Return to Transcripts main page

CNN News Central

Parents of Michigan School Shooter to be Sentenced; Supreme Court Urged to Reject Trump Immunity; Greene Doubles Down Against House Speaker. Aired 9-9:30a ET

Aired April 09, 2024 - 09:00   ET

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

[09:00:00]

SEN. TIM KAINE (D-VA): Higher than 4,000. And many families do that. My sister and brother-in-law did it with their kids and we joined them on a few.

I decided, Virginia needs a quest like this. And I'm going to create one, do it, write about it, and hopefully encourage others to get outdoors and see the magnificent, God-given beauty of our commonwealth.

JOHN BERMAN, CNN ANCHOR: You're a great salesperson. And at the end you say you learned more about yourself after it was done than you thought you would setting out. And you even show us pictures of your sunburned thighs from the time in the canoe. Brave (ph).

KAINE: I spare - I spare no gory details, and - including a horrible burn on my foot one day. But it was an amazing journey.

BERMAN: Senator Tim Kaine, thank you for being with us this morning. You say you have a special talent for sleeping on the ground. A special talent for writing as well.

KAINE: Thank you so much, John.

A new hour of CNN NEWS CENTRAL starts right now.

KATE BOLDUAN, CNN ANCHOR: This hour, the parents of the Michigan school shooter will come face to face with the parents of their son's victims. How long will a judge now tell James and Jennifer Crumbley they're about to spend behind bars.

A direct pitch to push Republican House Speaker Mike Johnson out of his job. Republican Congresswoman Marjorie Taylor Greene and her new attack on Johnson's leadership just this morning.

And he's accused of pledging his allegiance to ISIS and making plans to attack churches in Idaho. Now, one teenager is under arrest.

I'm Kate Bolduan, with John Berman. Sara is out today. This is CNN NEWS CENTRAL.

Any moment now, a first of its kind sentencing in Michigan. The first parents convicted for the mass shooting their son carried out, they well find out their fate. James and Jennifer Crumbley each face up to 15 years in prison. Defense attorneys are asking for them to be given time served. And in an unconventional move, to say the least, one is even offering to allow her client to move in with her to live under house arrest. Both were found guilty on four counts of involuntary manslaughter after their son killed four students in a mass shooting at his high school.

CNN's Jean Casarez has been following all of this for us. She's back here with us now.

This is a very important day for the victims and their families. How is this going to play out? We're waiting to see this right now.

JEAN CASAREZ, CNN CORRESPONDENT: This is going to be so emotional. It - this is an emotional moment for everyone that's involved because the defendants are going to find out their fate. Will they be in prison for the next 15 years? Will they have the advisory guidelines that the probation department developed, which is four to seven years? Or will they even be able to have that time served? Very important. And both sides are going to work with the facts on that. The facts of this first ever homicide in this country, charges against parents, because they didn't pull the trigger. It's their son that pulled the trigger at Oxford High School.

But that moment when the parents of the four children that were killed, gun down by Ethan Crumbley at Oxford High School, go to the podium, and we have learned it will only be the parents, the close family members of those four students, because those are the four convictions, the homicide convictions. And they will be able to pour out their hearts to James and Jennifer Crumbley, even speaking directly to them, we've heard that in this courtroom before in other circumstances, of how their life has changed, how their life will never be the same because they will say that the parents, you bought that gun for your child when you knew he could do something, you knew he had emotional problems, and four days later is when that mass shooting happened, Kate.

BOLDUAN: Jean, we're going to watch this play out together. See in - the box next to you is inside court right now. We're going to keep watching this very closely. This is all about to get underway any second.

Jean, thank you so much.

John.

BERMAN: All right, with us now, attorneys Misty Marris and Robert Bianchi.

Misty, first to you here.

What will the judge take into consideration when determining the sentence?

MISTY MARRIS, DEFENSE ATTORNEY: Yes, John, so it's going to be aggravating factors and mitigating factors. So, prosecution, they're going to present the aggravating factors. And a lot of that is going to be what we just heard Jean speaking about, those horrible victim impact statements from those that were impacted by the deaths of those four kids.

Then we're going to hear mitigating factors. That's where the defense is going to talk about all of the things that should lower the sentence. That's going to be focused on their own witnesses who are going to be able to come up. There's family members for just - for James and Jennifer Crumbley. In addition to that, they're going to say that they're remorseful. And they're also going to focus on the facts here. They're not the one with the gun.

And there's three pillars in criminal justice system, a rehabilitation, deterrence, and punishment.

[09:05:00]

That's why we incarcerate people. So, the judge is going to be thinking about those three buckets when ultimately determining a sentence.

BERMAN: Bob, we talked about the unprecedented nature of this. You do have some concerns about that.

