Return to Transcripts main page
ANDERSON COOPER 360 DEGREES
Casey Anthony Jurors Speak Out; Case Crumbling Against Dominique Strauss-Kahn?
Aired July 6, 2011 - 22:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
JOHN KING, CNN ANCHOR: The state of Florida drops a bombshell. They're taking new legal action, a real shocker, trying to make Casey Anthony pay. Details on that. But that's not the only breaking news.
We also know why the empty chairs, why the Casey Anthony jury could not face reporters after voting not guilty on each and every serious charge in the death of her daughter, Caylee. We know because tonight two of those jurors are speaking out, talking about why they and the others made that decision and their gut feelings when they did so.
Martin Savidge has all the breaking news and joins us now from Orlando.
Martin, Casey Anthony possibly new legal challenges tonight, what can you tell us about them?
MARTIN SAVIDGE, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Well, good evening, John.
The state of Florida tonight has filed a motion to tax Casey Anthony for what it says are special costs that -- for going after her basically in the prosecution and also the investigation. In other words, it appears what they're looking for is some sort of restitution here.
Now, the state says it needs about 60 days to figure out what those costs will be. Well, if it needs that long, that would imply the numbers could be fairly significant. And this, of course, plays into the idea that some fear that with her fame Casey Anthony may gain a lot of money.
Well, the state now may be looking to claim some of that money. It's all going to be worked out we think at sentencing tomorrow. We will wait and see how that happens, John.
KING: And, Martin, as we wait for that to happen, some dramatic new examples tonight, two of the jurors speaking out about why they decided to acquit Casey Anthony of killing her child.
Here's what juror number two told "The St. Petersburg Times." "I just swear to God, I wish we had more evidence to put her away. I truly do."
Strong stuff, Marty. What else can you tell us about these jurors?
SAVIDGE: Well, you have juror number two there. Then juror number three has been speaking out to ABC and Diane Sawyer. And there are a number of interesting quotes coming from her. And we will show them you as I read them here.
She starts off by saying, "I did not say she was innocent." This is Jennifer Ford, by the way. She says, "I just said that there was not enough evidence. If you cannot prove what the crime was, you cannot determine what the punishment should be."
OK. Here's what's interesting about that particular quote. It is as any legal person will say not up to a jury to determine punishment. Their job to determine innocent or guilt. So that could be a question as to did the jury really understand their role? And that could be traced back to Judge Belvin Perry. Did he in fact inform them the right way?
And then let me read you number two. This is again juror number three, Jennifer Ford. And she says, "Everyone wonders why we didn't speak to the media right away. It was because we were sick to our stomach to get that verdict. We were crying, and not just the women. It was emotional and we weren't ready."
OK. Well, then also speaking to Barbara Walters of ABC, Jose Baez, the lead of the defense team. And he was talking about what the future could be like for Casey Anthony. Here's what was said.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
BARBARA WALTERS, ABC NEWS: Are you worried about her safety?
JOSE BAEZ, ATTORNEY FOR CASEY ANTHONY: I am. I am. And I'm afraid for her. And I don't think it's fair.
WALTERS: How do you see Casey's future?
BAEZ: I think Casey could have been anything she wanted in this world. And I think there are still plenty of things that Casey can do in life. And I think Casey can be a productive member of society.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
SAVIDGE: Exactly what Casey does next will be determined by what happens inside the building behind us starting at 9:00 in the morning, the time of her sentencing -- John.
KING: Breaking news from Martin Savidge tonight. Martin, thank you.
There's a lot more to talk about including what happens next for Casey and whether she will spend more time behind bars. As Martin Savidge just said, the lawyers back in court tomorrow morning arguing about that. And I will talk with our senior legal analyst, Jeffrey Toobin, and Marcia Clark and Dr. Drew Pinsky as well. First, though, the crumbling sexual assault case against Dominique Strauss-Kahn, the man who still might be the next president of France. Who could forget the headlines? "Pepe Le Pew, "Le Perv" -- "Le Perv," "French Whine." A hotel maid's lurid account, and, of course, the suspect's dramatic capture.
New York authorities rushing to the airport to arrest him, but "Keeping Them Honest," did they also rush needlessly to indict him, moving too quickly, missing red flags about his accuser's credibility?
