Return to Transcripts main page

CNN Live Event/Special

Juror Selection In Donald Trump's Manhattan Hush Money Trial; Global Political Tensions Involving Iran; Protests In San Francisco; Sentencing In 'Rust' Film Incident. Aired 2-2:30p ET

Aired April 15, 2024 - 14:00   ET

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

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[14:01:46]

WOLF BLITZER, CNN HOST: Welcome back to our special live coverage of Donald Trump's Manhattan hush money trial, the first ever, the first ever criminal trial of a former president of the United States. I'm Wolf Blitzer here in Washington. Aaron Burnett is outside the courthouse in New York City. The former president is facing 34 felony counts of falsifying business records to cover up payments made to adult film star Stormy Daniels before the 2016 presidential election. Just moments ago the judge just set another hearing date after prosecutors argued that Trump violated the court's gag order for social media posts attacking various witnesses. Erin.

ERIN BURNETT, CNN HOST: All right, Wolf, and, you know, so much happening moment by moment as jury selection continues. Another big moment in court just now. The judge said that during jury selection, if either side wants to speak to an individual juror, they will clear out the courtroom of all the other jurors and then be able to have that conversation. So I want to bring in Paula Reid and Phil Mattingly, who are also here talking to their sources and breaking so many of these details. So, Paula, what are you learning about this? So if either side, prosecution defense wants to talk to a potential juror, they say okay and then all the other jurors leave the room?

PAULA REID, CNN CHIEF LEGAL AFFAIRS CORRESPONDENT: That's what the judge is proposing. Now we have a couple steps before we get there. Any moment now, the pool of potential jurors, the judge has said it's 96 possible jurors, will enter the courtroom. First thing they're going to do is try to eliminate anyone who has cause to not be able to serve on this jury. That could mean you are just incapable of being impartial. You have just a disdain for the former President Trump. It could also mean you have a vacation scheduled next week. Once they get rid of that group.

BURNETT: They usually do not let that group, again as a former juror, that is not an excuse that flies here in Manhattan, but we'll see.

(CROSSTALK)

PHIL MATTINGLY, CNN CORRESPONDENT: You're saying this with experience.

BURNETT: I mean many have tried that, I think that's sort of a-are you serious? Anyway, but yes.

REID: That's what I'm told. From one of the folks that's doing it, they'll get rid of those folks and then with the folks that are left, they're going to draw approximately 20 of them at random and those folks are going to go through the questions in that questionnaire. This is a wide array of questions, everything from where do you live, to where do you get your news, to how do you feel about former president Trump. And it appears that what the judge is saying is that if either side wants to ask questions of a specific juror during that phase, that they're going to remove all the other potential jurors. Now that is, the judge says, to help the jurors feel more comfortable, to feel less intimidated. Imagine how intimidating this is, right? You're the former President of the United States. You have a judge, you have a whole army of of lawyers. It's incredibly intimidating, especially if you were in front of, you know, 20 other possible jurors. So the judge said he's just trying to make the whole thing more comfortable for these potential members of this historic jury.

BURNETT: Okay. So just to understand, Paula, if you're one of those jurors and one side or the other, they want to have a private conversation with you. So everyone clears out of the room and they have the conversation with you. You've already answered the 42 questions or no on the questionnaire. I mean, basically this conversation that they then have with each juror may be very personal and very specific and a lot of questions, right, that aren't even on the questionnaire.

REID: So as I understand it, both the defense attorneys and the prosecutors and the judge all have a chance to ask this smaller group of jurors follow-up questions. And it's likely that their responses to the questionnaire would be what prompts these questions. If you put something unusual about where you get your news or something that's ambiguous about your feelings for Trump, this is a place to get clarity.

[14:05:09]

BURNETT: So there's a specific reason.

REID: Exactly. Yeah, because they each have a certain allotted amount of time to ask these follow-up questions. Now, I'll also say this process is going to take a long time. I'm not sure they're even going to be able to settle on jurors. And at the very end, of course, both sides have 10 preemptive challenges that they can use throughout this process. They don't have to use them all today, but at the end of today, they can use those if they need to.

