostian in the
hospital. >> he did not remember much. he couldn't remember much. he said he had some staples and some stitches and he was sore. he was in some pain. he was not at all sure of himself at that point. just as far as what was going on i think he was still in shock. you could tell he was in shock. he did tell me it was a challenging route. he told me that it's hard to stay on schedule all the time because he wants to make sure he takes the time to perform all of the safety requirements each and every trip. i don't think this is his fault. i don't believe it's his fault. brandon's not the kind of guy, even if he was going through a hard time he would not do this. he would not let it affect his work. >> bostian has told police he couldn't remember his speed, but we now know this train was barrelling into this curve at more than 100 miles per hour before it derailed.
the question was, is this acceleration a deliberate move? could this have happened by accident? let's go to the southeastern railroad museum where locomotive engineer barrett hayes is sitting there in the cab of this train. barrett, thank you so much for coming on with me first of all. >> yes, ma'am. my pleasure. >> i think our viewers can figure this out quickly. you're sitting in a very different train than that train that derailed in philadelphia. in terms of the fundamentals of the role of an engineer they have to be pretty similar to where you are. can you just walk me through the basics of the controls and just show me around a little bit. >> sure. so right here is the throttle. this will one has eight notches on it. that controls your acceleration and speed. this is the reverser. this controls forward and reverse movement. forward is up here neutral is here this is reverse. this is the independent brake. this controls only the brakes on
the locomotive itself. this is the train brake. this controls the brakes on the train itself. the headlight switch is here. and this is the belt switch. then the horn right here. >> okay. now that you've been to through that let me back you up to the first thing i think you pointed out, the accelerator. now that we know this train did accelerate, i want you to show me exactly how one would accelerate a train. we're trying to figure out how this could have happened going there this curve. >> so in order to accelerate a train, you'd have to physically open the throttle out like so. during acceleration you want to keep opening your throttle like so. then slow down start closing the throttle bit by bit. if you're trying to slow down you'd also put on your train brake and try to keep your engine brakes off while you're doing so to keep the train stretched out so that way you don't cause discomfort for the
passengers or damage the equipment. >> oh wow. so it's a couple steps just to do that one thing. let me ask you, since we're looking at a much older train, how similar would the throttle essentially, the function of the throttle, the back and the forth, accelerating, decelerate decelerating would that be the same as this 2014 amtrak model we're talking about? >> the throttle has the same basic function on both locomotives. it's just for controlling your acceleration. but this again, is a different locomotive so it's not going to be exactly identity lyly iedenticalidentical. but the function itself is the same. >> there's a lot we still don't know about what happened here before this train derailment in philadelphia. let's say this engineer fell asleep somehow obviously became unconscious, is it possible to accidently hit that throttle and speed up the train? >> in theory you could always by accidently hitting the
throttle by actually physically opening it through some motion you could speed up the train. it would take some type of probably conscious movement to do so. especially with this type of throttle. but in general, i'm not familiar with the type of throttle on that particular locomotive how easy it is to move. but in general, it would not be easy. >> there's also been talk of like a dead man switch. can you explain that to me? >> ma'am? hello? >> barrett, it's brooke. you're on tv. do you hear me? can you give me a thumbs up? okay. we lost him. we're going to work on that. technology happens on live tv. we'll move on. we'll get him again. barrett hayes there in duluth georgia. the engineer's lawyer here says his client doesn't remember the crash. what about amnesia? is that a viable defense? we'll talk to a lawyer about
that next. also ahead, the future of train travel is a pod going more than 700 miles an hour. makers of the hyperloop claim it doesn't risk human error. and the wreckage of the missing u.s. helicopter in nepal has just been found. we're learning the fates of the six marines on board. well, a mortgage shouldn't be a problem your credit is in pretty good shape. >>pretty good? i know i have a 798 fico score thanks to the tools and help on experian.com. kaboom... well, i just have a few other questions. >>chuck, the only other question you need to ask is, "what else can you do for me?" i'll just take a water... get your credit swagger on. become a member of experian credit tracker and find out your fico score powered by experian. fico scores are used in 90% of credit decisions. ♪ building aircraft,
you're watching cnn. i'm brooke baldwin. while we still don't know the cause of this week's deadly derailment on the amtrak train in philadelphia, we know the train engineer brandon bostian sayings he quote, has absolutely no recollection whatsoever of what happened the night of the crash. the last thing he remembers, coming up on that curve, hitting the emergency brake trying to slow down. he says when he came to he pulled his phone out, turned it on, dialed 911, realizing the train had crashed. in the wake of this wreck, eight
