Return to Transcripts main page

Inside Politics

DA: Andrew Brown's Death Was Justified; Deputies Won't Be Charged in Andrew Brown JR's Death. Aired 12-12:30p ET

Aired May 18, 2021 - 12:00   ET

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

[12:00:00]

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

ANDREW WOMBLE, PASQUOTANK COUNTY, NC DISTRICT ATTORNEY: And I don't care in what direction you're going, forward, backward, sideways? I don't care if you're stationary, and neither do our courts and our case law. Yes, sir.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I'm just wondering if he was there for a year, or you're never going to be racing. Yes, I thought I could get around. Have you ever seen some of that stuff?

WOMBLE: Yes, they did, but not to me. I did not interview the officers; the state bureau of investigation did the interviews. And I read the reports. And yes, they all stated, either they were afraid of being run over or they were afraid of their fellow officers being run over. Yes Ma'am and I'll get to you just a sec.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: So you mentioned you can't use the court of public opinion. We're making these decisions, and it has to be based on the facts. But yes, you live in this community. This is your community. Are you concerned at how this decision will be received? And we can already hear protesters outside; we can assume they will not be received? Well, is that a concern?

WOMBLE: So I believe that there will be folks who were not happy with this decision. When I was appointed the District Attorney in 2013 and then ran for this position in 2014 and ran for this position in 2018, I had a full understanding of what the responsibilities and duties of the District Attorney are.

I make, sometimes I make popular decisions such as charging the four inmates in Pasquotank County with Capitol murder. That was a popular decision, and I make unpopular decisions, and I signed up for all of them, the popular ones and the unpopular ones.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Limit.

WOMBLE: Thank you.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: The full videos you showed up. Well, they included among the videos of the families are

WOMBLE: Yes. The family actually saw a longer version of the four. I did not include the portions where law enforcement removed Mr. Brown from the car. I did not think that there was any journalistic need for that. It's clearly he's clearly in a lifeless position. Yes, sir in the back.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Have you been in touch with the FBI about their investigation?

WOMBLE: No, sir. I have not - the FBI sent a letter to my office very early on requesting the body cam videos, I believe. Well, I believe that I know that they have them. They did not get them from me. Sorry, right here in the middle.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: --was driving toward unmarked van that had law enforcement officer on it. Well, the tank officers were shooting toward Brown's car. Obviously, his car passed very close to the unmarked van, where the shots fired by the Sheriff's deputies ever played the other law enforcement officer in unmarked van at danger.

WOMBLE: He's clearly in front of that car. The body cam because of the lens actually distorts the distance between the officers and the vehicle as the shooting. It's really not that far away. Were they really in danger? No. Are they in the path of bullets? Yes.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Could you clarify which officer fire the fatal headshot killed underground and how far away that officer was at which angle?

WOMBLE: I do not know that. Let me explain why. The bullet that was removed by Dr. Kelly from the back of Andrew Browns head fragmented. So what that means, according to Dr. Kelly is that the bullet was tumbling when it struck Mr. Brown.

It was tumbling because it was knocked off his path either by a headrest, glass or some other object inside of the car. When it tumbled and hit Mr. Brown in the back of the head, it then splintered into three pieces making it impossible to determine from what a weapon it was actually fired.

Now we - a metallurgic study could possibly figure that out. It's not relevant to the - my decision and I didn't need that information. Yes, ma'am - way back.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Yes. So - before that the intention was to arrest. But in the 14 - that were found that were spent at the scene, is there any question in your mind whether or not why deputies would shoot directly at someone's head in a vehicle rather than through surrounding the vehicle to potentially stop the people and take --?