MATTINGLY: That's the thing that I keep going back to thinking about this. We've all been talking about our own personal experiences being on a jury pool or a potential jury pool. The import of this moment for the future of the trial for both teams, and this might seem technical, procedural, arduous on some level, given how many steps there are involved in this process. But the jury and who these 12 people are and their potential alternates will go a long way in deciding what happens in the weeks ahead. We're all focused on who's going to test, what may come out, what's this going to do for the president's political ratings, how it will appear to swing voters in Pennsylvania. These jurors are going to decide what happens next. And if one juror decides to go in a different direction than the others, that changes the course of this case. This is an extremely important time, even if it seems a little bit lengthy on some level.

BURNETT: Right, right. And Paula, just to go through kind of the nuts and bolts of it, we understand that the jury selection process could take a couple of weeks, could take three weeks.

REID: Yeah.

BURNETT: So usually the way it works is every Monday, you get a new point of view. And then you have multiple pools or is everybody coming? I mean, how does this actually work on the technicals?

REID: So each day, approximately one day to get through that approximately 100 potential jurors. Now, I don't think they're going to get through these 96 today, so that will likely go in till tomorrow. And I'm told, again, by a source familiar with the case, that if, let's say, by tomorrow at 11, they get through this 96, they might get another 100. So sort of a slate. And then they keep going, no court on Wednesday, until they see 12 jurors and six alternates. Now, with no court on Wednesday, we will be here next Monday and Tuesday, we didn't think we would, even though it's Passover. You know, this will likely take at least two weeks, four-day weeks.

BURNETT: At least two weeks. And interesting that the former president has said he intends to be there every day.

MATTINGLY: This is going to take a day off. And I think, again, underscores, we've talked about this repeatedly, the kind of collision of courthouse and campaign trail. It is literally the kind of theory of the case that this campaign, the Trump campaign, has gotten behind. And it's been successful for them up to this point. Clearly, if you look at the Republican primary, this is their reality. They can't walk away from it. So they've decided to just double down and go all in on it. You're going to see the president, his schedule, how he operates his campaign operation, plus his legal operation. Everything is intertwined.

BURNETT: Right. I mean, you know, the rallies on Wednesday nights, you know.

MATTINGLY: Potentially on Saturday as well, how everything maps out going forward. His involvement in this trial is just as much part of his campaign as it is a legal strategy.

BURNETT: And Paula, so now one other technical thing that people are curious about. So it's going to take two or three weeks possibly to see the jury. Say they pick one person today. Does that person know that they're picked?

REID: Yes.

BURNETT: And you know right away, you find out, you know, I'm

REID: I'm it. I won or lost the lottery.

(CROSSTALK)

REID: I'm not sure which way that goes. But again, both sides have 10, what they're called preemptive strikes. So once they see who's left.

BURNETT: Per day?

REID: Per pool.

BURNETT: Per 100-ish pool.

REID: They have 10 for the whole entire selection of 12.

BURNETT: Oh

REID: And they exercise them after each pool.

BURNETT: Okay

REID: So at the end of each 100, you can say, hey, do I want to use three of my strikes here?

BURNETT: Oh, because you don't know how many?

REID: Exactly.

BURNETT: Okay

REID: And the Trump defense team feels, look, we each get 10. This is a sort of a pool that skews anti-Trump. That's not really fair. This is what they argue and why they wanted to change venue. They would tell you that, well, the prosecutors could use those 10 to weed out the 10 pro-Trump people. But we have all these anti-Trump people. So that's part of how they framed their argument about why they believe the process is not fair.

BURNETT: Criminal case needs a unanimous verdict. That means you only need one for a hung trial or to not convict. Statistically, even in Manhattan, which is heavily Democratic, statistically, a group of 12 would include a Trump voter. So statistically, if they're looking at trying to find somebody who might be pro-Trump in these pools day after day, they should easily succeed.

MATTINGLY: You would think. I think that the efforts to change the venues shows some level of skepticism there, or at least some level of concern. But I think it underscores just, and I don't mean to sound like a broken record, but the import of this process, right, of how they use their 10 strike opportunities, of how they view each of these pools. This is like an NFL GM trying to figure out before the draft how you're actually deciding who to pick, who not to pick, who to make sure you cast aside, why you try and cast them aside. Don't waste your opportunities if you think you're going to need them later. There is a lot that goes into this, and the stakes are enormous in terms of how they decide to deploy that strategy in the days and weeks ahead. BURNETT: Think about the power of just a single juror, literally a single juror. And that is the greatest, greatest thing about this country when you think about it. All right, Paula and Phil staying with me and Wolf, we're handing it down to you.