people are dead and more than 200 others were injured. there have been no charges filed against bostian, and he has agreed to talk to ntsb investigators. one question that's being thrown out there, could amnesia potentially be used as a defense in court? joining me to discuss is cnn legal analyst and senior trial counselor paul callen. it's not like he's saying amnesia. we've heard from doctors saying he could regain some of his memory. when would amnesia even been applicable? >> it really would never be applicable in a criminal case because, remember amnesia is just an inability to remember what happened. the real issue is what did happen. was he using illegal substances? was he aware of a health condition that would have caused him to be a danger in operating the train? i'm not saying he did these things but those could be possibly criminal if they should develop. the mere fact he cannot remember it would not make him innocent
or for that matter guilty of a crime. >> to be fair to him, we know he's given up blood samples. that's for the toxicology report. we know he's given up his krfb to see if he was on the phone texting. his lawyer says it was off. back to this point of saying he can't remember. how would that at all factor in if ntsb comes to him and even waits over a period of time hoping his memory returns and it doesn't. then what? >> well, you know from the standpoint of their investigation, of course it's very troublesome. also i would have to say even in terms of a criminal investigation, a lot of people are going to think it's pretty fishy. he went to the hospital. he was released. he did have a number of stitches in his head but it's rare for someone to have total amnesia in the presence just of a single concussion. but i will tell you, there was a case involving metro north here in manhattan, a train crash, people killed. the engineer said that he had sleep apnea and that it had caused him to pass out while
operating the train. you know something, no criminal charges have been lodged in that case because it was apparently a health condition that he was unaware of. so you may see a claim like that in this case as well. >> all right. paul thank you very much. >> thank you. >> some bad weather has forced search crews to abandon recovery efforts at the crash site of that u.s. marine helicopter in nepal. the wreckage was discovered earlier today on a steep slope there in the himalayan mountains just east of the capital city kathmandu. the u.s. military says it is unlikely anyone survived the crash. weather permitting the recovery will resume tomorrow. six u.s. marines and two nepalese troops were delivering supplies to those victims of the massive earthquake when is the helicopter went down. for more information on how you can help the victims of the earthquakes in nepal, go to our impact your world side cnn.com/impact. coming up next george
stephanopoulos apologizes this morning for contributions he made multiple times to the clinton global foundation and recuses himself from moderating any presidential debates. let's discuss that with michael smerconish. plus as we continue talking about this amtrak train crash, the future of train travel did you know is a pod traveling more than 700 miles an hour. makers of the hyperloop claim it doesn't risk human error. we'll show you what that means coming up.
(dog) mmm. this beneful is so good and healthy. hey, you know what? we should just go ahead and have this for breakfast tomorrow. would that be crazy? (vo) beneful original is a healthy blend your dog will love. with whole grains, real beef and accents of vegetables. big day? ah, the usual. moved some new cars. hauled a bunch of steel. kept the supermarket shelves stocked. made sure everyone got their latest gadgets. what's up for the next shift? ah, nothing much. just keeping the lights on. (laugh) nice. doing the big things that move an economy. see you tomorrow, mac. see you tomorrow, sam. just another day at norfolk southern.
wars are on at sleep train! we challenged the manufacturers to offer even lower prices. now it's posturepedic vs. beautyrest with big savings of up to $400 off. serta icomfort and tempur-pedic go head-to-head with three years interest-free financing. plus, free same day delivery set-up, and removal of your old set. when brands compete, you save! mattress price wars are on now at sleep train. ♪ your ticket to a better night's sleep ♪ not such a good morning for george stephanopoulos abc's chief anchor. he felt compelled to apologize, not just for failing to reveal he donated a total of $75,000 to the clinton foundation but also for donating in the first place. early on in his career stephanopoulos did serve as communications director for bill clinton's first presidential
campaign. ultimately he became a senior adviser in that administration. but i want you to hear this is stephanopoulos on "good morning america" today. >> over the last several years i've made substantial donations to dozens of charities, including the clinton global foundation. those donations were a matter of public record but i should have made additional disclosures on air when we covered the foundation. and i now believe that directing personal donations to that foundation was a mistake. even though i made them strictly to support work done to stop the spread of a.i.d.s. help children and protect the environment in poor countries, i should have gone the extra mile to avoid even the appearance of a conflict. i apologize to all of you for failing to do that. >> let's talk about this with cnn political commentator michael smerconish. you know listen here's the deal. technically the clipnton foundation is a charitable organization though i know republicans would beg to differ. do you think this is a serious mistake? do you think this whole thing has just gotten blown up merely for political reasons?
