Return to Transcripts main page

One World with Zain Asher

U.S. And Iran Trade Attacks In First Time Major Escalation In A Month; Urgent Search Underway To Find Workers Missing In Tunnels; Watchdog: Advanced A.I. Threatens World's Financial System; Soon: Closing Arguments In Accused Mastermind's Trial; Two Dead, 15 Believed Missing In Grand Canyon Flash Flood. Aired 12-1p ET

Aired August 31, 2026 - 12:00   ET

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

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[12:00:32]

ZAIN ASHER, CNN ANCHOR: All right. Coming to you live from New York, I'm Zain Asher.

BIANNA GOLODRYGA, CNN ANCHOR: And I'm Bianna Golodryga. The second hour of "One World" starts right now.

The U.S. and Iran are trading strikes for the first time since July. Iran says they are still open to talking it out.

ASHER: Also ahead, hoping for a miracle. A Chinese officials say the flood zone in Nepal could face yet another glacier collapse. CNN is on the scene.

GOLODRYGA: And later, a maestro takes a different kind of stage. We'll tell you about Anthony Hopkins' second act as a composer.

Well, after weeks of relative calm on the military front, the U.S. and Iran have once again exchanged strikes, re-igniting the threat of a return to

full-blown war.

ASHER: Yes. Tehran says it retaliated on Sunday night into Monday morning targeting American military bases in Jordan and the UAE after the U.S.

initiated an attack. CENTCOM says, the initial strikes were aimed at Iranian rocket launches on Larak Island that were preparing to launch

rockets to carry sea mines into the Strait of Hormuz.

GOLODRYGA: Despite that, Iran's president says Tehran is still pursuing an agreement with the U.S., according to state media, but on Sunday, President

Trump took a very different tone. During an interview with Fox News, the president warned that the U.S. will respond hard to Iranian attacks.

Meanwhile, the U.S. vice president have this to say just a short time ago.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

J.D. VANCE, VICE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: He would be the first to say. He doesn't make an announcement about military actions on social

media, but I think that he's sending a message to the Iranians. Look, we know that they continue to shoot a commercial shipping. We continue to have

a lot of tools at our disposal to prevent them from doing so or at least cut down on them from doing so.

And that's what the president is saying is, look, you guys are shooting at commercial shipping, you guys are behaving like a terrorist country. You've

got to stop or there are going to be some consequences.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

GOLODRYGA: CNN's Haley Britzky joins us now live in Washington.

So, what exactly are these consequences that the vice president just warned of more strikes like the ones we saw overnight?

HALEY BRITZKY, CNN SENIOR NATIONAL SECURITY REPORTER: Yes, that's a great question. And I mean, hearing him say that, that they're still able to

shoot at commercial shipping, and that if they continue, there's going to be consequences, we're -- we've been hearing this for months, right, that

that -- essentially that -- that the military -- Iran's military is totally destroyed, yet, they're continuing to shoot at commercial shipping and --

and threaten that that they're, you know, as of yesterday we're preparing to shoot more sea mines into the Strait. This is something that's been

going on for months, as you know that, you know, the military sort of grappling with how do we demine the Strait and make it clear for shipping

to transit in the sea route?

As CNN reported back in March that Iran was starting to lay these sea mines and that military said it was -- it was dealing with it then. So,

obviously, there are still capabilities that Iran routines to -- to threaten both U.S. military and commercial shipping personnel.

Yesterday, we saw, as you mentioned, that the U.S. said it fired on two launchers preparing to send mines into the Strait. Iran retaliating firing

upon U.S. military positions in Jordan and the UAE.

And, you know, notably CENTCOM, they've been doing this recently over the last several months. They say in their social media post, these are limited

precise strikes, sort of messaging there that they're retaliating or they're firing upon these specific things kind of taking a step away from

the more broad, you know, waves of strikes that we may have seen targeting many different targets around the country. They're sort of messaging here

that this is what they were after specifically.

So, what those retaliation could look like is still unclear. The president saying this morning, of course, telling Fox News that we're going to hit

them hard. There will be a response. So what that will look like is unclear.

We know the administration has focused recently specifically last week on economic pressure that they were sort of taking a different route in

dealing with Iran here and that talks have, you know, all but stalled with Iran.