Today, lawyers for Strauss-Kahn sat down with Manhattan prosecutors. They called it a constructive meeting. A spokeswoman for the DA office says no decisions have been made about dropping the case, a case that if you believe the sound bites sounded like a slam- dunk.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
QUESTION: Sir, you said the detectives concluded that the victim was a credible victim and that her story had credibility. What is that based on?
RAYMOND KELLY, NEW YORK CITY POLICE COMMISSIONER: What is that based on?
KELLY: It's based on the experience of professional victims detectives. Now, this is all they do. They investigate these types of crimes. Obviously, credibility of the complainant is a factor in cases of this nature and one of the things that they're trained to look for.
QUESTION: Can you say what it was about her story that made it credible?
KELLY: No, I can't.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
KING: The police commissioner, Ray Kelly, there four days after Strauss-Kahn was hauled off his flight and a day before the Manhattan DA, Cyrus Vance, sought an indictment and got it.
That day, prosecutors were just as confident in their accuser as Commissioner Kelly was.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
JOHN MCCONNELL, ASSISTANT DISTRICT ATTORNEY, NEW YORK COUNTY: The complainant in this case has offered a compelling and unwavering story about what occurred in the defendant's room.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
KING: What Assistant DA McConnell did not say, perhaps because he did not know, were facts about the alleged victim's past and questions about her account. In a moment, former prosecutor Sunny Hostin and Jeffrey Toobin on whether they think a rush to prosecute made this case impossible to prosecute.
First, though, Tom Foreman lays out the facts.
TOM FOREMAN, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): Dominique Strauss- Kahn's New York arrest in mid-May was a sensation, the head of the International Monetary Fund, a potential next president of France snatched from a jet moments before takeoff, accused of attempted rape by a hotel maid.
Manhattan DA Cyrus Vance put it simply.
CYRUS VANCE, MANHATTAN DISTRICT ATTORNEY: These are extremely serious charges.
FOREMAN: The maid told police she had gone to clean Strauss- Kahn's $3,000-a-night suite and he had jumped her, naked, chasing, grabbing and molesting her. Then, they say, he went running for the airport when she escaped.
KELLY: The detectives investigating this case found the complainant to be credible.
FOREMAN: In short order, other women raised accusations of past improprieties, and under fire Strauss-Kahn resigned from the IMF. His attorneys insisted any encounter with the maid was consensual. But French pundits proclaimed his political future dead.
(on camera): But while all of this was happening, it now appears prosecutors here in the States were finding serious cracks in the credibility of Strauss-Kahn's accuser.
(voice-over): Authorities now say the woman, who is from Guinea, deceived U.S. immigration officials so she could seek asylum, making false claims about suffering a gang rape. They say she lied to investigators about where she was immediately following the alleged hotel attack.
And perhaps most troublesome, officials say she spoke by phone with a man in prison, and as a source close to the investigation told CNN, assured him there is money to be made because Strauss-Kahn is rich.
(on camera): Authorities still say there is strong physical evidence of a sexual encounter between Strauss-Kahn and this woman, and her attorney says none of her past deceptions mean she is lying now. Still, it could all make it harder for prosecutors to prove she is telling the truth -- John.
KING: Joining me now, two former federal prosecutors, senior legal analyst Jeffrey Toobin and Sunny Hostin of "In Session" on truTV.
Jeff, simple question off the top, did the prosecution blow it and if so what were the mistakes?
JEFFREY TOOBIN, CNN SENIOR LEGAL ANALYST: Well, I think there is one very serious mistake.
The arrest on May 14 was obviously the right thing to do. He was about to get on a plane. They had to stop him from getting on a plane. But they only waited four-and-a-half days until indicting him. Once he's indicted, the prosecutor is completely committed to this story.
They certainly could have waited. They could have held onto Strauss-Kahn's passport, but allowed him out on bail and taken the time to investigate it. Where was he going to go? He was not going to disappear.
The rush to indict was a serious mistake, and the DA's office is paying for that mistake now.
KING: As they pay for it, Sunny, we have the questions about the victim, the alleged victim's credibility. Yet prosecutors are saying they're not ready to drop this case. They still think they have strong enough evidence to go forward.
Sunny can't hear me.
Jeff, let me come back to you. we will get Sunny's audio fixed there.
So they say essentially, sure, we have credibility issues, but they're not ready to drop the case. Can you prosecute without putting the accuser on the stand?
TOOBIN: Well, you certainly cannot bring a case like this without calling the accuser at all.