ROBERT BIANCHI, CRIMINAL DEFENSE ATTORNEY: Yes, I really do. As a prosecutor, we typically don't criminalize civil actions. And usually we criminalize the actions that a person themselves actually performs or doesn't perform. This one is more attenuated or it's being brought out a little bit more where we're saying, we're going to hold the parents responsible for the actions that they did not contemplate, that they did not envision, that there wasn't a conscious disregard, that they did not know was going to happen for what it was that their son did. And what concerns me as a former prosecutor, and a homicide prosecutors is, I've seen situations where it may make sense in one case, but then starts getting used in all sorts of other areas. And parents have to be now aware that they may be held responsible for all sorts of conduct of their children.

BERMAN: OK, be that as it may, they've been convicted already.

BIANCHI: Right.

BERMAN: So this issue, you know, already asked and answered, to an extent. But how will that impact the sentencing, do you think? Do you think the judge will have that going on during considerations?

BIANCHI: Well, I having been around a long time ago, look, I have to tell you that there are a number of people who are dead here. So, that's going to weigh very, very heavily as an aggravating factor, as Misty had indicated.

Now, the sentencing guidelines are between three and a half years to seven years. Prosecutors are looking for ten and 15. So, the judge is going to have to balance these aggregating and mitigating factors. But the fact that there are four deaths here is going to weigh very, very heavily on the judge. And because of the publicity of this case, my experience has been, the more publicity, the more harsh the sentence is going to be.

BERMAN: They were tried separately, yet being sentenced together. What's the likelihood that their sentences will be the same or different? How will that be determined?

MARRIS: So, the judge could make a determination that the sentences are different. You know, my gut is telling me that they are likely to be the same. However, in the pre-sentencing memos, both sides submit these memorandums. The prosecution was very focused on a jailhouse phone call that James Crumbley made, which, remember, when we were covering the trial, John, we didn't know what the content of the call was. So, the prosecutors are saying that that was actually a threat to prosecutors. Now, of course, defense, they're countering that saying, this is just him with a grievance and he's allowed to not like what the prosecutors are doing. That's his right. But that's certainly something that we're going to see prosecutors focus on with respect to James Crumbley. Could that enhance his sentence? I don't think that's going to move the needle for the judge. I anticipate they will be the same. But that's something, certainly, that could be taken into consideration.

BERMAN: I saw you shaking your head.

BIANCHI: I mean this is just ridiculous what's gone on in this case in terms of the character assassination and evidence that's been allowed in, which I think is going to be subject to a potential reversal down the road because you're not allowed to introduce that evidence. And now prosecutors, of which I was one, are going to be so genteel and upset that they believe that it's an appropriate factor that because he's angry with prosecutors that that should be a reason why his sentence is increased. That's not in the sentencing code.

And again, once again, I think prosecutors are overstepping their bounds. As a prosecutor myself, I never would be saying, I'm personally offended, therefore the sentence should be higher because they attacked me. Ridiculous.

BERMAN: The victim impact statement, they will be wrenching. What actual effect do they have? To what extent has the judge already got the sentence ready?

MARRIS: Yes. So, you make a great point, because there is so much work that goes into this and determining the sentence before we even step into the sentencing hearing, the memos that we were just speaking about which lay out the arguments of both sides. So, certainly the judge has an idea of where they're going to land. We know there are state sentencing guidelines, as Bob said, three-and-a-half to seven years. Prosecutors are asking for an enhancement.

However, those victim impact statements, they could move the needle. And the judge can take all of what happens today into consideration. So, to the extent he has something in his mind, which he likely does, it could be enhanced. It could be more towards those sentencing guidelines. The defense could move the needle. It just depends on what happens in the courtroom.

BERMAN: All right, Misty Marris, Bob Bianchi, thank you both so much for being with us.

BIANCHI: Thank you.

BERMAN: Appreciate it.

Kate.

BOLDUAN: New this morning, the Republican congresswoman taking on the Republican House speaker. It's about Ukraine aid, but it's also about so much more, the chaos and struggle for power within the Republican Party. And just this morning, the new letter Marjorie Taylor Greene has put out.

Special counsel Jack Smith and his new argument for why Donald Trump should not be immune from any crimes he committed while in office.

And, back to back champions. What one of UConn's star players just told CNN's John Berman this morning about their big win over Purdue.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[09:14:06]

BERMAN: New this morning, we are getting our first look at the jury questionnaire for the first ever criminal trial of a former president. The New York criminal case against Donald Trump begins on Monday with jury selection. Ten days after that, the Supreme Court will have oral arguments. This has to do with whether Donald Trump has immunity in the federal election subversion case.

Overnight, special counsel Jack Smith issued a new filing urging the justices to reject Trump's claim.

CNN's Katelyn Polantz with us this morning.