WOMBLE: So once again, I believe at this point we're discussing hypothetical's or theoretical. The - Mr. Brown's vehicle shows several multiple shots into the side of the vehicle. There is the one shot in the front windshield that came from sergeant meads and then there are several in the back windshield as the car are moving away. [12:05:00]

WOMBLE: So there are several shots into the body of the vehicle itself from a very close distance. One could think that that was to disable the vehicle. Was that question asked it's not in the officers notes doesn't. It's not in there about what they were trying to do other than extinguish the threat.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: --information that you're--

WOMBLE: No Ma'am. In that file within my office will stay within my office. That is our policy. I do not release any files because they're not public record. And that is our stated policy here. I'm doing this only because of the obvious notoriety in this particular case, man in the back.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: So at what point you're referring that he was using the vehicle as a weapon that was acquired, the Japanese horn was on the hood of the car or when he put the car into drive?

WOMBLE: You're asking me at what point did I make that determination?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Yes.

WOMBLE: So once again the standard of what I need to look at is what a reasonable officer on the scene would have perceived, not necessarily what District Attorney Andrew Womble would perceive. But I'm going to answer your question.

Your question is when do I think he employed the vehicle as a deadly weapon. I believe he employed it as a deadly weapon, the moment he did not respond to officers commands to show them his hands and get out of the car when he used the car in contravention of their commands. At that point, he has demonstrated his willingness to use that vehicle in any manner he deems necessary to evade lawful arrest.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Sir, I think that for us in the national this case, especially highlighted at the North Carolina law regarding body camera.

WOMBLE: Yes sir.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I think it's also fair to say that video evidence has kind of changed law enforcement and how you're able to examine cases. I wanted to see your perspective of the North Carolina law regarding the release of body cameras. Was it useful for your office in this case? Is it a useful law? Would you like to see any changes?

WOMBLE: You know this was the first opportunity that I've had to deal with this particular body cam statute for the purposes of the District Attorney's office. And what my duties are, in all investigations, all criminal investigations, I found the statute to be very useful.

Very, very purposefully written, very useful, it gives an opportunity for anyone who's depicted to have an opportunity to view that and I think that is important. Could that have been done earlier, possibly? But once again, the statute dictates how petitions are to be filed and requests are to be filed and how they're supposed to be made.

I'm not going to get into whether that was done early on, and then the right manner in order to allow the sheriff to make that early disclosure to the family.

But with respect to criminal investigations, my job and as I stated, it is of the highest importance, I have to protect the orderly administration of justice in all cases and that's, that's mass murders.

That's whether it's law enforcement being investigated. That's sexual assault cases. That's breaking and entering and petty larceny and it doesn't matter. So that is my job. And I take it very seriously.

And that is why I took the position that I took with regard to this. And I will take it in every instance that involves body cameras or other law enforcement cameras; I want to see it I want to conduct my investigation.

I want it done correctly without the team without the possibility that other people have seen it and are now going to interject things that we cannot objectively verify. Again, I want that investigation done properly.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I think somebody--

WOMBLE: That protects everybody involved, not only victims, their families, but potentially the people charged.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I think as a mom, you - as you don't necessarily want to see the sunlight coming in these kinds of events into the public in your state, not necessarily but the public to see these raw events and make those determinations. Am I--

WOMBLE: I'm not following. You're attributing something to me. What did you say?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Some people might feel that what you just said is that you may not necessarily want the sunlight to open up these and these videos to be out in the public place before an individual like yourself is in a determination capability once they've done their investigation. Am I attributing what you say wrong or?

WOMBLE: No, I think that is correct. I think I brought it today for the purposes of accountability and transparency. I think as I said before and I believe I said this at the hearing you will get an opportunity to see it.

The public has a right to see it. Our courts are open our constitution says that the courts in this state are open.

[12:10:00] WOMBLE: So in one of two ways this would have been exposed, either I would have exposed it in a court while it trial and you would have had to wait. Or I can expose it today because I'm not bringing any criminal charges. Hold on one sec. I'll come right back to you, I promise.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Thank you. Can you clarify when -?

WOMBLE: I cannot clarify whether there are any injuries sustained. I do not know that. Deputy Lunsford was struck. I would, from the video, it looks clear to me he struck up the entire left side of his body. I cannot tell.

And it does not indicate in his statement whether the car rolled over his foot. He clearly yells you hear him yell when the handle is snatched out of his hand, he loses his balance. So--

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: --struck during that?