>> i think it's a significant issue. i think it's a legitimate serious issue in which he's mistaken. i would give him a pass brooke for having made the donations. i was surprised that in his apology this morning that he said he regretted making the donations and regretted the fact he hasn't made the disclosure. to me it's principally a disclosure issue. he was a very harsh interrogator of peter schweitzer the author of "clinton cash." i think he had an obligation to say, i personally contributed $75,000 to the clinton foundation. >> a lot of republicans have taken this and run with it. my question is actually also on the dem side. looking ahead, if george stephanopoulos and he covers politics extremely well but if he gets an interview with a high-level democrat, not hillary clinton, if you're george stephanopoulos are you going to go out of your way to prove you're in the in camp clinton? >> you and i are on the same
wavelength. he's said i'm opting out of the republican debates. he hasn't said anything relative to the fall. there are republicans who are calling for him to quote/unquote sit this one out. that's what one lawmaker said. as i was reading the stories, brooke like you i said to myself maybe it's the democrats who should be hoping that he sits this one out because george stephanopoulos if you remember in the '08 cycle, he was a very direct questioner of hillary clinton. so i don't know that you want to be the democratic candidate with him as the moderator, given he'll feel the need perhaps to overcompensate for this. >> wondering about. just wondering about that side as well. that hasn't been discussed as much. let's pivot to jeb bush shall we? it has been his fifth comment on one single issue in one week. he's now saying, you know he would not have -- knowing what he knows now, he would not have pushed for the war in iraq. here's what he said most recently. >> so here's the deal. if we're all supposed to answer hypothetical questions, knowing what we know now, what would you
have done i would have not engaged, i would not have gone into iraq. >> i think just to give him a little bit of credit this is someone who's definitely been putting himself out there. he's been taking questions from media. he's been taking questions from a 19-year-old student. but when we go back to the original comment, which was when he was being interviewed by fox news channel, he said he misheard her, thus his response. i'm wondering, though what do you think is at the heart of all this this week with him? >> well i find it interesting he said, you know if i'm going to have to answer hypotheticals. brooke the entire exercise is a hypothetical. this entire process until november of 2016 is a hypothetical of what if you're elected president, you know. what shocks me most about this is it was not a hard-hitting question. it was not a gotcha question. it was put to him by megyn kelly at fox. it was a perfectly reasonable question. i'll give him the benefit of the
doubt that he misheard the question and went into this auto pilot mode. by my god, four days ago he should have said, you really think i'd go into iraq knowing there were not weapons of mass destruction? hell my brother wouldn't have done that. why he stammered for four days i don't know. running a campaign in florida, that's big time. but that's not like running for the presidency. >> michael smerconish thank you as always for our friday chats. we'll see you tomorrow morning 9:00 a.m. eastern here on cnn. coming up next traveling at speeds more than 700 miles per hour. the creator of what's being called the hyperloop says this train tube would mean human error will not be the cause of crashes. we'll talk about what that could mean for all of us. plus new video surfaces on the shooting involving wisconsin officer and an unarmed man. the officer not facing charges in his death, which is leading to even more protests.
vo: today's the day. more and more people with type 2 diabetes are learning about long-acting levemir®. as my diabetes changed it got harder to control my blood sugar. today, i'm asking about levemir®. vo: levemir® is an injectable insulin that can give you blood sugar control for up to 24 hours. and levemir® helps lower your a1c. levemir® lasts 42 days without refrigeration. that's 50% longer than lantus® which lasts 28 days. levemir® comes in flextouch® the latest in insulin pen technology from novo nordisk. levemir® is a long-acting insulin used to control high blood sugar in adults and children with diabetes and is not recommended to treat diabetic ketoacidosis. do not use levemir® if you are allergic to any of its ingredients. the most common side effect is low blood sugar which may cause symptoms such as sweating, shakiness, confusion, and headache.
