Return to Transcripts main page

@THISHOUR WITH BERMAN AND MICHAELA

South Carolina Protests Police Shooting; U.S. Soldier Killed by Friendly Fire; White House Targeted in Russia Cyberattack; Is There Defense For Officer Michael Slager? Aired 11-11:30a ET

Aired April 8, 2015 - 11:00   ET

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


JOHN BERMAN, CNN ANCHOR: An unarmed black man shot at eight times, hit in the back. A white officer now charged with murder. The whole thing caught on video. We have crucial new developments in the investigation this morning.

KATE BOLDUAN, CNN ANCHOR: Friendly fire. A U.S. soldier shot and killed by an Afghan soldier. Several other U.S. troops injured in that same attack. Why?

BERMAN: It is being called one of the most sophisticated cyberattacks ever launched against the United States. Russian hackers hit the White House. So how did they do it and just what did they steal?

BOLDUAN: Hello, everybody. We're back together. I'm Kate Bolduan.

BERMAN: I'm John Berman. Good to see you today.

New this morning, an FBI investigation under way into the shocking video out of South Carolina. A police officer is accused of murder after shooting and killing an unarmed black man. We want you to look at this revealing and troubling footage.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

(GUNSHOTS)

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BERMAN: You can count eight shots right there. The officer in that video is Michael Slager, who is now being held in the shooting death of 50-year-old Walter Scott.

BOLDUAN: Scott, as you saw right there, he was running away, seen running away from the officer before the officer fires eight times. The officer claims that he feared for his life following an altercation between the two men after a traffic stop. But the video appears to paint a very different picture. Again, Slager is now looking at a murder charge.

Martin Savidge is in North Charleston following this story. So, Martin, what are you hearing from the community this morning?

MARTIN SAVIDGE, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Good morning, Kate. Yes, there was a protest that just ended only moments ago. It was under the broad banner of Black Lives Matter and it was several dozen people. The community here is basically saying, especially those who have been protesting police practices, we told you so. In other words, only now that this video is out and shows a very blatant shooting does the general public begin to doubt what have been previous accounts by police officers when it comes to victims who have died at the hands of law enforcement.

So there is anger. There are people who are saying we should have been paying attention to this far sooner, and it's only when confronted with I guess video that you can say is almost irrefutable that the public really takes notice here. They've been asking for the mayor to step down and they've been asking for changes in the police force.

Meanwhile, the family of Walter Scott has been speaking out. Here is his brother talking on "NEW DAY" earlier today.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

ANTHONY SCOTT, WALTER SCOTT'S BROTHER: After seeing the video, I was, like, he was running for his life, not to be shot down, not to be tased anymore. And I think my brother might have thought he was just not going to be shot. No one would have thought that.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SAVIDGE: The family admits that they are horrified to see that video, but at the same time they are glad that the truth has come out. They're glad that the video has come out, as horrific as it is to watch their brother and son be killed by a police officer for what appears to be no real reason. Kate and John?

BOLDUAN: It has been noteworthy how swiftly this city moved once this video sure came to light.

BERMAN: Very fast.

BOLDUAN: Yes. Martin Savidge is on the ground in North Charleston. Martin, thanks so much.

Also happening right now, a U.S. service member has been killed, several others injured, in what appears to be a so-called green on blue attack in Afghanistan. A U.S. defense official says an Afghan soldier opened fire on U.S. troops while they were guarding a U.S. delegation.

BERMAN: Let's bring in Nick Paton Walsh joining us with more. Nick, what can you tell us?

NICK PATON WALSH, CNN SENIOR INTERNATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: It's remarkable to note actually how limited the scope of U.S. military activities and movements are in that part of Afghanistan.

[11:05:03] We saw ourselves just a couple weeks ago how they basically helicopter between key secure bases. Now, in one instance here, it was a group of U.S. diplomats and

soldiers, some of the soldiers providing security for the, remember, because these attacks are so frequent and now are really the key threat to U.S. personnel. They have a security detail with them at all times called guardian angels, specifically there to protect them from any rogue Afghan security personnel.

This group were at the governor's compound in a city called Jalalabad, that's far to the east of Kabul, where there's a lot of training activity and assistance being done by the U.S. here. They finished their meeting with Afghan personnel and, according to Afghan police, as they emerged, they were shot at by an Afghan soldier using a heavy machine gun that was mounted on Afghan military trucks. Remarkable amount of firepower used.

As we know from one U.S. defense official, there was one U.S. soldier killed. There is suggestions that other members of the NATO force there may have been injured. It's not clear what nationality or how many. But it's U.S. and Polish forces pretty much exclusively in that area at the moment.