WOMBLE: That is correct. He struck up the left side of his body and he moves his or his yes. And he moves his left leg out of the way. And yes, his upper body is pulling across the ball across the hood of the car.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: --the--

WOMBLE: No, the second physical contact is when the car is moving forward. Deputy Lunsford then puts out his left hand to brace himself and spins his left leg again, up and around to get out of the way. I come back to this job.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Mr. Womble, you've talked about the relationship with the Attorneys for Andrew Brown's family. Could you talk about controlling the difficult he said you have to be careful. What did you mean by that?

And with you admitting that, you know, your job is difficult, you take on the tough cases, why not do more to try to reach out and communicate with those Attorneys, because they are speaking to the masses, if you will, but we're not hearing a lot from you.

So why not try to, you know, really spend some time with the Attorneys to talk about that relationship. And the problem that you say, there is there.

WOMBLE: So we had a - we had a meeting very early, possibly the second day, maybe April 22 with Attorneys involved in the case. After I met with the Attorneys they held a press conference and disclosed information that we had had a discussion.

It was my belief that that conversation was going to be private between us and we were going to have a working relationship. Once the rules of the game changed, then I knew I had to protect the integrity of the investigation and keep the information that I had within my halls. Attorneys in this case, who are purporting to represent the family

aren't licensed to practice law in this state. So in order to represent someone in the state of North Carolina, you must either be a licensed Attorney in this state or admitted --.

To my knowledge, there were several Attorneys who were purporting to represent members of a family who were not either one of those things either licensed Attorneys or admitted --. So I can't discuss with you.

And third, when a person I have an ethical obligation not to deal with someone that I know is represented by counsel without dealing with counsel. So that put a barrier between me and the Brown family. One that I think in all honesty, we could have done a better job to repair - to repair that relationship prior to this and it is - it's unfortunate and I don't like the way that that played out. Yes, sir.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: The - as a used force policy. So I'm looking at it now says shots fired now to moving vehicle involve additional considerations and risks and are rarely effective when feasible.

Deputies should take reasonable steps to move out of the path of a broken vehicle instead of discharging a firearm at the vehicle or in other documents. Did that play any role into your decision today where you were?

WOMBLE: I am aware of it I have a copy of it and no it did not in the back.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

JOHN KING, CNN HOST, INSIDE POLITICS: I'm John King in Washington. Welcome everybody. You've been watching for an hour plus now simply remarkable press conference by the local prosecutor, the Muscatine County Prosecutor Andrew Womble in North Carolina, reviewing and relaying his findings in the death nearly one month ago of Andrew Brown.

Andrew Brown was shot by sheriff's deputies who are executing a search and arrest warrant on him Elizabeth City, North Carolina, the local prosecutor, they're out detailed.

He says this shooting was justified because Andrew Brown tried to flee the scene in a car that he determined was a threat to the officers therefore, they had the right to use deadly force against him.

We're going to show you in just a moment some of the body camera footage released this press conference. I just want to quickly go through some of the other headlines the District Attorney saying he did not tell the Brown family before he had this announcement today that he was going to do this.

He says there's some dysfunction in the relationship between the prosecutor's office and the Brown family and the Attorneys at one point accusing some of the attorneys working with the Brown family of misrepresenting facts in this case. The prosecutor also saying that the body camera footage he did show at

the press briefing will now not is made public. If media organizations or anyone else wants that footage, they must go to the courts and ask for it.

[12:15:00]

KING: So we do not know I'm about to show you about a minute long clip of that body camera footage. I just want to make clear this was released by the prosecutor. We are not certain of its context, its full context.

It does show some of the fatal encounter between Sheriff's deputies it shows officers approaching Mr. Brown's car shouting stop. The car then starts to drive away and the officers begin to fire.

We're going to show you this it's just shy of a minute. Just want to caution you some of what you're about to see is quite graphic.

Let's bring into our conversation to share their expertise and their insights CNN Legal Analyst and Civil Rights Attorney Areva Martin and retired Missouri State Highway Patrol Captain Ron Johnson grateful for both for your time.

