Return to Transcripts main page

LEGAL VIEW WITH ASHLEIGH BANFIELD

Stanford Rape Victim's Statement Read; Stanford Victim's Friend Speaks Out; President Obama Could Endorse Clinton This Week; Sanders Vows To Take Fight To Convention; GOP Leaders Disavow Trump's Attacks On Federal Judge; Trump Says "Possible" A Muslim Judge Would Be Biased; Prosecutor In Gorilla Case Holds News Conference; No Charges Against Boy's Mother In Gorilla Death. Aired 12:30-1p ET

Aired June 6, 2016 - 12:30   ET

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


[12:30:02] ASHLEIGH BANFIELD, CNN ANCHOR: Sorry, sorry. When she feels more guilt than you, then I do not forgive you. Now to address the sentencing.

"My life has been on hold for over a year. A year of anger, anguish, and uncertainty until a jury of my peers rendered a judgment that validated the injustices that I had endured. Had Brock admitted guilt and remorse and offered to settle early on, I would have considered a lighter sentence, respecting his honesty, grateful to be able to move on with our lives moving forward. Instead, he took the risk of going to trial. Added insult to injury and forced me to relive the hurt as details about my personal life as sexual assault were brutally dissected before the public.

"The probation officer's recommendation of a year or less in county jail is a soft time-out, a mockery of the seriousness of his assaults and of the consequences of the pain I have been forced to endure. Unfortunately, he has failed to exhibit sincere remorse or responsibility for his conduct. I fully respected his right to a fair trial but even after 12 jurors unanimously convicted him guilty of three felonies, all he has admitted to doing is ingesting alcohol. Someone who cannot take full accountability for his actions does not deserve a mitigating sentence. It is deeply offensive that he would try to dilute rape with a suggestion of promiscuity.

"As this as a first offense, I could see where leniency would beckon. On the other hand, as a society, we cannot forgive everyone's first sexual assault or digital rape. It doesn't make sense. The seriousness of rape has to be communicated clearly. We should not create a culture that suggests we learn that rape is wrong through trial and error.

"The probation officer weighed the fact that he has surrendered a hard earned swimming scholarship. If I had been sexually assaulted by an athletic guy from a community college, what would his sentence be?

"Throughout incarceration, I would hope he is provided with appropriate therapy and resources to rebuild his life. I request that he educate himself about issue of campus sexual assault. I hope he accepts proper punishment and pushes himself to reenter society as a better person." She concludes the letter by thanking the hospital intern who made her oatmeal, the deputy who waited beside here, the nurses who calmed her, the detective who listened to her, her advocates, her boss, her incredible parents as she calls them, her friends, her boyfriend, her unconquerable sister and then this quote. "Most importantly, thank you to the two men who saved me, who I have yet to meet. I sleep with two bicycles that I drew taped above my bed to remind myself there are heroes in this story. That we are looking out for one another. To have known all of these people, to have felt their protection and love is something I will never forget."

When we come back, a Stanford University law professor and friend of this young victim, she's going to take us into the courtroom where the offender's father pushed for leniency for his son.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[12:38:02] BANFIELD: You just heard in great detail the horrific toll inflicted on the young California woman by her sexual assault outside of a campus party at Stanford University early last year. My next guest shared those horrors. Michele Dauber is a friend of that victim. She's also a law professor at Stanford and she was in that courtroom during sentencing. She joins me live from Los Angeles. I've also got with me CNN legal analyst Danny Cevallos and Joey Jackson here in New York.

Michele, I want to speak with you if I can from a personal perspective, how is the victim doing?

PROF. MICHELE LANDIS DOUBER, STANFORD UNIVERSITY LAW SCHOOL: Well, as she told BuzzFeed, she is disappointed with the lenient sentence in this case. She is hurt and sad that the judge did not listen to her, but she's also gratified that so many people are reaching out to her. I really think her statement speaks for itself it's very powerful and I encourage everyone to go to BuzzFeed to read the statement in full.

BANFIELD: And we've just read it almost entirely in full. It is extraordinarily lengthy. For time, we've had to excerpt it. But, I want to read something else, Michele, if I can. It was Brock Turner's father, Dan Turner, who stood up in the court in the character reference for his son.

In part to his letter to the judge reads "Brock's life has been deeply altered forever by the events of January 17th and 18th. He will never be his happy go lucky self with that easy going personality and welcoming smile. Now he barely consumes any food and eats only to exist. Those verdicts have broken and shattered him and our family in so many ways. His life will never be the one he dreamed about and worked so hard to achieve. That is a steep price to pay for 20 minutes of action out of his 20 plus years of life."