And this of course led to the security detail to return fire. They shot back, killing the Afghan assailant, wounding two other Afghans, we understand. Not sure if that's because they were in the crossfire or because they were also involved in the attack. But this just reminds, I think, everybody there of the key nature of this Afghan insider attack threat. There's not been a U.S. fatality in the military since December and I think people now are seeing this, the longest war America's been involved in, coming to an end with this still insider threat being most prevalent. John?

BERMAN: And of course this comes shortly after the U.S. decided to extend its troop levels for further. Nick Paton Walsh covering this for us, thanks so much.

This morning, we have new information that Russian hackers, Russian hackers --

BOLDUAN: It's a wild story.

BERMAN: -- were allegedly behind a cyberattack on the White House.

BOLDUAN: They even managed to get hold of private details of the president's nonpublic schedule. Let's get over to justice reporter Evan Perez. Evan, you've been getting a lot of these details coming out. What else are you learning about the attack and, probably most importantly now, what the White House is going to do about it?

EVAN PEREZ, CNN JUSTICE REPORTER: Well, that's actually a very interesting question, because I know behind the scenes there's been a lot of discussion inside the government pushing for the U.S. government to publicly shame Russia and say, look, we know you were behind this hack and to try to bring this out into the open.

There's a lot of discussion behind the scenes but I don't know that it will happen, partly because the State Department doesn't want to anger the Russians. There's a lot of issues that are going back and forth. But really the way the Russian hackers got in here was through the State Department. They first hacked into the State Department and then they used that perch to be able to trick someone to allow them access into the White House, the executive office of the president, which although it was an unclassified e-mail system, as the White House has pointed out, it still contained a lot of sensitive information like you mentioned. The president's schedule that's not public, stuff that they could see in real time, and which foreign spy agencies really prize.

BOLDUAN: Absolutely. And what else, if you can access that part of the president's schedule, what else can you access? That's a huge question. And all from what seems to be not so sophisticated phishing e-mail. That's what kind of boggles the mind, but also just shows really how vulnerable a lot of systems are. There's a lot of questions going forward. Evan, thank you so much.

We're keeping an eye AT THIS HOUR on verdict watch. The trial of former NFL star Aaron Hernandez. The former New England Patriots player is charged with first-degree murder in the killing of his friend Odin Lloyd. During closing arguments, the defense admitted really for the first time in this nine-week long trial that Hernandez witnessed the murder, that he was there. But his attorneys said that two other men there committed the crime. Coming up, we're going to have much more on this admission and the huge questions facing the jury deliberating right now.

BERMAN: We have new developments this morning in the trial of the accused Boston Marathon bomber. The jury back in deliberations there as well. They met for seven hours yesterday. They could not reach a decision in that seven hours in the case of Dzhokhar Tsarnaev. There are 30 counts to consider. More than half of them carry a potential for the death penalty.

Now, earlier this morning the jury asked the judge for a clearer definition of conspiracy and if there was a difference between aiding and abetting.

BOLDUAN: But first in Ferguson, Missouri, racial tensions thrust the St. Louis suburb into the headlines last year. Well, now Ferguson is making a change, electing two more African-Americans to its city council. Half of the council will now be black, a closer representation of the city's diversity. Seventy percent of the city is black. Last night's election had more than double the usual voter turnout. It was the first city election since a white police officer shot and killed a black teenager, Michael Brown, last summer.

[11:10:00] BERMAN: Ahead for us AT THIS HOUR, the shocking police shooting caught on video in South Carolina. Does the officer here have any defense? We will ask the man who helped acquit George Zimmerman. That's next.

BOLDUAN: Can climate change hurt your health? President Obama says yes. He sat down for a one-on-one with Sanjay Gupta. Hear what the president says could happen if nothing's done to fix this growing problem. (COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BOLDUAN: A white police officer in North Charleston, South Carolina, is behind bars right now, charged with murder after shooting an African-American man who apparently was not armed, shooting him in the back eight times as he ran away.

BERMAN: Now, unlike similar cases that have made headlines, there is video of this incident -- graphic video -- really serving as the ultimate eyewitness here. Now, CNN has learned that Officer Michael Slager's original attorney is no longer representing him, so how will his new attorney build a defense here? We're going to ask a man who knows. We're going to bring in legal analyst Mark O'Mara. He is also the criminal defense attorney that represented George Zimmerman. Makr, can you hear me?

BOLDUAN: We're having some IFB issues.

BERMAN: Mark, can you hear me OK? All right, apparently Mark is having a hard time hearing me.

But you know what? We have backup. Here with us in studio is CNN legal analyst Danny Cevallos, a criminal defense attorney. This is not the bullpen. You're like the Mariano Rivera in this case here.

So, Danny, you have seen the video. You've seen this man, Walter Scott, running away from the police officer. Thers' no denying that. He was running away. You see Officer Michael Slager pull his trigger eight times, shooting at this man as he's running away, hitting him five times we believe in the back.

