Return to Transcripts main page

CNN News Central

Arizona Supreme Court Upholds 123-Year-Old Abortion Ban; Judge Rejects Trump's Delay Request, Sets Stage For Historic Criminal Trial In Manhattan; Oxford Shooter's Parents Sentenced To 10-15 Years. Aired 2-2:30p ET

Aired April 09, 2024 - 14:00   ET

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

[14:00:00]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BORIS SANCHEZ, CNN ANCHOR: We're following two major stories this hour. The first one, breaking out of Arizona, a decision by the state Supreme Court that will put a stop to abortion, reverting to a law that's over a century old. The ruling could also have consequences for November's election.

BRIANNA KEILAR, CNN ANCHOR: Plus, running out of time and running out of options. Former President Trump tries to delay a historic criminal trial in Manhattan. CNN is getting a first look at what prospective jurors for the trial could be asked, as it inches closer to next week's start date. We're following these major developing stories and many more, all coming in right here to CNN News Central.

SANCHEZ: Thank you so much for sharing your afternoon with us. We start following breaking news out of Arizona. The state Supreme Court just issued a historic decision on abortion, which could enforce some of the most extreme restrictions in the country, and it could have far-reaching consequences for reproductive rights. Today, the justices ruled that the state must adhere to a 123-year-old law that bans nearly all abortions, though there is an exception in the case of saving the life of the mother.

It does not have any exceptions for rape or incest, but it does have exceptions for abortion. It is a punishment for abortion providers between two and five years in prison. We have CNN's Paula Reid. We have Natasha Chen as well standing by with the latest developments. Let's start with you, Natasha. Walk us through what is in this ruling.

NATASHA CHEN, CNN NATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: All right. This ruling came down about an hour ago. It's 47 pages. It talks about how the state must adhere to this 123-year-old law that bans nearly all abortions, as you said, except for in the case of saving the life of a mother and carries that two-to-five-year prison sentence for abortion providers. Now, this came after a long back-and-forth, a twisted path here in the state of Arizona that had passed a 15-week abortion ban right before Roe v. Wade was overturned. And so the question was whether that 15- week ban should be enforced or if this ban going back to the Civil War era should be enforced. And today, the judge's decision, is not so much about whether that old

law is constitutional, it's more about whether it's still enforceable. And they said that today, no one who provided an abortion prior to this ruling will be subject to the penalty, and the opinion doesn't take effect for 14 calendar days. Planned Parenthood has come out to say that they will continue abiding by that 15-week abortion rule for a short period of time. And there are already, of course, as you can imagine, very strong emotions, reactions to this. Here's Governor Katie Hobbs.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

GOV. KATIE HOBBS, (D-AZ) : It is a dark day in Arizona. Just now, the Arizona Supreme Court issued its opinion in Planned Parenthood v. Mays, upholding one of the most extreme abortion bans in the country. And while it has currently stayed, we continue to live under an unacceptable ban, a law that still strips Arizonans of their personal autonomy and has no exceptions for women who are the victims of rape or incest or any regard for pregnancy complications.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

[14:05:09]

CHEN: The attorney general in Arizona, has tweeted out saying that this is unconscionable and an affront to freedom and said, make no mistake, the court has risked the health and lives of Arizonans. If you can show part of that tweet, it says that today's decision to reimpose a law from a time when Arizona wasn't a state, the civil war was raging and women couldn't even vote will go down in history as a stain on our state. This is far from the end of the debate on reproductive freedom. And I look forward to the people of Arizona having their say in the matter.

It goes on to say, and let me be completely clear, as long as I am attorney general, no woman or doctor will be prosecuted under this draconian law in this state. So you can imagine, there is still going to be quite a bit of confusion going forward, even though this ruling was supposed to clarify the confusion in the state, the attorney general there saying that she won't prosecute and she's referring to a citizen ballot initiative where they're still gathering signatures in hopes to enshrine abortion rights in the state's constitution.

SANCHEZ: Natasha Chen, thank you so much. We do want to point out, we just got reaction from President Biden to this decision. Obviously, the White House in their efforts to retake the White House in November has made reproductive rights one of the pillars of their campaign. The president describing this decision as cruel, extreme and dangerous. He's pledging that he and Vice President Kamala Harris will continue the fight for abortion rights.

He's blaming the extreme agenda of Republican lawmakers for this. Let's bring in Paula Reid, because Paula, obviously this is a drawn out process and it's not exactly clear how things are going to change. We're going to go, given that the attorney general has pledged that she's not going to enforce this law. So ultimately, what happens next? PAULA REID, CNN CHIEF LEGAL AFFAIRS CORRESPONDENT: So in terms of the process, there's certainly a role, as the governor just said, for the state legislature to rewrite a new law. We've seen in other states where similar things have happened. For example, in Wisconsin, it was a judge that stepped in and actually said, no, this doesn't make all abortions illegal. We know that this case is also getting kicked back down to the lower courts for additional proceedings. We also saw, for example, in Michigan, a judge, excuse me, the governor repealed a 1931 ban last spring.