BLITZER: Erin, thank you. I want to bring in our chief legal analyst, Laura Coates, and our senior legal analyst, Elie Honig. We're going to be counting for some analysis of our own right now. So, Laura, what do you make of this defense request for Trump to be part of every sidebar?

[14:10:09]

LAURA COATES, CNN HOST: I mean, just look at this and how it's going to work, practically speaking. Normally, if you're in an actual courtroom, the defendant's going to, I'm going to turn to my tablet here, is going to have usually headphones on, right? And just that's going to be how they're going to actually tell you and listen to what's happening at the sidebar. But instead, if you can turn to where it looks like, instead of that, you're going to have this very limited area instead in front of this judge. You see this? This very limited area over here. I don't think you can get a good view of it, what's happening right now. And in that very limited space, you're going to have multiple people. You're going to have the defense counsel, Donald Trump, a potential juror as well, who will be sitting there. A very, very crowded space.

And also, think about this. You're going to have a former president of the United States who's actually going to be not lording over a defendant or a juror, but certainly there to see every single expression you have and breathing down your neck so to speak. Then you have to think about the fact that for every time they want to ask questions, you've got to clear out a courtroom of people with dozens of potential jurors inside, the logistics of it. Just think about what it's like to get off of an airplane all of a sudden, right? And people have to take their luggage down or get up and they're trying to move around. It's not going to be a very easy process.

And so, in this instance, you're going to have the combination of there are different people at the sidebar in front of a husher, which is a device they'll use to say and silence everyone else in the courtroom, having to be close enough to the actual microphone to then not have everyone hear your responses. And imagine the type of questions you have to ask. They're going to have the former president of the United States sitting there while they ask, what are you feeling about how Trump has been treated before? Should a president be criminally charged? Have you attended any rally? Have you attended an anti-Trump rally? Imagine the intimidation by presence and environment alone on those different questions. And so, logistically speaking, it can be very difficult to figure out how you're going to get that all done.

BLITZER: You know, it's interesting, Elie, there are 42 questions that the judge has approved that these potential jurors could be asked. But things like people's voter registration, their social media posts, that's all fair game, right? ELIE HONIG, CNN SENIOR LEGAL ANALYST: Yeah. So, the jury questionnaire

is going to provide the lawyers with very, very valuable, vital information, but also incomplete information. And one thing that I assure you the lawyers are doing now, they have the names of the jurors. We won't, but they do. And so, they are allowed to go on social media and look at these folks, because think about how revealing someone's Facebook page or Instagram page can be about them. And so, I guarantee you they're going through those now. And when we look at jury selection in total, it's important to know it's much more art than science, right? You're going to have the facts that the juror discloses. But as a lawyer, prosecutor or defense lawyer, you are analyzing and assessing everything about that juror. If they're holding a book or a magazine or a newspaper when they come in, you're trying to see what's she reading. You're looking at the way they dress. You're looking at their mannerisms. And again, this could be a reason why Donald Trump wants to be there in close proximity with the potential jurors.

BLITZER: It's interesting, Laura. Judge Merchan, as you know, he's agreed to distinguish between jurors who are unable to serve and those who say they can't be fair. Explain the significance of this.

COATES: So, you have these things called four-cause strikes. Essentially, he says, there is that you have indicated to us you cannot be impartial for whatever reason. Now, in a prior trial, he asked each individual juror who made that self-proclamation about why they felt that was the case. Probably to try to understand whether they actually could be persuaded to tell the truth or be impartial. Here he says it's just not logistically possible to do so. But he will distinguish them because of the appellate rights. The Trump team will want to be able to suggest that there was maybe an overwhelming jury pool that was not able to get a sufficient number of people, for the bottom of the barrel in terms of impartiality, and then they were left with these numbers.

What is difficult to actually prove, though, is, look, you've got not just the luck of the draw. You've got a body of people who are supposed to be the peers of a defendant. In this case, obviously, it's hard to find a peer of a former president of the United States, sort of Obama and Bush and Clinton. But that's not the requirement here. It's just, are you able to be impartial and put aside your opinions in order to actually follow the presentation of evidence and the instructions. They want to distinguish you to show that, look, here was the amount of people you had available to you. Here's who you chose. The peremptory challenges, though, and strikes will actually undermine an appellate argument and say they didn't have enough ability to do that.

BLITZER: Interesting. You know, what qualities are the defense and the prosecution, for that matter, looking for in a potential juror?