[11:15:04] What is the defense for this officer? Is there one?

DANNY CEVALLOS, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: Right. Even when you see a video like this, as a defense attorney, you start sort of formulating what a defense would be. And there is support for the proposition that even if fleeing -- I'm not saying this is the case here -- if a police officer can articulate that someone has committed a dangerous felony and is fleeing, there is legal support for the proposition that deadly force may be used. However and I---

BOLDUAN: But-

BERMAN: It has to be a threat to the cop or has to be a threat to the public at large?

CEVALLOS: Threat to the public at large. So an example would be man fleeing with machine gun in his hand and having already shot a few people up. That would be an example of someone who is a fleeing felon, but it's absolutely true -- I'm not saying that's the case here, because that does not appear to be that so far.

BOLDUAN: So what-That's the theoretical. There is a legal defense possibly.

CEVALLOS: Possibly. BOLDUAN: What is --

CEVALLOS: Here's where it goes south. In this case, he's going to have to hold onto that notion. He's going to have to articulate some reasonable, reasonable fear of danger. Some reasonable threat that this man posed before he resorted to deadly force as the man is fleeing. And so far, we're not seeing that, at least most of us are not seeing that in the video.

But that appears to me, at this stage, the only thing that he can hang a defense to. The problem is, I see -- the number one problem I see so far emerging, is what appears to be going and picking up a taser, or a stun gun, or whatever he used, and then repositioning it. That's what we appear to see. Although, we don't know yet and the video is very grainy. But, I think that's what a lot of people are talking about. Because that shows, at least to people who are highly critical of this officer, the intent to affect the crime scene.

BOLDUAN: Use your highly critical mind and highly critical eye as a criminal defense attorney, do you think people are jumping to a conclusion too fast? Do you think there's anything that could've happened before this video started, that could completely change what folks think is pretty apparent going on in this video?

CEVALLOS: Isn't video is amazing, because in the past, we would say, well, we have to wait until all of the facts are in and do crime scene analysis. But with the magic of-

BOLDUAN: We'll just say go to the tape.

CEVALLOS: --of video, we can say let's go to the tape. And there's no stronger witness than IPhone video that we see. I mean, we don't know what happened in the minutes before, or maybe we will find out. Maybe there will be more video we don't know about. But, just based on what we've seen so far, that appears to be some very damning evidence. The defense, in this case, already has their work cut out for them.

BERMAN: Mark O'Mara, I believe, is with us for the magic of television and can finally hear me now. Mark, I want to ask you this, absent this video, what would the situation be? Would these charges exist? And if the answer is no, does that not point then to the systemic problem, perhaps, within, at least, this police force, if not all that this cop, if in fact, he did something illegal, was going to get away with it.

MARK O'MARA, CRIMINAL DEFENSE ATTORNEY: Yes. The answer is no. The charges would not have happened, particularly when you have an officer who seemed to do whatever he could to cover up his bad act by putting the gun, if it was the taser, putting it near the body. Because that, at least, may give him some reason for why he shot.

I think he realizes when he was done shooting, that it was a bad shoot. But you're right. There are systemic problems that this does point out. This one and the South Carolina case where the African- American gentleman went back into his car to get his license and was shot. You know, we don't have the racist statutes that we had 50 years ago. Now, the racism that exist, the biases that exist, is much more subtle and it's happening in that limited part of the brain.

For some reason, at least in part because of the color of this man's skin, that officer felt it was okay, it was more threatening. It was more aggressive, even though he was running away, and those are the type of systemic problems we have to address. It's going to take generations. But, I'll give you one strong point. If there was a body camera on that officer, I bet you he would not have shot. And we need body cameras on all cops.

BOLDUAN: That's exactly what I was going to ask you. Because, you have previously talked about systemic issues that need to be addressed and that will take generations, especially when it comes to racial tensions with law enforcement. But, then the how. What do you do today to avoid another man, like this man, being shot and killed? Do you really think a body camera would change it?

O'MARA: We'll we know from those departments who have had it, there have been less use of force events. There have been less complaints about cops and, also, there have been more pleas, meaning people have pled to the crimes that they have been charged with. Think about the amount of efficiency that brings into an already overburdened system.

If we have cops with cameras, they're going to think more about it. They're going to know they're being recorded, and I think in a case like this, while he may have overreacted to whatever inappropriate perceived threat he felt, for a moment, he would have thought this is going to be reviewed, keep my gun holstered. And that man would be alive today.

[11:20:05] BERMAN: Maybe one or two seconds of pause here would have made a difference. Mark O'Mara great to have you here with us. Danny Cevallos, you are the best. Thanks so much.

Ahead for us AT THIS HOUR, a 23-year-old kid who witnessed something. That is what the defense in the Aaron Hernandez says now happened, admitting for the first time that Hernandez was there when Odin Lloyd was killed, but just as a bystander. So, will the jury buy it? We're watching that jury right now on verdict watch. Stay with us.

