[Don Lemon, Cnn Anchor:] We get now to more breaking news, the so- called "affluenza" teen captured in Mexico after weeks on the run. Ethan Couch is his name, picked up by Mexican authorities with his mother. Is American prison the next stop for the duo? Is that where they're going next? Let's bring in Joey Jackson and Danny Cevallos, both of them CNN legal analysts, and both of them criminal defense attorneys, and both of them very evenly matched, to talk about both of these cases here. So, I want to ask you guys as defense attorneys, what's the defense for Ethan Couch after doing this? How do you defend what has happened? Because he got 10 years probation, people were upset saying he should have gotten way more. You first, Joey.
[Joey Jackson, Cnn Legal Analyst:] Let's start with the obvious, Don. Good morning to you. The obvious is he's got a bit of a problem. We know that. And the fact is, whenever you run it demonstrates some type of consciousness of guilt, something you should never do. However, remember this, at the time he was sentenced he was a juvenile. The purpose of the proceedings are we know the tenets of the criminal justice system, punishment, deterrent, rehabilitation.
[Lemon:] Right.
[Jackson:] Sixteen years old at the time of the commission of this horrific offense, four people dead. He's scared. Doesn't know what to do. He's still a young guy. He's under the influence of his mom and his parents. He still can be rehabilitated, which is the whole essence of the fact that a 16-year-old who's now 18 years old thinking. Therefore, there should be mercy because there's a rehabilitation element that's still present within him. He's got a long way to go in life. He can be redeemed. He can be an effective member of society if given the opportunity.
[Lemon:] OK, a lot to unpack here, what he talked about, Danny, because he says, you know, in the commission in trying to get away, it was obvious that he was hiding. Take a look at the pictures. This is what he looked like when they picked him up in Mexico. Obviously, in the middle, changed his hair color. As you said, did his mom influence him to do this? What gives in this particular case? There is a lot to unpack.
[Danny Cevallos, Cnn Legal Analyst:] There is a lot to unpack. But this is not that different from any other probationer who violates his or her probation. Whether you're in the juvenile system or the adult system, one of the last things you want to do as a defendant on probation is go back before that judge that gave you the gift of probation in the first place and show that judge why that judge may have made a mistake. There's no angrier judge in the criminal justice system than a back judge on probation when you've violated probation, because what that judge can do is either reinstate probation or, more likely, revoke probation. That original probation, being allowed to stay outside under the law in that jurisdiction, ten years probation was the maximum number of years of probation he could have gotten under the law. If he was exceedingly lucky under the circumstances, he will not be so lucky once he goes back before the back judge.
[Lemon:] Yes, but that was probation. You know, people were saying he should have gotten ten years in jail, if not more. Is this a continuation, though, of miscarriage of justice as many people see? Because as I understand, the judge is retired, the original judge.
[Jackson:] Exactly, and that's the bigger problem, Don, because the judge who gave him, as Danny referred to, as the gift of probation, is no longer there. And so, every judge has a wide degree of discretion in terms of what they do and how they handle you. And, certainly, if there was any opportunity now for a judge, you know, to mete out justice in this case, to reverse what was thought of many that this was just an inappropriate sentence that had no relation to what he actually did, let's think about this four people dead, 16 or not. Another in your car Exactly who's brain dead and other one injured. So, if ever there was an opportunity for now the judge sitting there with the other judge gone, to say, you know what, we gave you an opportunity the first time, we focused on rehabilitation. You blew it and now you're going to do the full measure of your sentence. Let's add one last element, Don. He was 16 at the time of the commission of the offense. He's an adult now.
[Lemon:] He's 18. He'll be 19 in April. But, still, Danny, you know, when you're 18 or 19, not to excuse what he did, obviously it's horrible. But the question is going to shall how much influence did his mother have over him as an 18-year-old, 17- year-old, 18-year-old, almost turning 19 now? What happens to the mom now?
[Cevallos:] Well, the mother faces all kinds of problems of her own. Number one, in this jurisdiction, when a juvenile's placed on probation, a parent can be made a part of that probation order. So even under a juvenile's probation order, the parent may have obligations. After all, in many cases, the juvenile's living with the parent and the parent must enforce things like curfew and other rules. The other part, too, is separately as an offense, that parent may have been harboring a fugitive. So, mom is going to have a number of questions to answer in court, whether under the original probation order if she had any obligations or as a new separate criminal offense. Either way, this is not a good idea to take your son to Mexico to avoid his probation obligation if that's in fact what she did.