severe low blood sugar can be serious and life-threatening. ask your doctor about alcohol use, operating machinery, or driving. other possible side effects include injection site reactions. tell your doctor about all medicines you take and all of your medical conditions. check your blood sugar. your insulin dose should not be changed without asking your doctor. get medical help right away if you have trouble breathing, sweating, extreme drowsiness swelling of your face, tongue, or throat, dizziness, or confusion. today's the day to ask about levemir® flextouch®. covered by most health insurance and medicare plans.
bottom of the hour. you're watching cnn. i'm brooke baldwin. the deadly amtrak derailment in philadelphia this week has reminded all of us that america's rail system is clearly imperfect, it's antiquated and given that reality, you might be surprised by what's in the works. transportation entrepreneurs and engineers are working right now on this project called the hyperloop. they claim it will actually put trains out of business while it speeds passengers through a tube at more than 700 miles per hour. i know it sounds like sci-fi but our cnn digital correspondent just got a look at one of the companies working to make this a reality. check it out. >> you know those tubes that shoot inner office mail from floor to floor? the hyperloop is the same basic concept, except passengers would
be traveling up to 760 miles per hour. dirk alborn says it's safer and more efficient than the railroad. >> in railroads, most accidents were all human factors. plus a lot of the derailments are actually happening because something is on the track. we're a closed system. we're completely managed by a computer system. there's no human factor that can create those issues. >> will the hyperloop kill the railroad? >> the hyperloop is going to do to the u.s. what the railroads did in the 1800s. so it will change the way we live. >> the concept of using a high-speed network of vacuum tubes to transport cargo has been around for over a century. but it wasn't until 2013 when inventor elon musk published a paper on the hyperloop that dirk saw how the idea might become a reality for moving people around. >> how could this possibly be safe? >> safety is obviously very important. we have to make sure that we have safety procedures. it's a very straight line.
you're inside the tube inside the track. nothing really can happen from the outside. >> okay rachel crane. it's a super cool idea but is this like an in our lifetime kind of idea? when do they think they can have this happen? >> we're not going to be transported via hyperloop from los angeles to san francisco any time soon. but hyperloop transportation technology is planning on breaking ground on a prototype model of the hyperloop in 2016. now, this model, it's only going to be five miles long. so you're not going to be transported at speeds of 760 miles per hour. >> a big five miles. >> i know. but it can go up to 300 miles per hour they say. >> wow. but the issue is -- i know they're saying this would rid any of the human error problems but computers are not error free. viruses, et cetera. what's the response to all of that? >> well, you know as you pointed out, this does eliminate human error. also because it's a closed
system you don't have to worry about unpredictable weather patterns impacting this system. but you're right. it will be vulnerable to cyber attack. the people who are building this system have been acutely aware of it from the beginning. they say they're doing all they can to put in the proper safeguards from the very beginning to protect the system from those kinds of vulnerabilities. >> all right. rachel crane, thank you for the preview. >> thank you. next no charges for that police officer who shot and killed 19-year-old tony robinson a couple months back in madison, wisconsin. up next we'll talk with his lawyer after new video surfaces of the shooting. we'll also get the officer's response to the no charges. also legendary blues man b.b. king passed away in vegas at the age of 89. listen to that. his charismatic biographer joins me with five things that would surprise you about this man. ♪
why pause a spontaneous moment to take a pill? or stop to find a bathroom? cialis for daily use, is approved to treat both erectile dysfunction and the urinary symptoms of bph, like needing to go frequently, day or night. tell your doctor about all your medical conditions and medicines, and ask if your heart is healthy enough for sex. do not take cialis if you take nitrates for chest pain as it may cause an unsafe drop in blood pressure. do not drink alcohol in excess. side effects may include headache, upset stomach, delayed backache or muscle ache. to avoid long-term injury, get medical help right away for an erection lasting more than four hours. if you have any sudden decrease or loss in hearing or vision
with xfinity from comcast you can manage your account anytime, anywhere on any device. just sign into my account to pay bills manage service appointments and find answers to your questions. you can even check your connection status on your phone. now it's easier than ever to manage your account. get started at xfinity.com/myaccount
all right. here we go. breaking news. this is huge coming out of boston. just the last couple of days in fact this is the third day the jury in this federal case there in boston involving the younger tsarnaev brother, the convicted terrorist, dzhokhar tsarnaev jury has been deliberating whether or not he should be sentenced to death after placing those pressure cookers and injuring so many people just a couple years ago at that boston marathon. we have now learned that the jury has, in fact reached a verdict. we do not know what the verdict is but we know this jury has, in fact reached a verdict here in the sentencing phase of this trial. i've got attorney paul callen stand being i.ing by. paul let me bring you in. it was half a day of deliberations wednesday.