(COMMERCIAL BRAK)

BERMAN: Happening now, the jury is behind closed doors, as we speak, at the Aaron Hernandez murder trial. This is now the second day of deliberations. During closing arguments, a whopper from the defense. A surprise. The defense admitting, for the first time, that Hernandez witnessed the murder of Odin Lloyd, but they say that two other men, Earnest Wallace and Carlos Ortiz were the ones that actually committed the act, pulled the trigger.

BOLDUAN: Prosecutors, on the other hand, they portray Hernandez as a cold, calculating man. A man capable of pulling the trigger who someone simply that he thought disrespected him. Let's discuss all of this. CNN Legal Analyst Mel Robbins is here, as well as Danny Cevallos. Danny is also a Criminal Defense Attorney. So, Danny, what about this whopper that John Berman brings up. It seems a pretty big deal to bring up for the first time in closings, by the way, he was there. He witnessed it. What?

[11:24:58] CEVALLOS: I'm actually not surprise because the entire case -- there is so much powerful circumstantial evidence that he was, at least, there. You had to wonder when the defense would address this issue and what better time to do it that than closing arguments--

BOLDUAN: Why is that-

CEVALLOS: -- when prosecution cannot put any evidence on anymore. But the other counter to that is this. Have you lost your credibility with the jurors? If you don't raise even a sentila (sp) of this defense during the entire case, but only at the end say, okay, it's not a who done it anymore, it's a he was there, but he's an innocent babe in the woods and other guys are bad guys.

And I will add that in the world, in courtrooms all across the country, this is a much more familiar defense when you have two, three, four dudes and they all point the finger directly at each other. That's a very common theme. Well, I didn't do it. I didn't know he had a gun. I don't know that guy's last name.

BERMAN: So Mel, the defense, I guess, technically speaking, does not have to have a theory of what happened. They don't have to prove anything. But, here the defense is, in the final moments of the trial itself, laying out a theory of what happened. What does a jury do with that? How do they take that behind closed doors and deliberate as they are right now?

MEL ROBBINS, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: John, it's a great question. Good morning to all of you. And let me tell what you that jury is going to do and what the defense counsel hopes jury will do. Defense hopes that the jury is now going to take the defense attorney's theory of the case. Because remember what we've all been saying leading up to the closing arguments.

You know, the problem with this case is that there is no motive. And while they have an avalanche of circumstantial evidence that kind of makes a lot of us sit back and say, wait a minute, you know, you've got to be a moron to not think he was involved based on everything we've got here. What the defense did is the defense now gave the jury an alternate explanation.

What they are hoping is that a couple of jurors go, huh, that makes a lot of sense actually. When you take all of the circumstantial evidence, when you take the gun, when you take the casing, when you take the triangulation of cell phone evidence, when you take the videos that we've got of him at the house, them at the store, of the testimony at the club, yes they were together. It makes sense that a guy with no motive to kill would actually witness something like this, but not be guilty. I think he just perhaps won his case, John, by doing this.

BOLDUAN: You really -I mean, this is the kind of the quote, Danny, that I think sticks. This coming from the defense attorney. If there was evidence of any reason Aaron would've had to murder Odin Lloyd, don't you think you would have heard about it in nine weeks? You didn't hear it because it didn't exist. This went on for nine weeks. I was looking at the numbers. More than 130 witnesses. More than 400 pieces of evidence. Nine weeks of testimony. If Mel, thinks that he might have just won his case there, what was the prosecution doing nine weeks?

CEVALLOS: Well, they're building the actual elements of their case. Let's break down the theory that there was no motive. Why would somebody do this? Here's what you have to remember, motive is not an element of any of the crimes charged. So, if the defense is focusing on motive, that means they may be a little weak on the other elements, which we can see throughout the course of all these witnesses we talked about. But, there is support for the idea that among defense attorneys, the jurors and prosecutors, of course, that jurors want a motive.

Even though they're not required to find a motive and you know they don't need one, they want to know why. But I have to tell up, that just looking at the defense's theory, if they are clinging to the idea that there was no motive, that suggests that, and we've seen that objectively the other evidence against this defendant is very, very strong.

BERMAN: We're watch right now, behind close door deliberating. We are keeping our eye on that. Mel Robbins, Danny Cellavos. Also, watching the Tsarnaev jury. They too deliberating right now. So, two verdict watches happening right here at CNN. Stay with us on both those matters.

BOLDUAN: Absolutely. Ahead for us AT THIS HOUR, Russian cyber attackers targeting the President. The same group behind an attack on the State Department, apparently, invading the White House. We're going to tell you what they got their hands on and how they were found out.

[11:29:08] (COMMERCIAL BREAK)