So there's a lot of possibilities here. But usually I'm at the table with you guys talking about Trump's legal problems. And I can tell you that this case and those like it will have a far greater impact on Trump's chances for reelection than any of his criminal cases. This is an issue that we've seen motivates voters. We're seeing this in a swing state. Just yesterday, the former President Trump said when it comes to abortion, he wants to leave it up to the states.

Well, this is that inaction. And the former President, back when he was a candidate in 2016, he surprised a lot of people with just how adept he was at attracting a lot of pro-life voters, evangelical Christians, because he understood and he could articulate his vision for overturning Roe v. Wade. He had a list of candidates for the Supreme Court, any vacancies that he would have. And of course, we knew he had several. He was successful in overturning Roe v. Wade. But now he's on the other side of that. And again, this is going to be an enormous challenge, far more so, I would argue, than the criminal cases he's facing.

KEILAR: You were so, so correct in that. I mean, especially in this case with Arizona, this is a law that dates back to the Civil War, but was codified in 1901. And we should remind people that women had the right to vote in 1920. That's when the 19th Amendment was ratified, right? So this, especially in Arizona, the optics are problematic because of just how far back in time it goes to pre-date that. I wonder, something that Natasha had reported earlier, and I wonder if you can explain to us how this will work. She said that the Attorney General has basically issued an advisory that they are not going to prosecute. And yet, when it comes to abortion providers in the state, does that really mean anything? Because you have obviously counties that can make their own call, but also depending on who may be, the AG in the future, couldn't they retroactively prosecute if they wanted to?

REID: Oh, certainly. And this is a mess, right? And it's a Lawyer Full Employment Act. Certainly, people are going to be concerned about their own liability, either forward-looking, right, or in this moment, which is why it really seems like the governor is calling on the legislature to step in and rewrite the law. But as we know, when it comes to an issue like abortion, it's not that easy to get people on the same page and pass a law. So this is going to be incredibly complicated and confusing in the state of Arizona, which is another thing that could potentially rally voters in November. Confusion, right, is not something that people are very happy with in and around this issue.

[14:10:09]

SANCHEZ: Arizona, obviously a state that was pivotal to electing Joe Biden. We know that one of the angriest moments for Donald Trump back in November, December of 2020 was watching networks and news outlets call Arizona for Joe Biden. It infuriated him. And it's curious to see now how it could potentially play another pivotal role in the next election, Paula.

REID: Yeah, absolutely. And look, this issue, it was something that Trump was able to capitalize on back on 2016. He said that he is proud of the fact that he appointed these justices who helped overturn Roe v. Wade. But now this idea of just sending it down to the states, letting the states decide, it sounds simple, it sounds straightforward. But what we've seen is that it's not simple at all. It's confusing, it's complicated, but it also motivates voters. And that's something that Biden can campaign knows, which is why he got that statement probably so quickly. Did it come with confetti? I'm sure that they're thrilled.

KEILAR: Yeah, but you know who beat him? Ruben Gallego?

SANCHEZ: Yeah, that's right. He's running for Senate there.

KEILAR: So the tough Senate race there, Ruben Gallego versus Carrie Lake. And he's looking for an edge. And this may just be the edge that he really needed against her. Paula, thank you so much. Really appreciate it.

SANCHEZ: So for the second time in 24 hours, Donald Trump came up short in his effort to delay his hush money criminal trial in New York. This afternoon, a judge ruling that there's no reason to push back Monday's start date while Trump's appeal of the gag order in that case plays out. So that means in six days, jury selection is set to begin in Manhattan. That will kick off the first criminal trial of a former president in U.S. history. Let's talk about this now with CNN senior law enforcement analyst and former FBI deputy director Andrew McCabe. Andy, do you think first the gag order is going to stand here? And how could the eventual appellate ruling factor in as the trial gets underway?

ANDREW MCCABE, FORMER FBI DEPUTY DIRECTOR: You know, Brianna, if I had to guess, and these things are hard, as you know, hard to predict, I guess that the gag order probably will stand up to appellate scrutiny in the end. The gag order is particularly narrowly tailored. I think the goal is to protect the process, to protect the witnesses and the people who work in and around the prosecution are all things that are far outside of the president's First Amendment political speech rights.

The question is, how much time do prosecutors have to spend focusing on this? You know, I made this comment about a week ago when the alteration to the gag order was being discussed. I think it's highly questionable whether or not the utility that the prosecution and the court get out of the gag order are worth the delays that it imposes on the prosecution in having to face down all of these appeals and requests for accommodation and clarification and things like that. I think there's a massive distraction value here on the prosecution, and that's something we can't completely discount.