HONIG: So, first of all, if you look at the law books, they say all that you want is someone who can be fair and call it down the middle. But let's be real here. This is a battle. You want someone who's with you and against the other side. And let's also remember, this is only a subtraction game. You have no power as an attorney to put someone on the jury. You can't say, I love that juror. She's protected. She's in. All you can do is eliminate and hope the other side does not eliminate. So let me tell you what I think the nightmare scenarios both sides are watching for. The D.A.'s office is absolutely looking for a stealth Trump supporter, somebody who is not so stealthy, maybe. You know, let's say he says they're a member of the NRA, watches Fox News.

[14:15:09]

You're going to- I guarantee you anyone who meets that profile will be circled and eliminated by the DA. On Trump's side, you are going to have to deal just mathematically with a lot of people who are not Trump's political supporters, but say, I could put that aside and still rule fairly in this case. And then the question that Trump's lawyers are going to have to ask themselves are, do we believe that person? And there's no magic to that. You have to trust your instinct on that one.

COATES: Remember this, the system is also on trial every time there's a high profile case, right? The idea that, do I trust that this is the type of case that should be brought? That's one of the questions. Do I trust that this DA is somebody who should have brought it? And do I trust that this is the scenario to actually have it? That's going to be baked into the case of any juror's mindset. I think it's possible to get an impartial jury in this case. Even though there have been political reasons, people look at to say the voting practices of different jurors. At the end of the day, the prosecution has to carry their burden. If they do not, you are going to be punished for it as a prosecutor. If you think that just having the memory of the access Hollywood tape is going to be enough or someone's views on terminales (ph) is enough, you are sorely mistaken. You've got to prove that there are 34 accounts of falsified business records. If you don't do that, then there would be a deserved acquittal, whether you think that's appropriate or not.

BLITZER: Do they look at education if someone's highly educated as opposed to someone who dropped out of high school?

HONIG: Yeah, sure. You're looking at education. You're looking at profession. I once asked a supervisor of mine when I was doing my first trial, what are we looking for as prosecutors, like tomorrow when we pick this jury? And what he said to me is, as a prosecutor, we want people who are invested in society. We want people with jobs and homes and families and children. And look, these are overarching rules. There's always exceptions. You have to take it one by one. But absolutely, all this stuff in the beginning of the jury questionnaire is sort of maybe less dynamic. But what neighborhood do you live in? That's going to matter. I mean, think about Manhattan. It's going to be a big difference if someone lives on the Upper West Side or the Lower East Side. All of that is going to come into play. And again, you have to sort of take this massive, there's 42 questions, but a lot of them have three and four and five subparts. You have to take this mass of information and try to digest it. And then it's a bit of a guessing game about who's who and who's going to lean where.

COATES: And there are questions you don't have on here. For example, have you ever had an affair? Right? I mean, I know it's an odd thing to think about. You wouldn't have it on there, but that's part of the stealthy idea of somebody who might have, an interest in a case based on the underlying facts you're going to be alleging in some respect, shape or form that might influence the way they think and see the defendant in an action like this. Those are things you cannot capture in a jury questionnaire. And also, don't forget, it is showtime for the prosecution and the defense team. If you have a juror up there who clearly does not like you for whatever reason, or as you perceive them not to like you, giving you side eye, no eye contact, et cetera, you're going to have maybe a difficult time trying to persuade them. Because when you're in front of that jury, you have a witness on the stand, but you're the one in front of that jury. And if there is any indication they are not going to side with you, you think about that as well.

BLITZER: Important points. And these are critically important moments right now, the fate of this decision that eventually happens. Who's going to be on this jury. We're watching it closely. Laura and Elie, thank you very much. Much more of our special coverage of the trial coming up. And another story we're also keeping a very close eye on right now. It's a sensitive moment. Israel debating how to respond to the barrage fired by Iran over the weekend involving to quote, exact a price from Tehran. While here in the United States, we're watching all of this unfold. This is San Francisco's Golden Gate Bridge, by the way, shut down by protesters reportedly angry over the conflict in Gaza. We're following all these stories closely. Stay with us.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[14:20:09]

BLITZER: Alright, there's some breaking news coming into CNN right now. We're keeping a close eye on this protest which has shut down the Golden Gate Bridge, a demonstration in support of Palestinians in Gaza. You can see what's going on over there. Meantime, the U.S. State Department says Iran did not give the U.S. notice about the specifics of its strikes against Israel. And G7 leaders are also now weighing new sanctions on Iran's missile program. Just moments ago, the National Security Council spokesperson, John Kirby, gave an update from the White House.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

