Closing Arguments In Boston Bombing Trial
MICHAELA PEREIRA, CNN ANCHOR: This morning jurors will hear closing arguments in the Boston bombing trial. In the coming days, jurors will decide not only on a verdict, but also Dzhokhar Tsarnaev will face the death penalty. Here to break it all down, we have so much to discuss, CNN commentator and legal analyst, Mel Robbins and HLN legal analyst, Joey Jackson. Hello, my friends. Good to have you both. Mel, I'll start with you. Ladies first, it seems I think to most of us a fairly open and shut case. Do you expect the decision to come from the jury fairly quickly?</s>MEL ROBBINS, CNN COMMENTATOR AND LEGAL ANALYST: Yes, I do. There are 30 counts. We know 17 of them carry the death penalty. They are very straight forward actually, Michaela. So I think what we are going to see today is closing arguments and depending upon how long those go, they can take the balance of the day. You'll then going to hear the judge give the jury the charges the instructions and then the jury could get the case as soon as later today or first thing tomorrow morning, Michaela, and I think we are going to have a verdict within a day or two.</s>PEREIRA: Speedy and rapid, absolutely, we know the defense attorney, Judy Clark, well versed in this kind of strategy. She actually said in those opening statements, it was him, not refuting the fact that her client was there. What was her end game? What has been her strategy?</s>JOEY JACKSON, HLN LEGAL ANALYST: You know, it's one strategy, only. Michaela, good morning. Good morning, Mel. The reality is this. What she's attempting to do is spare his life. There is no really mystery in terms of whether he will be convicted. We know he will be convicted, absolutely. It was him, but I think what she is trying to do is establish a context upon which it was him. He was the puppet. His brother led the way. He was controlled. He was manipulated. And I think we saw that manifest itself in the defense case where they talked about supplies and bomb components. Guess what, Michaela, they were the prints of his older controlling brother, Tamerlan and they were not his and the computer searches, guess what as to that, they were also the searches about the gun. The searches about bombs and that type thing. They came from the computer of the manipulating, controlling older brother, Tamerlan, not my client. So that's what they'll go on to in the next phase.</s>PEREIRA: How effective of the defense is that?</s>JACKSON: You know, you use what you have as Mel can tell you and I think we'll agree to. The reality is that they're very limited here. Why? Because it, it was him and so what do you if you try to say it wasn't, is you lose credibility. That's all you have as an attorney is credibility. If the end game is to spare his life, that's the only road you can go down.</s>PEREIRA: Yes, Mel, go with your strength. I mean, he was seen on video. He was caught in that boat. I mean, there are so many aspects of this that are just a home run for the prosecution, but in terms of, you know, he was a victim to his brother, his brother enlisted him. His brother essentially influenced him into this heinous act. How much do you think that matters to the jurors?</s>ROBBINS: Well, it only has to matter to one of them because in order to get a death penalty verdict, you need a unanimous verdict for that. So the U.S. Code 228 is what will control the next phase of the trial. And what we are going to see happen is the prosecution goes first and they present what are called the aggregating factors and what those include are the actual natural crime and how heinous it was. The damage that was done, the lack of remorse and the response by Tsarnaev in the fact that he also committed a crime against America and there are aggregating factors, two of the victims, one of them, Sean Collier was a law enforcement officer and Martin Richard was just 8-years-old. Those are major aggregating factors. The mitigating factors are his age, the fact that he may have been impaired with weed. The fact that he had no criminal record and the family history, but whether or not that makes a difference, that remains to be seen. And one more thing, Michaela, under the code, the defense does not have to give us notice as to what they plan to argue. So we don't know yet what exactly they're going to do. We don't know whether or not they will put Dzhokhar on the stand in an attempt to humanize him -- Michaela.</s>PEREIRA: I want to ask you about that. Impaired with weed, for that entire siege, the days leading up to it, for the entire season even the days after when he tries to hide the evidence and influence his friends to do so?</s>ROBBINS: Yes, I don't think it's a viable argument at all. But as Joey said earlier, you take whatever you got. You throw it against the wall. You hope some casserole sticks with one juror.</s>PEREIRA: Do you think, Joey, that Dzhokhar will take the stand?</s>JACKSON: I don't think it's -- I mean, if I'm advising him and Judy Clark certainly has the experience, the wisdom, he has to stay off that witness stand. The reality is that he would be savaged by the prosecution and it would be so much that he would have to admit. Not only that in terms of exposing him to a savage cross examination, but the other thing is, is that he could wreck his own defense. Does he now say, well, I want to die? Please put me to death. That certainly, if the jury believes he wants to die, maybe they don't put him to death. So there is an interesting psychology and dynamic that I think you will see play out during the penalty phase and obviously we're presuming the jury will find him guilty. But I think that's at a pretty good presumption to be making.</s>PEREIRA: So there is no doubt about his guilt that he was involved, but talk to us what we can expect about this next phase because this might be new to some.</s>JACKSON: You know, interestingly enough, Michaela, I think what you are going to expect is the why he did it. I think you will learn about who he is. Remember during the trial, itself, we heard from one friend of his. That's it. That's a lot because the judge has limited what the defense was able to do in terms of the blame the older brother defense, why? It's not a defense, it's a mitigating factor. And as Mel spoke to, you have now an opportunity the defense does to speak to the issues of mitigation, why he did it. So we will learn about his family history. How he grew up, what was his psychology, what he is all about. Are there any instances of abuse or misdirection? What was the relationship like between him and his brother? Was his brother manipulating, controlling? And so this is going to be a look, Michaela, into the window of exactly who is sitting in that chair and why he was compelled to do what he did.</s>PEREIRA: I want to get both your quick takes. Do you think that the jury is going to elect death or life, Mel, what do you think?</s>ROBBINS: You know, this is a tough one because I think the biggest piece of evidence is him standing behind Martin Richard with the backpack placing the bomb and walking away. I actually the think they'll find one juror that does not vote for the death penalty. I think he will get life in prison.</s>JACKSON: You know, Mel may be right, but I think the reality is this is such a compelling act that we all can relate to and it affected and devastated the Boston community, but the nation as a whole and certainly many things, we don't like as Americans. Terrorism has to be at the top. I think I'm not surprised if they sentence him to death, Michaela.</s>PEREIRA: Joey, Mel, boy, those jurors are having to go through a lot. Maybe this city of Boston and our nation can start to heal after all of this is done. Thank you for all your expertise. We appreciate it. Happy Monday -- Chris.</s>CUOMO: All right, Mich, we'll be watching that one. That's for sure. Another story that should be on your radar, California is suffering historic drought. So what do you say? I live in New York? Wrong. Empathy aside, you could feel their pain and real soon in your wallet. We'll tell you why ahead.