I mean, the case could not be brought. Now, it is possible to put forth a flawed witness. A lot of the people who are witnesses to crimes are criminals themselves. They are troubled people. They have dark chapters in their past. You could go to a jury and say, look, she's not a perfect person, but look at the physical evidence. She was assaulted by this man.
That is a perfectly plausible possibility. But it makes the case a lot harder if you have things like a lie about rape, practically the same thing as the accusation here in her past.
KING: And so, Sunny, come in on that point. You have prosecuted sex cases in the past, sex crime cases. How hard is it when you have her credibility at risk here to have some people say, OK, well, some of her story might not be true, but that doesn't mean a crime didn't take place?
HOSTIN: Well, that is true. But when you're a prosecutor, John, it's not what really happened. It's what you can prove. I think we have seen this all with the Casey Anthony case. And so with the victim's credibility decimated in a way like this, there's just no way that this case can go forward.
The victim would be the star witness, especially in a case where you have sort of this he said/she said. If they don't believe her, the case goes away. So in my view in looking at the facts of this case, in looking at the Brady material that was sent to the defense, there's just no way that you can prosecute this case.
KING: And how much would this factor in? You have the questions about the victim's credibility. You also have the chief of the sex crimes unit in the prosecutor's office, Lisa Friel, reportedly taken off the case very early on. Then she resigns just a day before news of the major problems in the case surfaced.
What do you make of that? Couldn't the defense use that as well?
HOSTIN: Well, I don't feel that the defense can use it, but certainly the circumstances are curious.
Of course, the DA's office has said that her resignation has nothing to do with this case. She hasn't really made formal comment. But it is certainly odd that chief of the unit would resign, would be taken off this case just a few days before it started unraveling.
So I think that's something that we don't know enough about, but there must be something to it.
KING: And, Jeff, late today the alleged victim's lawyer asked the Manhattan district attorney, Cyrus Vance, to recuse himself because of how his office has handled the case. Any way to get that to happen?
TOOBIN: I don't think so. Recusals happen when there is some sort of conflict of interests. I don't see any conflict of interests here. This is a troubled case.
It is troubled because that the accuser didn't tell the truth. So I think it takes a certain amount of gall for her lawyer to ask the DA to recuse himself. Maybe his client should have been more honest from the beginning. So, I just think that's a red herring. I don't think it's going to lead to anything at all.
KING: And, Sunny, any impact beyond this case? Sex crime victims already sometimes reluctant to come forward. With all this scrutiny on the alleged victim here, do you think there'll be a domino effect, a chilling effect?
HOSTIN: There very well may be. And I think that is what so many people are concerned about, especially people like myself who have tried these sex crimes cases. Because it is so very difficult for a victim to come forward. And because she has really been skewered in the press, her name is just all over the place now, her identity, I think it could have that chilling effect.
Bush, again, because she isn't credible does not mean that she was not sexually attacked. The prosecution may not be able to prove this, but it doesn't mean that it didn't happen. And so hopefully we won't see that sort of chilling effect in prosecuting these kind of cases.
TOOBIN: John, I had a professor in law school who said, you know, there are some people who think some crimes are so serious that not even innocence is a defense.
You know, this is important stuff to look at the victim's background. I mean, maybe Dominique Strauss-Kahn is innocent. So, sure, we don't want to discourage honest, real victims from coming forward.
HOSTIN: That's right.
TOOBIN: But it's important that prosecutors, police, and the defense get to investigate these stories, because some of them simply aren't true.
KING: Well, we will keep our eye on all angles.
Sunny Hostin, thanks to you tonight.
Jeff Toobin, stick around. We're going to talk Casey Anthony shortly.
In the meantime, let us know what you think. We're on Facebook or follow me on Twitter @JohnKingCNN. I will be tweeting throughout the program tonight.
As mentioned, Jeff's back with Marcia Clark to talk about what comes next for Casey Anthony, sentencing tomorrow on the lying charges, more on tonight's breaking news and Dr. Drew Pinsky on what Casey's many lies tell us about her future.
Next, though, "Raw Politics." He's threatening to stand alone against what he calls a bad budget deal, even if it leads to the government not being able to pay its bills -- my conversation with Senator Rand Paul.
KING: First, though, let's check in with Isha Sesay.