Areva let me start with you. The prosecutor was insistent at times even defiant, saying even to the reporters in the room watching that video said well, to them that appeared the car was trying to turn away from the officers that Mr. Brown was trying to flee, but not to drive into the offices.

That was the perspective of the people in the room watching the video. The prosecutor is quite defined; saying under the law, the officers had the right to view that as a deadly threat. And therefore the 14 shots that were fired in a span of about 44 seconds in his view justified.

AREVA MARTIN, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: Yes, John I had a real problem with many of the statements made by this District Attorney. First of all, he relies on this 2014 Supreme Court case pompom in that case does involve allegations of fourth amendment violations. There were police officers who were shooting in a fleeing car.

But that case involved a high speed car chase. And the Supreme Court focused exclusive well, I shouldn't say exclusively, but focus a lot on the fact of the dangers associated with a high speed chase. That's not the fact of the facts involved in this case in North Carolina.

We don't have a high speed chase, we have an individual who's sitting in his car who is unarmed, who they're serving the search warrant on.

And we know there are so many other alternatives, including the alternatives that are identified in the use of the manual given to police officers in this state, which are like many police officer manuals that prohibit or in many ways discourage police officers from shooting into a moving vehicle. We heard this District Attorney say he's aware of those police

policies, but yet he did not take them into consideration and making his determination. So lots of issues with his defiance, as you described it. And I think that's appropriate and his ultimate factual and legal determination about the justification for the shooting.

KING: So can you Johnson, walk us through this from the perspective of someone who's risked his life in situations like this as an officer. The prosecutor was making the case that they had witness testimony that Mr. Brown was a drug dealer, including in the days up to deciding to serve the arrest warrants that they tried to serve them at night, he did not come home that night, he stayed in a hotel. Instead, the prosecutor said he was carport--

RON JOHNSON, CEO, LODESTONE SOLUTIONS GROUP: --issue was starting out that way starting out about his past history, because that's really irrelevant to what happened at that moment.

And so I think when we see that across the country, we see that in some of our cases with, especially with men of color, and I think that it was inappropriate to start off that way to justify what happened.

KING: So let's further down that path. I appreciate you bringing that up like that, because that the prosecutor is trying to make the case, drug dealer, bad guy had a history of resisting arrest. Therefore, that's the mindset of the officers when they arrive.

So as he starts to pull away, the prosecutor making the case they have every right to believe he's running away. My point is that he said they're trying to serve a search and arrest warrant that they had no choice that their obligation was to bring him into custody.

Is that their obligation as the car starts to pull away, as long as they can get away from the car safely? It might be messy, but as long as they can get away from the car safely, can an officer not make the determination. Let him go we'll follow the car. Why start shooting?

JOHNSON: Well, there are so many things they haven't shown us. But once they were that he said is the officer didn't have to get out the way. So that statement says that they had a choice. I do think that when people are flame if they create a risk of public safety, you know if it's a mass murder or - thing but in this case that is not really hasn't really given us anything that would say that.

[12:20:00]

JOHNSON: And so I think we need to learn more. But when he says officers didn't have to move, well, that means they could have moved possibly.

KING: Right and Areva, the video does show and I'm actually going to ask the control room let's tee this up, can you recap that for me. Bring that back up and just show let's just play this through. I'll tell you when to stop. Start the beginning and play through a second.

Stop right there. Stop right there. So Areva come in at this point and then back to you --. There's no question that was one officer in the front of the vehicle, who had to spin out of the way of the vehicles and started to pull away.

My question is more from that moment on. It went across the street and ultimately hit he was - they started firing shots at that moment. There's a couple of questions here Areva. Number one is what is the responsibility of the officers at that moment.

And number two, we do not have because the prosecutor decided to release what he wanted to show us. We don't have the full context. We don't know if this is all of the camera footage. We don't know what other evidence the prosecutor has. And he says he has no obligation to release that to the public.