The White House saying last week there are no ongoing negotiations. So, whether that could be more economic sanctions and economic pressure or

additional strikes is still yet to be seen, but certainly we know that the military operations here are not going anywhere and military personnel in

the region are not coming home anytime soon.

GOLODRYGA: All right. Haley Britzky reporting for us live from Washington. Thank you.

ASHER: All right. Let's dig a little deeper. Let's bring in Nancy Youssef, staffer writer at "The Atlantic" joining us live now from Washington.

[12:05:00]

So, Nancy, just in terms of how much appetite there is within the White House for further military escalation with Iran. I mean, obviously, our

reporter there, Haley Britzky was talking about the fact that this sort of approach seemed to pivot a few weeks ago. The U.S., or rather Trump,

essentially believing that economic pressure would probably work better.

So, are officials in the White House, are -- are the officials at the Defense Department or the Department of War, rather on the same page about

whether further military escalation would be fruitful at this point in time?

NANCY YOUSSEF, STAFF WRITER, THE ATLANTIC: So, I think what you saw last month on the United States' engagement about two weeks of consecutive

strikes is, over time, those strikes diminish as they saw less returns on each of those strikes.

So, militarily, what we've heard is that the sort of sustained campaign is not yielding the kind of enduring results that they want.

However, when the United States says it's now looking to put economic pressure on, it still has an answer of what it wants those kinds of

pressures to achieve. What is it looking from Iran specifically to do to remove that economic pressure?

The other thing we should think about when we talk about military options is we're now seeing a real stress on the force in terms of munitions

available, not only in the Middle East, but to commanders in other parts of the world like Asia and Europe. And that's creating a -- a stressor and a

factor in U.S. decision-making in terms of the extent of military force, given that Iran has responded through strikes, not only on allies and parts

of partners, but on U.S. military installations across the -- the Middle East requiring a further depletion of already falling stockpiles of air

defense capacity.

GOLODRYGA: Nancy, just last week, a week ago today, we saw the treasury secretary unveil the economic D-Day plan that didn't have very many

specifics, but said it would be like no other against Iran.

And today, and he's speaking at the G20 Financial Plenary here in the United States and was asked about this and said that Iran is taking these

sanctions very seriously, that they're, quote, in a state of shock about their economy and that they're lashing out kinetically because they're

losing economically.

He said it could be a week, perhaps even a month, before the regime completely falls, but then he went on to say that the economy doesn't have

to collapse. We just have to get the regime to come to their senses.

From everyone you're talking to, is there a reality amongst these who are negotiating some sort of ceasefire with the hardliners that they are

willing to approach what the U.S. at least views as their senses?

YOUSSEF: Well, what we've seen is even if economic sanctions are imposed, the way that the Treasury Secretary describes them, historically, it has

taken a long time for sanctions to have the kind of impact that he's describing, particularly in a country like Iran, that is used to economic

pressure.

What's interesting to me is that both sides are trying to create some sort of leverage to breach the same thing, which is some negotiation.

The Iranians are striking back and trying to put military pressure on the United States knowing that they are strained in terms of munitions and the

United States is trying to put economic pressure.

But it's not clear that either side has read the other correctly such that it'll lead to an immediate turnaround in terms of substantive talks that

will lead to an enduring end of -- of the war or even what those terms should look like.

And so while he is looking to sort of pick up where the military left off and create a new form of economic pressure, we haven't seen a clear pathway

for how those sanctions lead to a fundamental change in Iranian behavior, certainly in the short term, which I think is what the president is

seeking.

He's looking at -- we've heard repeatedly he's looking for some way to resolve this conflict, ideally before the midterm elections, because of the

impact it is having on him. Politically, there's no indication that this pathway will get him there.

ASHER: What's interesting is that the Iranian president, Pezeshkian, did come out and sort of admit that the sanctions are actually hurting the

Iranian economy after previously saying that they were having no impact. But to your point, it is unlikely that that is going to necessarily bring

the Iranians to the negotiating table.

If they don't, and it's unlikely that they won't, what are the U.S.'s options at that point?

YOUSSEF: I think, at some point, it sort of having a discussion about what is an acceptable outcome for the war. And it may be things that the United

States didn't want to capitulate to just a few months earlier. It may be that the Iranians have some, say, for example, over the Strait of Hormuz.