ISHA SESAY, CNN INTERNATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: John, 110 degrees in the shade is usually enough to tell you Phoenix is in the desert. But you have never seen the desert in Phoenix quite like this before. Incredible time-lapse photography, that and much more when 360 continues.
KING: There are hints of inklings of signs of compromise in the battle over cutting the nation's debt and agreeing to raise the debt ceiling, now, very small hints very late in the day. At the end of the day, August 2, if a deal isn't reached and Congress doesn't raise the country's debt ceiling, America for the first time ever will not be able to pay its bills. This goes beyond a government shutdown. It would instantly ruin America's credit rating, which is why no Congress has ever, ever failed to raise the debt ceiling. It's why the big names on the left and the right, from Paul Krugman to Alan Greenspan to the Chamber of Commerce, all say missing the deadline would be suicidal.
Yet both sides have been playing chicken on it's issue for months.
Tonight, the House minority leader, Eric Cantor, who had been leading the charge against making any revenue increase as part of a debt deal, said he might be willing to talk about closing some tax loopholes. He, the rest of the GOP leadership and their Democratic counterparts on call to meet with President Obama tomorrow at the White House.
Some breaking news there, "The Washington Post" just now moving a story reporting on a possible big concession the president might put on the table. "The Post" reporting he will for the first time offer up significant savings in Social Security, the newspaper sourcing it to people in both parties with knowledge of the president's proposal.
In any case, today, Mr. Obama called on both sides to get moving.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
BARACK OBAMA, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: Congress has a responsibility to make sure we pay our bills. We've always paid them in the past. The notion that the U.S. is going to default on its debt is just irresponsible. And my expectation is, is that over the next week to two weeks, that Congress, working with the White House, comes up with a deal that solves our deficit, solves our debt problems, and makes sure that our full faith and credit is protected.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
KING: Now, Washington-speak can be a bit confusing. So a quick reminder, the debt ceiling has nothing to do with new spending. It simply authorizes the Treasury to pay out money Congress has already authorized.
But there are some in Congress, including the senator you're about to hear from, who strongly believe that government should be forced to spend less and don't mind using the threat of a default to get there.
KING: Joining us now from Capitol Hill, Senator Rand Paul of Kentucky.
Senator, the president today at his town hall said that it is the responsibility of Congress to make sure the United States doesn't fail to pay its bills. Sounds like the president's trying to turn the pressure, turn the heat on Congress and say, if this fails, if we do not raise the government's debt ceiling, it's your fault.
SEN. RAND PAUL (R), KENTUCKY: Well, we're listening. And we actually will present a plan in the morning to raise the debt ceiling, contingent upon significant cuts, statutory caps, and a balanced budget amendment.
And I think it's good for us to show what we're for. And they need to show us what they're for. And then maybe we can find somewhere in the middle.
KING: Somewhere in the middle. That is -- the president also says he wants a balanced approach. So I think rhetorically people seem to be trying to be careful here two weeks to go before you hit the deadline, somewhere in the middle.
If you cannot get a balanced budget amendment, which most people believe you cannot get because the Democrats still run the United States Senate, the president of the United States doesn't want a balanced budget amendment, if you can't get that part, are you still willing to make deal as long as you get some other things? Or is that a deal-breaker for you?
PAUL: Well, see, I would like to know why the president doesn't want to balance the budget or doesn't want a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution. I want to have that full-throated debate and discussion both in Congress and in the public -- 75 percent of the public does want a balanced budget amendment. So he's in the minority and he needs to explain to the American public why he's opposed to a balanced budget amendment.
But what I perceive as coming towards the Democrats is, the Democrats say the rich need to bear more of the burden. That seems to be their big mantra in the last week or so. And I would say OK. The rich can bear more of the burden. Why don't we have the rich pay the full cost of their Medicare and have the rich take reduced Social Security benefits? That is the way the rich can absorb more of the burden.
But I don't want to increase taxes, because even if you tax rich people or corporations, it really is taxing everyone, because you will have less jobs and it will hurt the economy. The reason tax revenue is down is that we're growing at such a slow rate.
If we could grow again, if our economy could get out of the recession, we'd have plenty of revenue.
KING: So on the tax issue then, you have no wiggle room? Because the president made the case today, he said, look what Bill Clinton did in the 1990s. He raised taxes on wealthy Americans and the economy was booming. George Bush cut them and we had a much more sluggish economy. So the current president makes the case that Bill Clinton is proof that if you have modest tax increases on the rich, it won't have the impact on job growth that many Republicans argue. PAUL: Well, about two weeks ago most Republicans voted to get rid of the ethanol credit. We have shown that we're willing to get rid of some credits and deductions. But even that should be a balanced approach.