SANCHEZ: And Andy, we have to address the fact that it's so unusual that a prosecutor has to ensure that a criminal defendant or petition a judge to make sure that a criminal defendant isn't just publicly smearing, potentially intimidating jurors and witnesses. I mean, that's beyond the legal standard, isn't it?

MCCABE: It is. We are so far beyond standard in this case and all the cases around Donald Trump, the criminal cases around Donald Trump. It would be an absurd strategy for any other criminal defendant to go into a trial attacking the judge, attacking the judge's family members, using his own social media platform to constantly lob attacks at the prosecutors. This is a judge who will, likely- who will clearly sit in judgment over this case. And if the case results in a conviction, this is the person who will decide what sort of sentence Donald Trump serves.

So you do not help yourself by going into a trial, angering the judge, conveying to the judge that you are someone who doesn't fight fair, someone who doesn't really embrace the sanctity of the legal process and the respect that it deserves. So it's a crazy strategy. But we know that Donald Trump is looking at this trial. Not just as a matter of freedom or incarceration, but as a matter of politics. And it is his political brand to stand up and throw punches and say crazy things. And so he's going to do that as long as he considers it to be politically viable. We might see, though, this political strategy running headlong into his legal strategy, and that could really result in a tough situation for him.

KEILAR: Let's talk about the immunity issue, because later this month, Trump's attorneys are going to be in front of the Supreme Court. They will be arguing that he should have this sweeping presidential immunity in the federal election subversion case. And, Andy, the special counsel filed this blistering response. What stood out in the filing to you?

[14:15:09]

MCCABE: You know, the filing is, as we've seen from all the special counsel's filings on this matter, it is eloquent, it is direct, and it pulls no punches. I think the legal theories are very similar to those that we've seen them put in front of the trial court, where they won, and then, of course, in front of the appellate court in the D.C. Circuit, where they also won a resounding victory across the entire panel, a unanimous panel who voted on their behalf. So it's not surprising we're seeing the same legal arguments. We're seeing a very strong reliance on the history around this issue, the fact that nowhere in our Constitution or in the comments of the framers did anyone ever even consider that the president should be above the law and not subject to legal scrutiny and to the checks and balances that we embrace in our form of government.

I thought it was also particularly adept how they point out that the sort of immunity he is arguing for, and his reason for doing so, which is Donald Trump says that if without immunity presidents would be essentially, it would be impossible for them to make tough decisions because they'd always be worried about being held accountable. I think the special counsel does a great job of showing the opposite side of that argument, which is it's a good thing in this country that our leaders, even at the highest level, are also accountable to the same criminal laws as everyone else. And the fact is, we've had many, many, many presidencies in which all kinds of hard and troubling decisions have been made under immense pressure, and none of those presidents so far have suffered any of the impediments to decision-making that Donald Trump has complained about at his filing. So it's a fascinating read if you have time, and an incredibly important issue. We'll see how the court decides it.

KEILAR: All right, Andy, thank you so much for your insights. We do always appreciate them. And still ahead, precedent-setting punishments. A judge in Michigan just handed down this major prison sentence, one for each of the parents of the Oxford High School shooter. We're going to tell you what kind of time they're now facing.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[14:20:09]

SANCHEZ: In a landmark case, the parents of the Oxford, Michigan, school shooter were sentenced to 10 to 15 years in prison each for their deadly son's rampage. James and Jennifer Crumbly were both convicted of involuntary manslaughter after their teenage son murdered four of his classmates back in 2021.

KEILAR: The Crumbly's are now the first parents of a school shooter to be held directly responsible for their child's actions. Before sentencing the pair, they gave pleas for mercy. And we also heard emotional impact statements from the families of the victims.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

JILL SOAVE, MOTHER OF OXFORD SHOOTING VICTIM JUSTIN SHILLING: This tragedy was completely preventable. If only they had done something, your honor, anything to shift the course of events on November 30th, that our four angels would be here today and Justin would be getting ready to celebrate celebrate his 20th birthday on the 18th of this month.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CNN's Jean Casarez is with us now in this story. Jean, this judg really made a statement with these long sentences today.

