Aaron Hernandez Jurors Speak Out.
ANDERSON COOPER, CNN ANCHOR: We learned yesterday that he said to his guards that he didn't do it, that you all were wrong. When you hear that, what do you think?</s>MALE JUROR: My first thought was if we were wrong, if he had something else to say, maybe he should have testified at some point in that trial. Maybe there should have been a little more so we could have actually heard his side of the story.</s>HARLOW: The perspective of one of the jurors in the Aaron Hernandez trial, the panel sat down exclusively with our Anderson Cooper. Here to discuss all of it, Joey Jackson, HLN legal analyst and criminal defense attorney. Also joining me, Mo Ivory, radio personality and an attorney herself. Guys, thank you both for being here with me. Mo, let me begin with you. You just heard it from one of the jurors there, he said -- look, if he was innocent why didn't he take the stand? This is what defense attorneys grabble with every time, do I put my client on the stand? In retrospect listening to what the juror had to say, did the defense make a mistake?</s>MO IVORY, RADIO PERSONALITY AND ATTORNEY: Yes, I guess so because obviously the jury felt if he would have heard from him, if they would and get an opportunity to understand what he thought took place, and from listening with the jury I tend to agree it might have come out differently if he would have testified because they were in tune to listening exactly what every witness was saying, and tying the pieces together, and they were not lazy but were smart and working to put the puzzle together, and he might have been that last piece if he would have testified.</s>HARLOW: Joey, when we look at this, one of the other jurors said that one of the issues they had, the defense changed in the midst of the trial, and in the opening statement, they said Hernandez was not there. In the middle of the trial, they said he was there but he did not pull the trigger. And they didn't need him to pull the trigger to declare that he was guilty in this case? How much do you think this hurt him?</s>JOEY JACKSON, HLN LEGAL ANALYST: You know, it's big, Poppy, for the following reason. You have to have a theory and you have to stick to it. And in addition to saying what you mentioned, they also said, wait, the defense said what he had in his hand could have been a remote control, then it could have been an iPad, then it could have been a gun but not the same caliber gun, so that's confusing. What you do is that at the outset of the case, you know, win, lose or draw, you have your theory and you're going to impress upon the jury that your theory should carry the day. And when you start to alter it, it makes it appear, well, if you're not sure of yourself how can we be sure of what you are saying.</s>HARLOW: Look, when you look at what they need for murder one, it was not just premeditation. There was another aspect of it. So, take a listen to this from one of the jurors. Let's discuss it on the other side.</s>FEMALE JUROR: It was his indifference, and that was part of what I had to look at, and it was -- even if there was no premeditation, he could have made choices when he was there. He was there, they admitted that, and he could have made different choices and he chose not to.</s>HARLOW: A word that came up a lot, Mo, in that interview with Anderson was indifference, and this goes to the extreme cruelty aspect of getting to murder one and finding Aaron Hernandez guilty. It brings up the question of whether how somebody acted after a crime was committed matters. Clearly, here they say it does in a big way.</s>IVORY: Sure, in Massachusetts, it matters, because that extreme cruelty and atrocity standard, you can do away with the premeditation and still find that, and really what does that mean? Like, how do you get to extreme cruelty and atrocity? It's all looking at the actions of the person. It's looking at what did they do prior? What did they do after? And just think when they -- you know, this woman, this juror, especially that was just speaking, it was the one that I felt was -- you know, she might have gone another way. I think when she walked in, she didn't want to find Aaron Hernandez guilty. But as she started putting the things together and as she even said during the interview with Anderson, that she really needed help from the other jurors to really understand what it was that she needed to find here, and I do think all those other things -- even one juror said he was walking around in the house with a gun and he had a child.</s>HARLOW: Yes.</s>IVORY: Now, if you take that separately away from it being the night of the murder that he walked around in the house, it really isn't that odd for a person, a homeowner, a parent who owns a gun to transport that gun from one dresser to the next, and it wouldn't really have meant anything. But it meant something because it was the night of the murder. And these incidents alone, even though they say -- they were very clear to -- this was a smart jury, and they were clear to say that they weren't thinking about things that didn't matter and they were only listening to the juror's instructions, some things really did matter.</s>HARLOW: And I wonder, Joey, if you think where this trial a took place, plays into the uniqueness of it in terms of where it was held, right? Because I wonder if he had been tried in a different jurisdiction, would he have been convicted under these circumstances, because the premeditation, they didn't have it there, but they did have that extreme cruelty aspect?</s>JACKSON: You know, I'm willing and inclined to say yes. And you never really know, Poppy, and I don't know juries. I speak to enough jurors after the fact and what the things they say surprised me. But this particular jury, it appears, though, some of them knew him, some of them were fans, and others of them were not so much fans. And it appeared to be that they evaluated all of this, almost seven days, 35 hours of deliberating, and it appeared they put all the pieces together, whether it's the issues of his behavior that you asked Mo about, the consciousness of guilty. Reasonable people do reasonable things under reasonable circumstances, and when you look at how he behaved and you look at all the evidence that the prosecution brought to bear, where it's the prints, whether it's the DNA, whether it's the Nike shoes, whether it's the gun beforehand, the gun after the fact, I think the jury really grabbled with it, not an easy decision to make, and I think ultimately they made the right one.</s>HARLOW: And they took their time and they went through. And, you know, it's interesting, they told Anderson, look, we don't want to get into the emotions of our personal exchange in the juror room, that is sacrosanct, that is private, but here is how we came to our decision.</s>JACKSON: So odd. So odd.</s>HARLOW: Mo, Joey, thank you very much. We appreciate it.</s>JACKSON: Always.</s>IVORY: Absolutely.</s>HARLOW: John?</s>BERMAN: The tabloid headlines with major legal implications. The ex- fiance of actress Sophia Vergara trying to keep her from destroying embryos they frozen while they were together? Who gets the final say on these embryos and what does this mean for similar cases around the country?