It may be that its nuclear program is unresolved in a way that the United States didn't want. It may be that the leadership is in place.

And so I -- I think the United States is up against the reality that the cost of the war, so far, to it economically and militarily has been so high

that it doesn't want to then make concessions in terms of what it gets, but there may come a point that continuing to have those costs on itself may

not be worth what it's trying to achieve, which is complete open access to the Strait of Hormuz, a complete resolution on -- on Iran's nuclear

program.

[12:10:21]

It may have to make some concessions on those key points to reach some kind of settlement. Because the cost of enduring this, both militarily and

economically for Americans at the gas pump is not -- is not worth the -- the initial aims that it sought in this war.

ASHER: All right. Nancy Youssef, thank you so much. Appreciate you joining us. Thanks.

GOLODRYGA: Well, the suffering along the Nepal-China border could be set to worsen. Pools of water surrounding the crater are overflowing and could

send torrents of water into the flood zone. That initial crater was formed when a glacier collapsed last Wednesday, sparking the deadly floods.

The priority for authorities now is to find the hundreds of workers missing in Nepal's many hydropower tunnels.

ASHER: Yes. More than 900 people have lost their lives in the flood and more than 4,000 others remain missing. The scale of the disaster is

overwhelmed -- has overwhelmed. Officials in Nepal who have called in help from neighboring countries. They've also asked relatives of those missing

to submit DNA to help identify bodies, as well as the last place that they were seen.

Anderson Cooper is in Nepal and spoke to some of those who are involved in one of the many hydropower tunnel rescue efforts. Take a listen.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

ANDERSON COOPER, CNN ANCHOR: There were some 14 hydropower plants all along the -- the river that have been wiped out, that have been swamped by the --

the raging waters six days ago here in Nepal.

They estimate there may be more than 40 to -- to 50 people trapped still in that tunnel. We talk to a -- a colonel from the -- the -- the Nepal Army

who is one of several forces from Nepal who are trying to rescue these workers at this particular tunnel, but there are tunnels all along this

river where there are rescue operations going on. Here's what the colonel told me today.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: The multi forces here from APF, Nepal Police, Nepali Army and Special Force, and even the sleeper dogs here.

So, we can see here, this is a cable tunnel. So, 170 meters inside, there's a power house. So, I think there are about 45 to 50 people inside the power

house.

COOPER: That many, 45 to 50?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Yes, because they are the working team inside the power house.

COOPER: And they were here when the -- when the flood came?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Yes, sir. When the flood hit this area, you're inside, right? So, we are trying now to excavate all this along the way. And you

can see the guys there, they are drilling there.

COOPER: So, you're going to -- you're going to carve like a trench here for any water that's inside to get back out?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Yes. And even a bigger trench to get those floods outside.

COOPER: Do you have any sign that they're alive?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: You know, earlier we -- earlier, we tried the -- we tried a -- a vertical drilling there so that there might be some presence

of oxygen so that we can send some oxygen there.

I hope -- I hope -- I hope they're --

COOPER: But you haven't had signs of life?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: We have nothing yet.

COOPER: Huh.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: So, we are trying our best to get in through.

COOPER: So, this was completely submerged -- this tunnel was completely --

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: So you can see -- you can see this. It's about 10 to 50 meters. All the debris were just been on top of the tunnel. So, you can see

the room was there and it's all, so we have to -- it was all this massive - - it came down rolling through the downstream. So, it just buried all the whole dam here.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COOPER: It's remarkable, though, what they are doing. I mean, they have not had any signs of life from -- from that group, but they are still trying to

hold on to hope and -- and trying to hold on to optimism that there are air pockets in there. And that if they have access to -- to water, they could

still be alive.

There's no telling what this -- this sludge that has buried so many towns and so many towns along the river what it holds, and -- and that will be

revealed in the coming days and weeks.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

ASHER: Anderson Cooper reporting there.

All right. Another warning about the potential dangers of unchecked artificial intelligence.

GOLODRYGA: Yes. This time, it's from the Governor of the Bank of England, Andrew Bailey. He's also the head of the world's Financial Stability

watchdog and says advanced A.I. models pose a risk to the global financial system.

So, let's bring in CNN's Anna Cooban who joins us from London. Anna, so much of the focus now has been on jobs and what A.I. will do to the job

market, but what concerns has he now flagged about the impact you could have on financial markets?