What was the reaction in the courtroom when that was read out loud in front of the victim in front of her family and friends?

[12:40:02] DOUBER: I think people were very stunned. There were a number of the victim's friend high school and college friends there. All of there were crying.

I think this is very insensitive to compare the problems associated with, you know, not eating your favorite food to being sexually assaulted. I think it shows a lack of compassion for the victim in this case. I feel that if the father would have even acknowledged, even for a moment the survivor and said, you know, my son did this terrible thing to you and I'm so, so sorry. Of course, I love my son and I don't want him to go to prison but, you know, it can never erase what he did to you and I'm sorry but just no acknowledgment of her whatsoever.

BANFIELD: I want to bring in Joey Jackson and Danny Cevallos into this. Joey, three very serious charges. Assault with intent to commit rape of an intoxicated woman, sexually penetrating and intoxicated person with the foreign object, and sexual penetrating unconscious person to the foreign object. The first is the most serious of them. Two to 14 and yet six months. I get down (inaudible). I get judicial discretion. But I don't get this.

JOEY JACKSON, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: I think a lot of people would join you and not getting it. But judges have broad discretion, that's the first thing. And certainly, Michele wrote a letter who she knows, of course, your guest knows the victim, her family, and certainly has a nice sense of exactly how they feel about this and I think people are outraged and are entitled to be outraged by this.

What happens though is in our judicial system and that's why a lot of people get justice is not for everyone. If you are a swimmer, if you are an athlete, if you ware somewhat with means, then perhaps you have more value than someone who doesn't.

But when you look at downward departures, the judge can consider very broadly the unusual circumstances of the case. The judge can consider the youthfulness of the actual offender. The judge can consider the nature of the offender's prior history. Apparently, this judge did that and felt satisfactory that a downward departure was appropriate. A lot of others judges would not.

BANFIELD: So let me give you some of the evidence the judge was working with because we all know how this works. You get a conviction, you get a presentencing report, a probation officers asks you a lots questions, ask the victims questions as well and this is from the presentencing report, the probation officer's recommendation.

I'm going to quote him. They wrote, "The defender further stated, he was sorry for what he put the victim and her family through during the trial. He explained. During the trial I didn't want to victimize her at all. That was just my attorney and his way of approaching the case. I didn't want to degrade her in any way. I regret that. I'm sorry for her having to go through this entire process and having even to think about this for a second, all because of my actions that night. I can't believe I imposed such suffering on her I am sorry."

Regret and remorse and apologies do go a long way into mitigating a sentence. Taking responsibility for your actions. The victim doesn't feel like he really did because she said only points to the drinking and the promiscuity and not to actually ignoring consent and raping.

DANNY CEVALLOS, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: And the judge agreed with you. The judge pointed out this apology wasn't exactly on point. But the judge was allowed to consider that remorse under California law. Look, the real question is not whether or not you agree with the sentence ultimately. It's whether whether or not it's a legal sentence and the law allows for departures from a sentence specifically in California, you look at certain enumerated factors.

Once you decide, now, again, the presumption is that someone does not get probation for these crimes but you look at the factors and the judge is empowered to consider such factors as including the effective imprisonment on the defendant, whether the defendant has a prior record. And other factors that are actually in the statute.

Now we can disagree about how those should have been interpreted and I imagine many, many people do including the professor here. But the reality is, the question is whether or not it's a legal sentence and it appears that it was.

(CROSSTALK)

JACKSON: It's more than that, most respectfully. Because when you look at justice, obviously, we have to deal with legalities of things. That's what courts are for. But when you see a court system and people in a court system that are being treated differently than other people, it really makes you wonder, you know, it's a matter of trust, it's a matter of respect and if everyone is going to respect the court system, then I think everyone needs to be treated equally within the eyes of the law and then people look at this, there's a sense that did not happen.

BANFIELD: Yeah. Plenty of good people in the past have done horrifying things as well. We only need to look at the BTK killer who was a model citizen but hurting people in private. Michele, I just want to bring up the fact that there is a recall petition out there to -- 44,000 people, in fact, who signed a petition to recall this judge but besides that, what is the response from your university, from Stanford University to what's transpired?