it was thursday. this is friday. what strikes you first of all, the fact it's taken 2 1/2 days. we know it has to be unanimous. does that seem quick to you? >> no it seems about right. i think it's appropriate. it was a clear case with respect to the guilt issue, whether tsarnaev was intimately involved in this atrocity. the only issue is whether he deserves the death penalty. there are a lot of questions on the jury verdict sheet involving what they call aggravating circumstances and mitigating circumstances. so i have no doubt there's been a spirited debate among the jurors as to whether this is a death penalty case. frankly, i think this is enough time for a jury to carefully consider all of the factors before making a decision. >> can you -- take us inside that jury deliberation room. what exactly did they have to walk through? because as i mentioned a moment ago, it has to be unanimous.
if there is even one holdout who doesn't believe that dzhokhar tsarnaev should be put to death, he won't be. >> that's correct. you know brooke it's even more complicated than that. there were i believe, 17 counts which the death penalty would attach to. even if the jury on let's say, hypothetically 16 of those counts thought no death penalty but all 12 agreed on only one count, the death penalty would be administered and would be appropriate in terms of the jury verdict. so that's the way it works. but in deliberations like this you have what's called, first of all, a death qualified jury. that means anybody who agreed to sit on this jury has said that given the right set of facts, they could go along with and impose the death penalty. in many cases, people who are at least in theory and philosophically opposed to the
death penalty still agree to serve on a jury like that, saying that although i'm really opposed to the death penalty, if the law clearly requires it i can apply the law. but when you get into this debate it becomes very very personal. if you're conscientiously opposed to the death penalty, maybe you hold out regardless of how bad the facts are. on the other hand many people may think life in prison is worse than death, given the fact he'll be probably at the colorado super max in solitary confinement for the rest of his life. you can imagine that all of these debates are going on as to whether death is the greater punishment or life in this kind of facility and whether the death penalty is ever appropriate. >> i know in the state of massachusetts, capital punishment is illegal, but this is obviously at the federal level. i'm wonder just in bigger broader federal cases, paul can you give me examples. i'm thinking of big cases that we've covered.
montgomery county, maryland and the sniper trial there. or timothy mcveigh, oklahoma city. can you give me examples in which this was really in the forefront, sort of nationally after a massive tragedy and how the juries in the end deliberate. what were the results in other huge trials? >> the major terrorism cases like the mcveigh case many of them have resulted in death penalty findings by juries. but i think this is a tougher case because on the one hand it's one of the most brutal pieces of carnage that the american public has ever seen. i'm sure you'll remember brooke that at one point in the trial when videos were shown of children and men and women being dismembered and killed by this bomb actual videotape of it not only the jurors were crying but hardened members of the press were crying in court. i mean it was that gripping and
that awful to behold. so this would be a case that at least on the facts would appear to be the kind of case that the death penalty would be administered in. but of course on the other hand the american public like public in countries throughout western europe seems to be shifting away from the death penalty. it's rarely administered in the united states. and you're in a jurisdiction like massachusetts where majority of the people have voted against the death penalty. although as you say, this is a federal case and it's legal in a federal case. so this is a real nail biter in terms of trying to figure out what this jury will do. >> when this happened in boston two years ago, i happened to be in boston the weekend before and i turned around and covered this story for an entire month afterwards. i've talked to a lot of people in the two years since. this story rocked the consciousness of boston. that's a strong town. that is a town so many people have healed. there are so many survivor stories because of what happened
there on boyleston street. to know that three people were killed and then the fourth that police officer at m.i.t. and to hear their testimony, you know, day after day, week after week there inside that federal courthouse, but then you have to juxtapose that with what the defense has said especially with this nun who took to the stand who had met with dzhokhar tsarnaev who had said that, you know at least she believed in meeting with him a couple times that he showed remorse. i don't know if the people in the courtroom felt he showed remorse or the people who experienced the atrocities on that street two years ago, but how do you think that -- the defense closing arguments, that he was the younger brother, not the older, the leeldader here. how did all of that potentially work into these jurors' minds? >> you raise an interesting issue about the testimony from the nun. she became famous from that movie "dead man walking." of course she's somebody who