[12:15:07]

ANNA COOBAN, CNN BUSINESS AND ECONOMICS REPORTER: Well, this letter that he wrote, and he wrote this in advance of this big meeting today and tomorrow

between G20 finance ministers, central bank governors, and he was essentially flagging this risk about specifically advanced A.I. models.

And it's really interesting, you mentioned jobs there, but the kind of risks that the markets, the flagship system is currently exposed to they

are numerous. You know, we've got this now six-month war between the U.S. and Iran. Strait of Hormuz is still essentially closed, increasing

inflation expectations, potential interest rate hikes and then lots of debt Bailey was saying in his letter as well that private companies are loading

up on debt, many of them because of this A.I. infrastructure build out, also governments, many of them highly indebted issuing bonds. So, there are

a lot of risks within the system.

But in particular, and I find it very interesting that he's highlighting this advanced A.I. models, their capacity to actually break into and hack

systems. These cyber-attacks, essentially, this is his most immediate concern. And we need to be clear, he has good reason to feel concerned.

Just a few weeks ago, we saw a couple of very high-profile examples, you've got OpenAI advanced -- one of their advanced models escaped a testing

environment, hacked into a different company's system.

And then you have the British A.I. Security Institute say that they had tested an advanced Anthropic model which had managed to deceive real people

or was attempting to deceive real people with fake identities to plant malicious code.

Really, we've seen a lot of examples recently of the potential of these systems to really go rogue. And so it's no wonder that Bailey, along with

all the other risks the A.I. poses to -- to jobs, for example, it also poses a risk to a highly interconnected global financial system.

GOLODRYGA: We'll be paying attention to his comments, Anna. Thank you.

ASHER: All right. Closing arguments in the trial of ex-gang leader, Duane "Keffe D" Davis. They're about to get underway. The family of Tupac Shakur

potentially one step closer to what they hope will be long-awaited closure.

GOLODRYGA: Live pictures here inside the courtroom. Davis is accused of orchestrating the deadly 1996 shooting of a hip-hop legend.

In recent weeks, jurors have seen hours of recordings which appear to show Davis discussing his involvement in the killing. He has pleaded not guilty.

ASHER: Tupac Shakur's family has been a constant presence each day of the trial. They've been showing up in the front row of the gallery. Tupac's

music often spoke out on social justice issues. And his death became a seminal moment in hip-hop history. And let's discuss all of this with Josh

Campbell joining us live now from Las Vegas, Nevada.

I mean, so this trial, you know, has been going on for -- for weeks now. Just walk us through what we've actually learned about what happened on the

night of September 7th, 1996, Josh.

JOSH CAMPBELL, CNN SENIOR CORRESPONDENT: Well, what's so fascinating about this trial -- excuse me, this trial, and again this is 30 years in the

making, killing of a music superstar that really shocked the music industry around the world. What's so shocking is that the man who's on trial right

now alleged to have been involved in this murder is not accused of actually pulling the trigger on the gun whenever Tupac Shakur was shot here near --

near where we are, 30 years ago, but instead prosecutors alleged that he orchestrated the killing.

And interestingly, they're focusing on his own statements that he's made over the years, both to law enforcement, as well as in a series of media

interviews in which he described being there that night near the Las Vegas strip, whenever this happened. He described taking the firearm, handing it

to the backseat of the car where his own nephew then fired the fatal shot that killed Tupac. And so prosecutors have really been focusing on that.

What's interesting here is that his own defense is saying, look, to the jury don't believe a word that he said, admitting to his involvement over

the years. It's all nonsense. He was simply trying to make money off of the story.

And that is what the jurors will ultimately have to decide here, which version do they believe what Duane Davis, the person who was pled not

guilty, what he said over the years or what he is actually saying right now.

The final point I note is that there is a real interesting disparity in the amount of time that prosecutors spent calling witnesses and the amount of

time that the defense did as well.

Prosecutors, over the course of eight days, during this trial, which we've been covering, they questioned 25 individual witnesses. By contrast, Davis'

own lawyers, over the course of 90 minutes, they called three people.

And so that, you know, obviously raised a lot of questions by legal analysts. Well, does this mean that they're so confident in the outcome of

this case? They didn't even need to spend a lot of time, you know, refuting and rebutting a lot of these allegations.