This was a pretty direct filing from Jack Smith.

KATELYN POLANTZ, CNN SENIOR CRIME AND JUSTICE REPORTER: Yes, 66 pages pushing back on everything that Donald Trump is arguing to the Supreme Court to try and get rid of the case against him in federal court related to the 2020 election. The Justice Department is laying out a lot of points here. So, let's go them - go through them.

[09:15:01]

They're saying that nobody in American history has ever intended for there to be immunity around the presidency. Not the people who wrote the Constitution, like Alexander Hamilton. And not even in recent memory, during Watergate and after the Watergate scandal during the presidency of Richard Nixon.

It doesn't hurt the presidency for there to not be immunity for someone like a former president to be charged with a crime. This is a key point in this filing where the Justice Department says there are a lot of checks to make sure that the prosecutions of someone like Donald Trump are not political in nature. There's a grand jury that has to approve an indictment. There's a jury at trial. And then there's the courts themselves that check out the law and the case before a case goes to trial.

Also, they say what Trump wants here is radical. That what he is arguing for, the immunity, would allow for things like a president to commit crimes, such as bribery, murder, treason, even sedition. Those are the examples given in this filing to the justices lining up for this argument.

And then finally, John a quote, a pretty strong quote in this, "a president's alleged criminal scheme to overturn an election and thwart the peaceful transfer of power to his lawfully elected successor, that's the paradigmatic example of conduct that should not be immunized," on top of saying there should be no presidential immunity. A former president should be able to sit for trial. The Justice Department also argues that the Supreme Court should not send this back down and further delay things in this case. To the lower courts, this should move on to trial, and Donald Trump should sit before a jury.

BERMAN: Yes, it's an important point there. Jack Smith clearly concerned about the idea of even more delay even if the Supreme Court doesn't rule against him, per say.

Katelyn Polantz, thank you very much for that.

Kate.

BOLDUAN: Let's talk about this right now.

Joining us is former federal prosecutor Elliot Williams.

Elliot, John and Katelyn were going through, you know, some of the high points of what was in this filing. What stands out to you in Smith's latest filing?

ELLIOT WILLIAMS, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: Sure. The last point that Katelyn had made about this question of delay, it's a very important one. An argument that the Trump team is putting to the Supreme Court almost as an off-ramp of sorts, of saying that, well, even if you can't resolve this now, ladies and gentlemen, please send this back down to lower courts to have more hearings and more decisions as to this immunity question.

The special counsel makes the argument that, well, that's unnecessary. This issue has been briefed already. And it's really the Supreme Court's job, more than any other court in the country, to sort out questions like this.

And I think, you know, sort of in the news we see it as a question of, well, what does that mean for the trial? Is this just about delay? I think, from a legal perspective, it's that, well, these -- adding more proceedings to hear just simply is not necessary at this point. And that's a core argument that the special counsel is making right now.

BOLDUAN: That is interesting. And the question before the Supreme Court is whether and if - whether, and if so, to what extent does a former president enjoy presidential immunity from criminal prosecution for conduct alleged to involve official acts during his tenure in office. From this filing, and what you've seen before, how is Jack Smith handling this?

WILLIAMS: I think quite well. And, look, this is coming down to the central question that came up in the appeals court's oral argument, and this was put forward by Judge Florence Pan. This question of what - you know, where does the president have the authority to say call in a drone strike on a political opponent? A drone strike would be an act within the president's authority, right? It's - the president can - you know, has access to various tools of the armed services. Could he do that? And Trump's team did not have an answer to that. And I would think that, to the extent the Supreme Court is to weigh this issue on the merits, that's the kind of question they'll be asking. What - where is the outer limit for what a president can do when acting within his or her authority?

BOLDUAN: Let's also talk about the hush money case.

WILLIAMS: Yes.

BOLDUAN: We know now that a New York appeals court has denied Donald Trump's ask to change venue and delay when it comes so the hush money trial. Jury selection is set to move forward next week. And we have these details of the questionnaire of what potential jurors will be asked - not asked if they support Donald Trump per say, but asked, do you currently followed Donald Trump on social media? And we're putting up some of these right here. Or have you done so in the past? Have you, a relative, close friend, ever worked or volunteered for the Trump presidential -- the Trump presidential administration or any other political entity involved - affiliated?

WILLIAMS: Right.

BOLDUAN: Do you have any strong opinion or firmly held beliefs about former President Donald Trump, or the fact that he is a current candidate for president, that would interfere with your ability to be a fair and impartial juror?

Katelyn Polantz has highlighted, that last question seems to be a critical one. How is this going to work?

[09:20:00]

WILLIAMS: Yes, absolutely. And, you know, sort of like they'd say on the internet, ask me about my politics without telling me you're asking me about my politics. And that's, in effect, what's - what's happening here.