has met with many people on death row and has written books about it and of course ultimately that movie was made. i doubt, though that she will have much impact on this jury. she really didn't know him. she was sort of brought in at the last minute to meet with him. i really doubt that any serious jurors could think that she was able to look into his soul and come to understand who he was. now, on the other hand the defense put on the board a number of compelling arguments about the older brother being domineering, about this islamic terrorist ideology he and members of his family seemed to subscribe to influencing him as a young man. those factors may combine and convince the jurors that he perhaps doesn't deserve the death penalty. >> forgive me. i want to jump in. deborah is on the phone with me now. tell me where you are and when this verdict will be read. >> brooke we're standing just
outside the courthouse waiting to go in. dzhokhar tsarnaev's lawyers are just walking past me. they too, have to check in in order to get into the courtroom. we're waiting for the prosecutors to come down. we got word just a couple moments ago the jury has been deliberating for about 14 1/2 hours. it's a little longer than the verdict that was returned for timothy mcveigh. that jury took about 11 hours. this is about 14 1/2 hours. everybody was sort of waiting around to figure out specifically when this might happen. they sent out two notes yesterday. right now we are waiting for everybody to get back in court. there are a couple of spectators brooke who have been outside this court -- who have been inside the court, actually in support of dzhokhar tsarnaev. one young lady. she's standing there, at one point put her hands together in prayer. we are waiting, and we should know within the next couple of
minutes. one of the prosecutors, he's walking by me right now. so a lot of nervous energy right now as we await the verdict, brooke. >> let's stay in close contact with you as we await that verdict. i've got deb with me. i have paul callen and jean casarez, who's following this as well. jean i'm wondering who else -- deb just mentioned some people in that courtroom who are supporters of tsarnaev. are there family members, survivors, victims? can you help paint the scene there in that federal courthouse for me? >> yes. i mean there were so many victims that survived. so to have them in the courtroom, i think some of them cannot be there, but many are. as far as the defendant, he had aunts, cousins come over from russia to testify for him, but as of yesterday, there was no one there supporting him. he was all alone. but this is really the pinnacle of this trial. because the guilt portion was
necessary, but now the penalty portion, death or life that is really many say, the culmination of all of this. everyone is just at the enldge of their seats to see what this jury has determined. >> i think it's important to remind everyone it was just about a month or so ago the family of the youngest victim martin richard, they wrote this opinion piece in "the boston globe" essentially saying they don't want him to die. the reasoning is because they don't want to be emotionally dragged along for years and years assuming of course there would be appeals processes. so this family made it very clear that they didn't want dzhokhar tsarnaev to be put to
death. did that factor in? can that factor in? >> it sure did not come into the courtroom in regard to the prosecutor because the prosecutor said to the jury in closing arguments, if you say that life is the proper punishment then you are saying that the most minimum punishment there is is appropriate for this person that did this act of terrorism here in the united states. he deserves the death penalty. so it was quite contrary to what that family was saying. >> okay. tell me a little bit more about the jurors. who are they? >> seven women, five men. so it's a predominantly female jury. this is a 24-page verdict form that they have had to go through. it is extraordinarily sophisticated. it is complex. it is like a flowchart because if they find a, then they go to b, but there are multiple questions. the end all is they have to be unanimous on a number of things besides weighing aggravating and
mitigating factors. this young man here was merely a pawn for his brother, that he was brainwashed. so if you believe and that have empathy for him, then a juror could decide that the mitigateing factor, besides his age and no prior criminal history, that he deserves life in prison. if you believe, as the prosecutor said that he was a conspirator, that he and his brother, even if the brother led the way, he had the intent agreeing with his brother in furtherance of that conspiracy then he's as much responsible as the worst criminal his brother died of course in this criminal act, so you should find death. >> okay. just looking through all these notes as we're anticipating this verdict being read you mentioned the complexities of everything the jurors have to go through. also i just want to manage
expectations. the note i'm reading is it will take some time before we actually get to question 39. that is the only question that will tell us if he gets life or death. so when the verdict is being read there are many points right, that are reached before that final question 39 which is what so many people are waiting for. >> there are many points. there are many sections. the first one being that has he reached the age of 18 when these crimes took place. as it goes along, if they're not unanimous on any element of a particular section, then it ends there. and they don't go any farther. so we have to first see how far they get as they go along this flowchart. if they get to the very end, as you're saying then death is a real possibility. >> do we have any idea and you probably don't know when the verdict will be read? >> we had heard there was going to be 20 minutes once the announcement of a verdict and then the reading of the verdict.