We will wait and see the closing arguments happening now. We expect that will last for just a while. The jury will get their instructions on how

they are to actually render a verdict. And then we'll wait to see again which version of the story do they believe guys.

[12:20:02]

ASHER: Yes. It's an odd defense, isn't it? Do not trust a word that my client says. He's not trustworthy. He's essentially a liar is what the

defense is claiming. Let's see how that holds up. And we'll have actually much more on the show about this trial coming up in about 10 minutes.

Josh Campbell, live for us there. Thank you so much.

GOLODRYGA: And still to come on "One World," two dead and more than a dozen believed missing after a flash flood hit the Grand Canyon. CNN is on the

scene with the latest details. That's next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

ASHER: All right. Two people are now known to have died after flash floods hit the Grand Canyon on Saturday. And the typically dry area is currently

under a flood watch. Park Rangers say that rain expected in tonight's forecast could bring debris flows, rock fall, and could actually spell more

trouble ahead.

GOLODRYGA: That 15 people could be missing and dozens have been evacuated. Some hikers say they saw landslides and trudge through muddy waters.

CNN's Ed Lavandera is on the scene and reports the latest.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

ED LAVANDERA, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Well, this is some of the more rugged terrain you'll find anywhere in the United States, especially down there at

the depths of the Grand Canyon where there are -- that there are places where you just simply there are no level of phone communication or anything

like that. So, those kinds of issues can really obviously complicate things here as the search and rescue efforts are now underway, now that the sun

has come up over the -- over the Grand Canyon.

But this is really the worst of it happened throughout one creek canyon that led into the main Colorado River area. This was an area that is very -

- is very popular with hikers either day hikers or people who are going down there to -- to camp at the -- at the lowest levels of the Grand

Canyon.

It is through those places where the witnesses described after over the last couple of days, after several rounds of a very intense rainfall, a

wall of dark debris with trees and -- and -- and lumber and boulders just this dark mass moving down river.

People describing how they were able to evacuate, get to higher ground. And the bridges that they were walking over, over these rivers simply just

being wiped away moments after they were crossing.

So, some very intense moments. Officials here have confirmed the death of one man, a 46-year-old man. We don't know any other details beyond that.

And they do say that there's at least 15 people still that they are accounted for, that they do not know where they're at. That could mean that

perhaps they're just somewhere and without communication and don't have any access because bridges have been knocked out or it could mean the worst.

[12:25:11]

So, those rescue efforts will continue today. Many people who have been evacuated were taken out of the area by helicopters, so that kind of speaks

to the really difficult situations. And a lot of these people are -- are going to be in here as -- as the search and rescue operations continue here

in the Grand Canyon today.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

GOLODRYGA: Our thanks to Ed Lavandera there.

In a short while ago, authorities confirmed, sadly, that they have now found two bodies that have followed -- have been found following the

floods. We will keep you updated as we hear more.

ASHER: All right. Still to come on "One World," President Trump takes aim at NBC's Kristen Welker and is calling for the Federal Communications

Commission to take action. Let's talk the latest just in terms of the president's attack on the press, just ahead.

GOLODRYGA: Plus, a murder trial that's 30 years in the making. We'll have the latest on today's closing arguments three decades after the death and

murder of U.S. rapper, Tupac Shakur.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

ELEX MICHAELSON, CNN ANCHOR: Do you think Hannibal Lecter would like this album?

ANTHONY HOPKINS, AMERICAN ACTOR: It's a silly -- that's a question. Hello, Clarice.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

ASHER: Despite CNN's questions, Anthony Hopkins is putting acting on hold to follow his other passion, music, his sweet sounds, coming up.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

GOLODRYGA: All right. Welcome back to "One World." I'm Bianna Golodryga.

ASHER: And I'm Zain Asher.

Returning now to the Tupac Shakur murder trial. The judge is currently giving the jury some instructions, and then will proceed with the closing

arguments, focusing on the actions of ex-gang leader Duane "Keffe D" Davis.

He is the only person ever charged over Shakur's 1996 shooting, near the Las Vegas Strip. Prosecutors argued that Davis orchestrated the killing and

that he implicated himself through his 2019 memoir, "Compton Street Legend." Davis has pleaded not guilty.