Now, it's not uncommon at all, Kate, in jury selection to sort of ask questions to get around an issue. So, for instance, you might ask a juror what magazines do you read? What television shows do you watch? What even might your zip code be? And all of these questions can be used to get at various forms of data about a juror and ultimately how they might rule.

Now, that last question you showed, that clause about - that would get in your way of being a fair, impartial juror is a very important question. And no matter what any juror says, the judge is ultimately going to ask them, OK, you've said you belong to QAnon or whatever else. Can you put that aside and be a fair and impartial juror? And if the judge is convinced that the person can, then perhaps they can be added to the jury pool. But that - those words, fair and impartial juror, will keep coming up again and again and again, even for some folks who are sort of on the bubble in either direction, either sort of pro prosecution or pro defense.

BOLDUAN: Yes, kind of from the - as Katelyn described it, it is like self-declaration of not being able to get past it.

WILLIAMS: Yes.

BOLDUAN: But then, beyond that, that - when it gets to the art of jury selection, because then that's going to be left up to how - how it all - how it all pans out if there's something more behind what the juror might be saying,

WILLIAMS: Yes.

BOLDUAN: Elliot, thank you. It's great to see you.

John.

WILLIAMS: Thank you

BERMAN: All right, so no matter how much Lindsey Graham tries, and, look, we know he's tried for years and years, Donald Trump still finds new ways to demean him. The new smackdown this morning over abortion.

And then happening now, James and Jennifer Crumbley, they have entered a Michigan courtroom to be sentenced. The first parents to be sentenced for a school shooting committed by their son.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[09:26:29]

BERMAN: All right, new this morning, as the House returns to work today, a new effort by Republican Marjorie Taylor Greene to oust House Speaker Mike Johnson. She just sent a letter to her Republican colleagues saying in part, quote, "he is throwing our own razor thin majority into chaos by not serving his own GOP conference that elected him.

CNN's Lauren Fox is with us now on Capitol Hill.

How serious is Marjorie Taylor Greene about this?

LAUREN FOX, CNN CONGRESSIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Well, she's certainly not going away and she's ramping up all of her complaints against Speaker Mike Johnson. This comes as we are waiting to see whether or not she really moves forward with this effort to try and oust him from the speakership.

But this new five-page letter, acquired by our colleague Annie Grayer, lays out to her colleagues explicitly why she thinks Mike Johnson isn't up to the job. And she talks about the passage of those series of spending bills through the fall into the winter and now just a few weeks ago. She also lays concerns about the direction that the speaker is moving when it comes to additional aid for Ukraine.

She also calls him out for what he is doing to try and advance legislation to renew Section 702 of the Federal Intelligence Surveillance Act, something that has divided Republicans within the conference.

But Marjorie Taylor Greene, not just writing this letter. She also held a town hall in her district last night in Georgia. Here's what she was saying about Speaker Johnson there.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REP. MARJORIE TAYLOR GREENE (R-GA): How dare our own speaker, that we elected, pass that spending bill and not do anything for that border. Nothing. It's - it's horrid. It's horrid.

I will not tolerate a speaker of the House that I voted for to sell us out. I will not tolerate it.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

FOX: Now, she is not explicitly saying what would trigger an effort by her to try and oust Speaker Johnson. But it's clearly weighing on this speaker as the House of Representatives returns today. We still have not seen details of what he plans to do when it comes to additional aid for Ukraine. He's floated a series of ideas. I'm told that he's still having conversations with his colleagues, in part because this threat is looming large.

John.

BERMAN: Yes, it will be interesting to see. I mean there is a difference between a sternly worded letter and action on the House floor. We will see if it crosses from one area into the other.

Lauren Fox, thank you very much.

Kate.

BOLDUAN: Joining us now is CNN political commentator and Democratic strategist Maria Cardona, and Republican strategist and host of "The Focus Group" podcast, Sarah Longwell.

Thanks for being here, guys.

Sarah, what do Republicans do with this continued fight over the speakership and fight over Ukraine aid? What do you see here?

SARAH LONGWELL, REPUBLICAN STRATEGIST: Yes, this is a nightmare for Republicans. And it's interesting because normally these kinds of fights are between Republicans and Democrats. But this fight is not between the two parties. It is between the old guard of the GOP and the new guard of the GOP, which Marjorie Taylor Greene represents. And, frankly, she represents a lot a voters. There's a reason that she feels emboldened to push forward with this, despite the fact that it would throw their caucus into chaos. And it's because she knows that there is almost half of the Republican Party, when it comes to voters, that do not want to see Ukraine - any more Ukraine funding.

[09:30:00]

But there are also a lot of Republican voters, and we're running a campaign in D.C. right now using the voices of Republican voters, that are urging Republicans to support.