but of course if there are families that need to get there, many times they wait a bit longer. so those families can arrive to the courthouse to watch in person the reading of that verdict. >> jean stay with me. i have paul callen also with me as well. we touched on this a moment ago. i think it's worth just revisiting, you know those closing arguments from both sides. we alluded to how the defense is essentially telling the jurors, listen this is the younger brother, he was coerced, he was working under the older brother who died, and then on the flip side, you have the prosecution bringing witness upon witness, survivor upon survivor, just telling the tale of the atrocity atrocities from that day, saying he should absolutely be put to death. >> it was a compelling set of closing arguments. when you look at this case i
think in a lot of ways this case really is not about whether the death penalty is appropriate on this fact pattern. this is a poster child case for the death penalty. it has carnage. it has a terroristic attack. it has the death of children. it has everything you could imagine that would fit into a case that tuld give the death penalty. however, i think that there are many people who in their hearts and minds oppose the death penalty and think that it's inappropriate for the state to take a human life and in a way this will be the jury's opportunity to make that kind of statement that as guilty as this young man is of the carnage that even under that circumstance life is more appropriate for this crime in the united states today. so i think we're going to see a social statement about the death penalty as much as a determination as to whether the elements of the death penalty have been established in this trial.
>> okay. paul we're looking at -- i believe these are live pictures. correct me if i'm wrong. outside the federal courthouse here you can see clearly a police presence anticipating whatever this verdict will be. members of the media, even probably some passers by. so many people invested in what will happen the fate of this younger dzhokhar tsarnaev. a couple notes just passed on to me. first, i've been told the public is now being allowed inside this courthouse. microphones are being tested. apparently the defense attorneys are already inside. the prosecution is seen walking in. so just a little bit of color as we're anticipating this verdict being read and many many eyes and ears waiting to hear the fate of dzhokhar tsarnaev. will this jury decide to put him to death or will he be locked away in presumably this super max prison in florence colorado barely even seeing daylight for the rest of his life? paul when the verdict is being
read tell me the machinations. how will it be read? who will be in the courtroom? where will dzhokhar tsarnaev be? >> well the courtroom is likely to be set up exactly the same way it was during the trial. he'll be seated next to his defense attorneys. one of the things lawyers look for in these moments, and i've tried murder cases myself as both a prosecutor and a defense attorney is when the jury walks back into the room. there's an old courtroom tale that the jurors will not make eye contact with the defendant if they have come down with the harshest sentence against him. so i think that's the first thing we'll be looking at is the jury looking in his direction? and it's an extremely solemn moment. this of course being a death penalty case is the most solemn of all moments when a verdict is handed down. the fact that the state now is
going to take a human life in recompense for such a horrible crime is a big moment in a courtroom and one you don't see often in america these days. so it's going to be quite a scene in that courtroom. i would expect it'll be in total silence as the jury verdict sheet is read. possibly by the clerk to the judge. i'm not sure what procedure this judge will follow on that issue. i doubt that the foreman will read the entire sheet, but he could. >> with regard to the jurors paul the seven men, the seven women, at what point will the jurors jurors if they so choose will they open up and talk to the media? >> well at the conclusion of the verdict, i think you would expect they'll be polled at the request of the defense. the defense will ask that each one be asked by the judge if this is their verdict. now, whether they speak or not is entirely up to them. >> could it happen right afterwards? >> it could. they could go right outside the
courtroom and talk. there's no constitutional restriction against a juror talking to the press. the first amendment to the constitution applies. they have the right to talk completely and forthrightly about the verdict. the lawyers in federal cases traditionally are not permitted to talk to the jurors right after the case. in many state courts they are allowed to talk to the jurors. a lot of times in these cases, the jurors take an informal vote before they come back out into the courtroom about whether they're going to have a press conference and whether they're going to speak to the press immediately or whether they're going to resist speaking to the press, at least temporarily. in almost every high-profile case i've ever seen or participated in as a lawyer eventually jurors do talk and reveal what happened in the jury room. >> paul thank you. stand by.