[12:30:07]

GOLODRYGA: Tupac Shakur's death became a seminal moment in hip-hop history. He rose to fame during a violent era in a music industry defined by feuds

between East and West Coast artists.

Time now for The Exchange. Joining us is former state and federal prosecutor, David Weinstein. David, Zain and I have our own thoughts. We

are not part of the jury here. We have not been privy to the daily flow of witnesses throughout this trial, but it is a 30-year murder case that is

finally being brought to justice.

The prosecution has called 25 witnesses. The defense only called three. The man on trial, he's basically the story in and of itself. It's everything

based on what he said, what he's written, and in interviews.

The defense called three witnesses and was done in half an hour. Why was it moving so quickly? And is that beneficial or in your view harmful to the

defendant?

DAVID WEINSTEIN, FORMER STATE AND FEDERAL PROSECUTOR: Well, I think -- I think that moving quickly is probably helpful, believe it or not, to both

sides.

Look, it's -- as you said, this is a 30-year-old case. The big question here, the defense keeps raising, why wasn't it brought to trial so long

ago? Why are you charging him now?

And part of the reason is simply what the prosecution has as evidence. A number of key witnesses have died along the way. Three co-conspirators have

died along the way. And so I think that while much of the prosecution's case rests on the words of the defendant, the defense has said, look, that

was all just a bunch of fluff. And he was trying to sell a book.

And you shouldn't really believe what they claim our client is saying. He didn't actually take the stand. We heard his words, or rather, the jurors

heard his words through recorded testimony and statements that he gave.

But it's a quick moving case because the only question here is, did he do it? And did he admit to doing it? Or has the prosecution simply cobbled

together a lot of evidence over the course of time and it's all circumstantial?

ASHER: You bring an important point about the co-conspirators. All the people that were apparently in that car are now deceased. And on top of

that, Bianna -- Bianna and I was just talking about, listen, there is no murder weapon, there's no DNA evidence, there's nobody.

There were people at the scene, obviously, but nobody who could actually say that these were the people who were for sure in that white Cadillac.

However, what the prosecution does have, I think in its favor, is a motive. That's the first thing. And then, yes, of course, Duane Davis' own words,

and it's not just the fact that he said that he killed Tupac Shakur is that -- and I'm wondering how this would affect the jurors, because he talked

about it in so much detail, David, so much detail.

It was sort of, you know, we got into the car. Here's where we got the weapon. We saw Tupac hanging out the window, talking to girls. We were

like, oh, my goodness, there he is right there. We did a U-turn. We pulled up right next to him. I didn't have access to Tupac on my side of the car,

therefore, I passed the gun to somebody in the backseat.

That person then shot Tupac. Tupac tried to jump into the -- I mean, there was so much detail that for -- for the jurors, when they're listening to

that, I mean, how are they going to react to that?

I mean, obviously, they couldn't listen to the defense lawyers, essentially saying, listen, he's making it up. But, you know, it's sort of difficult to

believe that somebody could make something up with that much detail, especially when they have a motive, David.

WEINSTEIN: You just made a great closing argument. And -- and that's exactly what we're going to hear from the prosecution. Why so much detail?

If he's just making it up, it wouldn't be as granular as everything that they talked about.

But part of the problem, 30 years later, is that we live in a day and age, that if there's no video and there's no photographs and there's no

recordings, did it really happen?

And so the key here for the prosecution is going to be doing a lot of what you just talked about. How did he know all of those details? It's one thing

to make things up and sell a book, but to give that many details about what took place.

And then as far as evidence goes, they might not have DNA, they might not have the murder weapon, but do the facts as described by the prosecution's

witnesses go towards supporting these asserted false statements made by the defendant? Or do they support an actual event that took place, one that's

not just history and one that's not just a story of what we've all heard about what happened on that day in question.

The prosecution has the burden of proof and it's beyond a reasonable doubt. The defense doesn't have to prove anything, so they're going to poke holes

in what we've heard from prosecution witnesses, but it will be a tough decision for the jury to make.

Are the words of -- of Duane Davis, are those the truth? Are there enough specifics there that he couldn't possibly have made it up? And did the

prosecution bring enough circumstantial evidence? Enough witnesses reluctant or not to come and testify that they've met their burden beyond a

reasonable doubt?