[Lemon:] Yes, a lot of legal experts said when this happened, that we would be seeing him again, once he was sentenced we'd be seeing him again.
[Jackson:] Guess what?
[Lemon:] And sadly
[Jackson:] We're seeing him again.
[Lemon:] I want to turn to Tamir Rice. Are you surprised there were no indictments handed down?
[Jackson:] I don't say that I'm surprised, Don, but I think certainly, the process left a lot to be desired. And the reason I say that is because, you know, as a prosecutor, you have a wide degree of discretion in terms of how you handle the case. You're the judge, the jury, the executioner with the grand jury. And the manner in which this occurred, I was one who felt that, you know, he should have potentially been recuse from the outset and a special prosecutor placed there. When you are the local prosecutor and you're working closely with the police, relying upon them for your investigations, for your arrests, for the prosecutions and other matters, it's very difficult for you now to sit in judgment of them. And I think that it sort of goes against a notion of trust that we have in the process and the system. And any prosecutor who wants an indictment and a conviction certainly gets one because you control the flow of information. And if you look at for one second, if you pose this next to Baltimore, where, you know, within weeks, there was a criminal actual complaint against the officers and then an indictment. And you look at, for example, South Carolina with Slager who shot, you know, Michael Scott in the back, within months, there was an indictment. Here, why did it take over a year, first of all, to go before the grand jury? And after that, there's no action. I'm one who says the process
[Lemon:] There needs to be more transparency in the process. When you look at his officer, his record, Danny, he was a trainee. He had other problems at other jobs. Here's what the prosecutor Tim McGinty called the case, "It was a perfect storm of human mistakes." The question is, though, when you look at the officer's record and you look at the whole situation, where do the mistakes stop and the criminality begin?
[Cevallos:] The Supreme Court addressed that very issue. And, unfortunately, the law remains somewhat unsettled. If you look at the facts of this case, this is an officer who, yes, was sitting in the passenger's seat. But his brother officer was the one driving the car that brought him so close to Tamir Rice in the first place. And that I think is part of why McGinty is calling this an unfortunate set of circumstances, because the shooting officer was not the one that brought him within seven feet of Tamir Rice. But even all of that aside, you know, I have to dissent respectfully with Joey Jackson when he says people are demanding a more transparent process. This is the grand jury system. It was never designed to be transparent. If we don't like that as a citizenry, then we need to change it. But if we are disappointed in the grand jury process because it's not transparent, it was never designed to be.
[Jackson:] We're not talking
[Cevallos:] And as to whether or not we're surprised
[Jackson:] Danny.
[Cevallos:] Joey?
[Jackson:] We're talking about the process of McGinty bringing the matter before the grand jury.
[Cevallos:] Agreed.
[Jackson:] The fact is that the local prosecutor should divorce himself from that so that the citizens know that the presentation of the information is fair. That the flow of information is what the grand jury needs to see, needs to evaluate. When you have a local prosecutor who controls as a former prosecutor, I can tell you, the grand jury would do what I would want it to do. So, it's not the grand jury process I'm assailing.
[Cevallos:] Exactly.
[Jackson:] It's the fact that the local prosecutor presented the information to the grand jury when an outside entity should have done that to allow the company to have trust and faith and respect in the outcome.
[Lemon:] And you two gentlemen can pick this up later.
[Cevallos:] And, Joey
[Lemon:] Danny is going to be here in New York. He'll be on CNN. We'll be discussing that.
[Jackson:] Look forward to it.
[Lemon:] Sorry, Danny, we'll get you back in on CNN. You guys can discuss. Thank you very much. I want to tell our viewers, coming up in our 8:00 hour, we're going to talk for the family of Tamir Rice about the grand jury decision. Michaela?
[Michaela Pereira, Cnn Anchor:] All right, Don. Americans seem to agree that the country has changed under President Obama. But is it for the better or for worse? We'll take a closer look at a brand new CNN poll, coming up next.