JOHN KIRBY, NATIONAL SECURITY COUNCIL SPOKESPERSON: I'd like to take just a few minutes to correct the record on a few points that have come out in the last several hours. I've seen reporting that the Iranians meant to fail, that this spectacular and embarrassing failure was all by design. I've also seen Iran say that they provided early warning to help Israel prepare its defenses and limit any potential damage. All of this is categorically wrong false. To coin the phrase from the President, or still a phrase from the President, it's malarkey. This attack failed because it was defeated by Israel, by the United States, and by a coalition of other partners committed to Israel's defense. So let's be straight.

(END VIDEO CLIP) BLITZER: All right, let's talk about this and more. I'm joined now by Norman Roule. He's a former national intelligence manager for Iran over at the Office of the Director of National Intelligence. He's now a senior advisor at the Center for Strategic and International Studies here in Washington, D.C. We call it CSIS.

[14:25:09]

Thanks, Norman, very much for joining us. Let me get your immediate reaction to that statement from the White House, we just heard dismissing any notion that Iran expected that its missile attacks would be thwarted or provided warning about it.

NORMAN ROULE, FORMER NATIONAL INTELLIGENCE MANAGER FOR IRAN: Good afternoon. The statement is correct. The nature of Iran's attack was significant, complex, and targeted multiple facilities, the most important of which appears to have been Navatim Air Base in southern Israel, the location of three of Israel's F-35 squadrons and significant other air force capacities. There's no evidence that Iran meant this as solely a symbolic operation.

BLITZER: Yeah, good point. Israel and its partners were able to repel almost all of those Iranian munitions directed towards Israel. What message do you think that sends to Iran, at least moving forward?

ROULE: It was an extraordinary performance by military officials. It was an extraordinary performance by military officials. It was an extraordinary performance by military personnel from multiple countries, historic indeed. And it sends a rather embarrassing message to the Iranians as to the capabilities of their weaponry. But I think it also sends a message to the Russians, the Chinese and others as to what happens when you have a coalition of Western allies with such a technology and such smooth cooperation.

BLITZER: Yeah, the air defense system was amazing. When you think about it, not just from the Israelis, but from the U.S. to U.K., some of the Arab countries who were helping out as well. Leaders from the G7, Norman, they're now weighing new sanctions on Iran. How effective can these diplomatic avenues actually work as deterrence to Iran?

ROULE: Iran's decision making is generally impacted when you see multilateral diplomatic and economic isolation. If there are sanctions, the sanctions must touch equities that are of most importance to the supreme leader and the inner circle of Iran's leadership. If this is just additional sanctions on Iran's missile programs, personnel, weapons systems and some mid-level officers, this will have no impact on Iran's decision making. I should point out that although there are significant sanctions on Iran's oil program, Iran's oil exports last month touched a five-year high, and it has earned over $40 billion in oil revenue this year, in the last year, because these sanctions aren't significantly executed. So it's not just sanctions, but the type of sanctions and how seriously will we take them.

BLITZER: But a huge chunk of that revenue comes from China, right? ROULE: That is correct. And just to clarify, that $40 billion might be less because the Chinese insist upon significant discounts for the oil that they purchased from Iran.

BLITZER: Interesting. President Biden told Prime Minister Netanyahu that the U.S. would not participate in any offensive action against Iran. How do you think that impacts this conflict?

ROULE: Well, it's- I don't think the Israelis are surprised in that regard. But it's also important that Israel understand the role of the United States in any day after, and that Iran understand the role in the day after. Iran may well respond to any Israeli retaliation, and his U.S. defense support for Israel will be important in that regard. Norman Roule, thanks so much for joining us, and thanks for all your service over the years. We appreciate it very much.

ROULE: You're welcome.

BLITZER: All right this just in to CNN, the Armorer from the film Rust, Hannah Gutierrez-Reed, has now been sentenced to 18 months in prison. She was found guilty of involuntary manslaughter last month for the 2021 on-set fatal shooting of cinematographer Helena Hutchins. Hutchins was killed by a live round of ammunition fired from a prop gun held by the actor Alec Baldwin in October of 2021. The film's director was also injured in the shooting. Stay with CNN. We'll be right back with more news.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)