[12:35:12]

GOLODRYGA: OK, counselor, you just led me to my question. Because you gave an argument for the prosecution's case, given what Zain had described,

given in detail what we heard from Duane Davis' own mouth and his memoir.

At the same time, when either the defense closes or the jury, the -- the judge instructs the jury, the words beyond a reasonable doubt are going to

be said. It's not, what do you think. It's not, do you believe that he made all of this up? That's hard to believe, of course, but it will be do you --

did you come to this decision or the decision that you come to, you will have to come to beyond a reasonable doubt. Did the prosecution meet that

threshold here in your view?

WEINSTEIN: Well, it's a very high burden. And it's one that they're going to have to hammer home to these jurors.

Again, there's nothing in beyond a reasonable doubt that requires a video, pictures, DNA evidence, but it requires more than just a gut feeling on the

part of a juror. This is not a civil case where you simply have to balance and look, did the people on the side of the plaintiffs, did they tip the

scale just a little bit? No, no, no. This is beyond a reasonable doubt. The highest burden we have in any criminal case here in the United States.

And so the prosecution is going to have to use the evidence they have from the witnesses, the circumstantial evidence, whatever fit of forensic

evidence they have to show these jurors that the story that was told by Davis was the real facts and they've hammered it home.

And it's not just fluffing. And they've been able to close all the loopholes here that the defense is going to point out. And that the jurors

belief is so strong that it's more than just a hunch. It's that amount greater than necessary beyond a reasonable doubt to convict him of this.

It's a high burden and the both sides have given these jurors a lot to think about.

ASHER: Yes. I mean, that is certainly working in the defense's favor, as Bianna pointed out. The reasonable doubt burden is a big one.

Also the fact that, you know, he didn't -- I don't know how much it matters, but he didn't technically pull the trigger. You know, he was

involved tangentially, but didn't actually -- wasn't actually the person accused of pulling the trigger.

However, how often do you see this kind of argument by defense lawyers, this idea that, you know, my client is totally untrustworthy? You cannot

listen to a word he says. He's effectively a liar.

And, you know, because I think that when the jurors hear that, they're going to be thinking, well, why should we believe him now that he's saying

that he didn't do it if we cannot trust him? I mean, how -- how much does that argument actually hold up do you think?

WEINSTEIN: Well, it's going to play to a very large degree in this particular case. You very often hear that from prosecution, not from

defense. When a defendant has taken the stand in their own trial and they've given testimony, that's either inconsistent with a prior statement

or they've been shown to have a propensity for not telling the truth.

You'll hear from the defense when they talk about prosecution witnesses who have traded their testimony for favors on their own behalf.

And it's a unique situation here because although the jurors have heard the testimony, it was not subject to cross-examination. So, they just hear his

own words. And so then it becomes up to them, well, when he was talking, do we believe he was really telling the truth? Or was he just puffing about

this?

And so it's sort of a reverse here. Very often, you'll hear the defense using these arguments about this person's not trustworthy. They shouldn't

be believed.

But quite frankly, given the statements that he made, it was one of the only routes available for the defense. And then as your question about he

didn't pull the trigger, aiding and betting conspiracy, although the co- conspirators are no longer alive. That's enough, based on evidence to obtain a conviction.

But in this case, again, circumstantial evidence, a defendant's own words, not subject to cross-examination. It's not going to be a quick verdict or

at least I don't expect it to be a quick verdict.

ASHER: Yes. And also, I think that -- we didn't even get to talk about this, but, you know, we have to run, sadly. But just the fact that when he

talked about killing Tupac Shakur to police, the police officers said to him, listen, nothing you say is going to leave this room, nothing you say

is ever going to be used against you.

I mean, I -- I imagine that that is also going to weigh perhaps in some capacity in -- in the -- in the juror's decision-making or maybe not. But,

you know, that is -- that is a factor too. Those words have now come back to haunt him, even though he was told by police officers that everything he

was going to say or everything he said that day was going to stay in that room, clearly, that is not the case.

[12:40:05]

David Weinstein, we have to leave it there. Thank you so much for your analysis. We'll wait and see what happens --

WEINSTEIN: You're welcome.

ASHER: -- just in terms of a verdict.

We'll be right back with more after this short break.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(AFRICAN VOICES)

[13:00:00]

END