JEAN CASAREZ, CNN CORRESPONDENT: She did, and she was very transparent with when she said that she definitely believed that these parents could have done even the smallest things to change the course of action, that this case was not about guns. It's not about people in their private homes having gun guns, but it's repeated actions over and over again by the parents. Even that morning of the shooting to see a drawing that your son is made of bullets and blood everywhere and not doing anything about it when you had just bought him the gun. You know, I think the pivotal moment, though, was in when the parents of those four high school students that were just gunned down at the hand of Ethan Crumbly went to the podium and spoke. And they were allowed to speak directly to James and Jennifer Crumbly, parent to parent. They were actually able to speak to them. I want you to listen to Madison Baldwin's mother, Nicole Beausoleil as she spoke today.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

NICOLE BEAUSOLEIL, MOTHER OF OXFORD SHOOTING VICTIM MADISYN BALDWIN: While you were hiding, I was planning her funeral and while you were running away from your son and your responsibilities, I was forced to do the worst possible thing a parent could do. I was forced to say goodbye to my Madison.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CASAREZ: And Jennifer and James Crumbly, they both begged for mercy from the court before that sentencing. Jennifer saying we had no knowledge. I had no knowledge of what my son was capable of doing at all. James Crumbly turning in that court to the parents once again, parent to parent saying this is the first time I can tell you this, but I am so sorry what happened to your children.

KEILAR: Jean, thank you for that. It was such an emotional day in court listening to those family members. Let's talk about this a little bit more with CNN legal analyst Joey Jackson. Joey, we just spoke with the parent of a student who was killed at Parkland.

[14:25:19]

And he said his hope is that this will prevent other shootings, that this precedent that will be set is something that may save lives. Tell us about this precedent.

JOEY JACKSON, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: Yeah, Brianna, Boris, it has to. You know, I think that we've evolved as a society and we've seen that evolution in this very prosecution where everyone needs to be held accountable. Parents can make a difference. Parents in this case could have made a huge difference with respect to looking at any warning signs. How is your child doing? What, if anything, can I do to prevent something like this?

Should I get someone a gun who clearly has some issues that have not been overcome? And so we're in a different world. And I think part of this whole thing, Brianna, is when you look at sentencing, it's punishment, it's deterrent, and then less to a lesser degree, it's rehabilitation. Parents, and in this case, the Crumblys were punished for conduct that was what they could have done and misdoing. And if they had not, right, engaged in such negligence, perhaps we wouldn't be having this conversation.

That's the message. Deterrent, to your very point. Deterring others, right, from engaging in anything like this, to seeing and looking at the warning signs. And so, yes, I think there's a space everywhere, not only in this jurisdiction, but throughout the country to do better. And I think as a result of this prosecution, you're going to see parents doing much better as it relates to, look, you don't know exactly everything your kids are doing, of course not. But if there are obvious signs that you miss and you don't take and it comes to this, then yes, there needs to be accountability. That's what happened here. And I think there will be preventative deaths moving forward as a result of what we saw today and as a result of the convictions we saw of the mom in February and the father in March.

SANCHEZ: Joey, I have so many questions for you, but one of the things that stands out was the posture specifically of James Crumbly as he was making this statement to the courtroom shortly before the sentencing. It didn't really appear that he had obvious contrition. He spoke about a deeper truth that the courtroom didn't get into, that the proceedings didn't allow his defense to get into. Do you think that the sentencing would have been differently if we'd heard a different message coming from the parents?

JACKSON: Yeah, you know, I think, Boris, excellent question. And I think my answer is, you know, the ones who are really hurting and harmed and who had a lot to say were those who made the victim impact statements. And those who lost so much at the hands of the Crumblys. Trials are about truth, and it's the jury that makes the determination as to what that truth is. How? By assessing the facts, by assessing what the conduct, what the misconduct, what the lack of conduct, what have you.

And so the father could say what the father wants. The reality is, is he had his due process, and that due process consisted of numerous witnesses. It consisted of his attorney having the ability to cross- examine, and the jury spoke volumes. And so I think ultimately the judge here, Boris, was fair and didn't penalize him to the extent that she could have as a result of his disconnect, as a result of his not fessing up. What is an apology if it doesn't have teeth and meaning?

And when you're trying to wiggle and shake out of accountability, that's exactly what it is. It's a toothless apology. And so the judge, I think, was very fair and proportional in sentencing and could have really maxed him out, right, 15 in a determinative sentence, instead giving him 10 to 15, you know, which I thought was appropriate, and really overlooking what you note to be the posture, and certainly something that he just is not getting to this day.

KEILAR: James Crumbly could have been his own witness, and he chose not to be. The mother did. She chose to take the stand. But that may have also been her downfall, I wonder, Joey, because one of the things she seemed to be cleaning up or trying to clean up at sentencing was something she said on the stand about how she wouldn't do anything differently, which was sort of defied expectations. And anyone whose kid did that, you'd think they would want to do something differently. She tried to explain that and clean that up. Did you think it was too late for her to do that?

JACKSON: Yeah, Brianna, great point. Too little, much too late. You know, when you testify, we know James Crumbly did not. We know Jennifer Crumbly did. But when you have four children that are dead, when you have six others injured, a teacher, you know, as well, you know, you have to really own that. And to suggest in the face of that that I wouldn't do anything differently on a witness stand, wow, what a disconnect. What is it that you don't understand? So, yes, she tried to walk it back today.