[12:45:09] DAUBER: You know, sexual assault on campus has been a problem that I've been working on for years at Stanford. Stanford has not done a good job. It is fully aware that it has a problem with particularly fraternities and with protecting young women from sexual assault and keeping them safe on campus, particularly as respect to fraternities and I if you look at the way President Drew Faust at Harvard has handled the question of fraternities by trying to reduce them and eliminate them versus how our Provost, John Etchemendy, has handled it, I think there's no comparison. I think Harvard is doing a much better job and Stanford needs to step to the plate and make sure women are safe on our campus and Stanford has not apologized to the survivor and has not acknowledged what happened to her on its property at all and it has not offered to my knowledge to pay for counseling or services and that should change.

I also want to say in response to your statement of the other guest about the law. Remember, this is a probation ineligible offense, presumptively. The legislator set a minimum sentence of two years and said this is presumptively not eligible for probation. The judge had to bend over backwards to accommodate this young man's request for a probation and the message that he sent to women on Stanford is you are on your own. And i think he made all women at Stanford less safe with his sentence. He is not deterring these offenses as they need to be deterred and women are entitled to the protection of the law whether they are raped on campus or anywhere else.

BANFIELD: Michele Dauber, I appreciate taking the time to speak with us today. Thank you. Joey Jackson and Danny Cevallos, as always thank you as well. I appreciate everybody weighing in on this story.

I'm going to switch gears. Coming up, politics. America's first Latino Attorney General Alberto Gonzales weighing in on Donald Trump's accusation that the judge in his case in the Trump University story is baised because of his Mexican heritage. Judge Gonzales, next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[12:50:09] BANFIELD: Just into CNN, President Obama could formally endorse Hillary Clinton to succeed him as early as this week. That's according to two Democrats familiar with the president's thinking. This coming as the Clinton campaign is focusing on California, the crown jewel of tomorrow's final Super Tuesday. Clinton is just 26 delegates shy of a magic number following her win in the Puerto Rico primary just yesterday but even as she stands within striking distance, her rival, Bernie Sanders, is still not ready to give up.

Sanders vowed to lead his movement all the way to the convention and senator's persistence worrying Democrats believing he's making it hard for Clinton to unify the party and turn attention to Donald Trump.

In the meantime, Donald Trump is coming under fire from the GOP over his attacks against the federal judge who is overseeing two Trump University cases in which he's involved. He accuses the judge who was born in Indiana and is American of bias because of his, quote, "Mexican heritage." Listen to what he told CNN's Jake Tapper.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DONALD TRUMP, (R), PRESUMPTIVE REPUBLICAN NOMINEE: We're building a wall. He's a Mexican. We're building a wall between here and Mexico.

JAKE TAPPER, CNN ANCHOR: If you're saying he can't do his job because of his race, is that not the definition of racism? All.

TRUMP: I don't think at all.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BANFIELD: And that's not all. Trump also said it's possible a Muslim judge would also treat him unfairly because of Trump's proposed ban on Muslims entering this country. These comments fueling heavy criticism from several top Republicans including those who have endorsed Donald Trump. America's first Latino attorney general said Trump has a right to question the judge's fairness in the Trump U case. In an op-ed in the Washington Post, Alberto Gonzalez writes this. "Regardless of the way Trump has gone about raising his concerns over whether he's getting a fair trial, none of us should dismiss those concerns out of hand without carefully examining how a defendant in his position might perceive them, and we certainly should not dismiss them for partisan, political reasons."

Joining me now is Attorney General Gonzalez. Thank you so much sir for taking the time. I am so curious to get your thought. For a defendant who has not asserted his right in a court of law about these kinds of concerns and put forth a motion for recusal, how on earth could it be legitimate to go in the public and say these things?

ALBERTO GONZALES, FORMER ATTORNEY GENERALL: I'm not supporting Donald Trump's comments. I didn't write what I wrote in support of his comments. I didn't write what I wrote in support of the notion that the judge should be recused solely on his race. I wrote to say that Donald Trump like every (inaudible) in United States has a right to a fair trial before an impartial of judge. And if there any questions related to that impartiality, even the appearance of impropriety is enough to cause a judge to recuse himself, then there should be recusal because this is not about the judge. This is a litigant getting a fair trial before an impartial judge.

BANFIELD: I'm glad you said that.

GONZALES: And that's the reason that I wrote the piece.

BANFIELD: I'm glad you said that. What you wrote exactly to that point is that judges in the trial over which they preside are not perceived as being impartial, the public will lose confidence in the rule of law upon which our nation is based and I agree wholeheartedly with you.