MARTIN: Yes, you're right, John. This prosecutor has cherry picked the video to show us to justify the point that he wanted to make. And that is so unfortunate. What we've seen over the last several years in these high profile cases is police officers, police chiefs, mayors coming forward and being transparent with the community.

That's not what we're seeing today. What we're seeing today is a throwback to the prosecutor in the Michael Brown case in Ferguson, when we saw a very angry prosecuting Attorney from the state of Missouri comes forward give a press conference very defiant about his position in that case not to charge the officers involved in the shooting of Michael Brown.

And this is a throwback to that. And we've moved so much past that, in the last, you know, five years or so. So for this District Attorney to show us that one minute of video clip, but yet remain defiant and showing the public the entire video and then accused the lawyers of making misrepresentations.

I think it's disingenuous on his part. And if he wants to clear up the evidence or the issue about what happened that day, he has the opportunity and the ability to show all the videotape. And let the facts, you know, lay where they are because this press conference one minute, his defiance statement is not going to satisfy the public as it should not.

KING: Right. And as that conversation and those legal issues about getting full access and full transparency, not only from the family's perspective, from the media perspective as well, we'll continue, I want to go back to it.

And I want to play the sound of what the prosecutor said, because in justifying the use of deadly force, the prosecutor was saying that when Mr. Brown started to pull away in that car, that the car was a deadly weapon.

And at that point, the officers had the reasonable right to conclude they were at risk and perhaps other members of the community were at risk, and therefore they have the right to use deadly force. Listen to how the prosecutor described his right under the law to make that judgment.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

WOMBLE: When you employ a car, in a manner that puts officers lives in danger that is a threat. And I don't care what direction you're going forward, backward, sideways. I don't care if you're stationary. And neither do our courts, in our case law.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

KING: I have a great deal of respect Captain Johnson for law enforcement officers who have to respond to very difficult situations. But should that be the standard? Should that be the standard? It doesn't matter whether the car is going one mile an hour, two miles an hour?

It doesn't matter whether there are five officers standing directly in front of it, or the one or two officers who were in front of the car, we did see that they were at some risk, but they peeled off if you will, as the car started going, what should the standard be?

JOHNSON: Well, that is not the standard that it doesn't matter if the car sitting still on which way that is going. I think there are times where cars are used as a deadly weapon. But to say that there is no standard dead matter. I would disagree with that.

And I would also agree with this press conference takes me back to 2014. And that's sad. I think that's unfair to the victim. That's unfair to the officers involved, but that's unfair to us in our country.

KING: Areva this is a process question more than a legal question, but it's an important one, a young man is dead. Whatever your views on this case, a young man was killed in this episode that he may have, they may have had every right to try to arrest him and to bring him into custody.

The facts will bear that out as we go forward. But the fact that the prosecutor said because of dysfunction and distrust in his relationship with the family and the Attorneys that they learned about this and that they saw some of those images they have been privy to some of the images but not all of them as we did. What does that tell you about the dysfunction just trust the breakdown; I don't know what words to use.

[12:25:00]

MARTIN: Well, it tells us John that this prosecutor is not doing his job. He made a big point of talking about how he was elected by the people of that community and what you know, he, what his obligations were to the people.

I will say he had an obligation to the families, the victim's family members to rise above whatever petty disputes that have existed and to show the family this information and to tell the family what he was about to tell the entire world.

But to come out and hold a press conference, not speak to the family because there is some, you know, ridiculous disputes with the Attorneys to talk about the Attorneys not being barred not having access to the courts in that state, knowing that all of that's going to be worked out if it hasn't already been worked out.

And there are some Attorneys that are involved in this case that are absolutely barred in that state. So I think it just showed us that he is more concerned about, you know, his public appearance, then treating the families of the victim in this case appropriately and that's quite sad.

KING: Areva Martin Captain Ron Johnson, grateful for your very important insights. We're going to continue to stay on top of this, including waiting for reaction from the Brown family. We'll bring that to you when we can. Both of you are grateful for your quick hustle and insights.

Coming up for us a very big story back here in Washington today the House Republican Leader comes out against a commission to investigate the January 6, insurrection.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)