But what if it's backwards? What if this appearance of impartiality is coming from the defendant because up until now, no one can find any evidence other than the birthplace of the parents of the judge as to any kind of impartiality? It is only coming from Donald Trump's own mouth and he may be poisoning the public perception as opposed to the judge doing so.

GONZALES: Well then the judge will have to make a calculation as to whether or not because this is, again, this is not about the judge. It's about our judicial system. And the appearance that any litigant, no matter their circumstances, whether or not they are racist, whether or not they're a child molester or rapist or terrorist, that they're going to get a fair shake in our courts. I mean that is a number one priority.

Now, I don't, the fact that Donald Trump has attacked a Hispanic judge to me makes me angry because I worked very hard with Hispanic organizations to get good qualified Hispanics or our courts. And so it makes me angry some of these comments which I think are wrong and inappropriate, but again, this is not about the judge. This is about our judicial system and the right of every American citizen to get a fair trial before an impartial judge.

BANFIELD: I agree. I want to bring up another issue in your op-ed because you don't only point to the issue of Hispanic heritage, which is all that Donald Trump is pointing to. So this is just solely on you as I go forward now.

You pointed to some appointments of counsel, a law firm that paid the Clintons in the past for speeches and the fact this judge had made those appointments as perhaps something should lead us to question and these are your words, it might not be unreasonable for a defendant in Trump's position to wonder who judge Curiel Favors in the presidential election.

[12:55:17] Well, for that matter, should there be a litmus test for any judge who sits in any case because, god forbid you're a republican being judged a Democrat.

GONZALES: Well, listen, I don't know all the facts in connection with that appointment. I don't know all the facts in connection with the relationship, if any, between the La Raza Lawyers Group that the judge and then (inaudible) and the La Raza Organization.

The point I'm trying to make is these are the kinds of questions that should be asked in connection with any case. That is, whether or not, does the judge have the kind of relationships or are there circumstances that exist that would call in the question the impartiality of the judge. As I said in my "Washington Post" piece, from my perspective, this judge can serve effectively. I wouldn't have a problem having a case heard before this judge. And as I said in my "Washington Post" piece, the call for a recuse of a judge based solely on ethnicity in my judgment is wrong and to do it publicly in my judgment demeans the judge and really does hurt the reputation of the judiciary and I just think it was inappropriate the way Donald Trump did it in this case.

BANFIELD: Mr. Attorney General, I appreciate you taking the time to clarify and also to further elucidate on your feelings about this. Reading at first, it looked as though you did feel sympathetic to that initial statement and I get clearly that you do not. That heritage alone, and you're on the record now, it is inappropriate to bring heritage alone.

GONZALES: That is correct. Thank you.

BANFIELD: Mr. Attorney General, thank you, sir. I look forward to our next time.

GONZALES: You bet.

BANFIELD: And just a reminder that six states go to the polls tomorrow in the final Super Tuesday of 2016. Be sure to watch all of our daytime coverage right here on CNN. And we're just moments as well from hearing whether charges are going to be filed against the mother of that child who was somehow able to get into the gorilla exhibit at Cincinnati Zoo. The prosecutor in the case is going to make an announcement live after this quick break. (COMMERCIAL BREAK)

WOLF BLITZER, CNN ANCHOR: Hello, I'm Wolf Blitzer. It's 10:00 a.m. in Los Angeles, 1:00 p.m. here in Washington, 8:00 p.m. in Damascus. Wherever you're watching from around the world, thanks very much for joining us.

We want to get breaking news right now out of Cincinnati, Ohio. This is the prosecutor in the case involving that the zoo and the mother involved in the gorilla case there. This is the Hamilton County Prosecutor. Joseph Deters explaining what's going on. I want you to listen.

JOSEPH DETERS, HAMILTON COUNTY, OHIO PROSECUTOR: By all accounts, this mother did not act any, in any way where she presented this child to some harm. She had three other kids with her, and turned her back. You know, and I've gotten dozens if not hundreds of e-mails about this case. And if anyone doesn't believe a 3-year-old can scamper off very quickly, they've never had kids. Because they can. And they do.

I'm glad to see the zoo changed the border around this encampment to try to prevent. They did some remedial work to prevent this from happening again. But, you know, the one thing I will say. I mean, the zoo lost a beautiful animal, and one that many people in this area have enjoyed watching for a long time. But it's still an animal. It does not equate human life. And they felt that this boy's life was in jeopardy. And they did. They made the painful choice to do what they did.