Most of us think that, if you would lower overall rates and get rid of deductions, you would have an enormous boom. When President Reagan was here and they lowered rates to 28 percent, he had 6 percent growth in one year and he actually had more revenue.
When tax rates were at 90 percent, you brought in about 18 percent of GDP in revenue. When tax rates were 28 percent, you brought in 18 percent. I don't think increasing rates will bring in more revenue. You need to bring in more revenue by growing the economy. We're in this horrible recession, and that's why we don't have revenue coming in.
KING: And so I want to be as clear as we can be for anybody watching out there as we head into the final two weeks. Senator Rand Paul says you're open to more revenues if they come from closing loopholes, but you're not going to touch anything that raises rates?
PAUL: Well, rates can't go up. And I would say that even closing loopholes needs to be done in conjunction with actually lowering rates so you spur the economy.
But I would say the area where I think we could compromise, if the Democrats are insistent that rich bear more of the burden, let's do it on the benefits side, not on the tax side. And we basically can get to the same goal and find a compromise by saying, look, rich people should pay more of the cost of their Medicare and rich people probably will have to settle for less benefits from Social Security. That would fix a lot of the problem.
KING: And do you see your leadership willing to make that position, or as you criticize some of the president's position, are some Republican leaders, whether it be Leader McConnell on the Senate side or Speaker Boehner on the House side, are some of them opposed to what you're talking about there, especially Medicare and Social Security, the third rails, touching the entitlements of American politics? Is your leadership being too timid?
PAUL: No. I think if we work together, I think all Republicans are willing to do it.
Unfortunately, see, the other side is not coming to us. They have been putting ads on TV saying we're going to push grandma off a cliff. And as long as they keep it at that level, we're going to have a divided country and get nowhere.
KING: I want to read you something that "New York Times" columnist David Brooks wrote the other day. He said: "If the Republican Party were a normal party, it would take advantage of this amazing moment. It is being offered the deal of the century, trillions of dollars in spending cuts in exchange for a few hundred million dollars of revenue increases." David Brooks going on to say that if somehow all of this collapses, it is you, the Republicans, who will be blamed. Is he right?
PAUL: I think part of the problem is they're talking about $2 trillion in spending cuts, but over a 10- to 15-year period. We can't bind future Congresses, so there's no guarantee that any of those cuts ever occur.
Larry Lindsey had an article in "The Wall Street Journal" the other day and he said, if interest rates go up two points, you will have five trillion extra in spending on interest. If you look at the exploding charts on spending and debt, it's going to be driven by interest in the next 10 years.
So I don't think we can count on and trust Congress to do what they say they're going to do for 10 years. I don't personally trust the body of Congress to do what they say or any of their promises. That's why I would only trust it if we actually amended the Constitution to say, you have to balance your budget.
KING: We will watch how this plays out over the big next two weeks.
Senator Rand Paul, thanks for your time tonight.
PAUL: Thank you.
KING: Just ahead, Marcia Clark and Jeffrey Toobin with more on tonight's breaking news on Casey Anthony.
KING: And coming up: all of tonight's breaking news in the Casey Anthony case. Jurors speak out about the not-guilty verdict.
And Anthony's attorney, Jose Baez, talks about whether the verdict was justice for little Caylee.
Plus, we will take a look at what's next for Casey Anthony, who could be a free woman as early as tomorrow.
Also tonight, Marcia Clark, she was the prosecutor from O.J. Simpson's murder trial. She says the verdict in the Anthony trial even worse than the O.J. verdict. We will talk to her coming up.
KING: As we mentioned off the top, breaking news tonight in the Casey Anthony case. As trial watchers continue to reel from the verdict, two jurors now speaking out. In an exclusive interview with ABC, juror No. 3 said she and the rest of the jury were sick to their stomachs and crying after the verdict. She says it came down to the fact there wasn't enough evidence to convict Anthony. Juror No. 2 says essentially the same thing. He told "The St. Petersburg Times" he wishes there was enough evidence to, quote, "put her away."
Also speaking out today, Casey Anthony's defense attorney. Jose Baez told Barbara Walters he thinks justice was served for both Casey and Caylee.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
JOSE BAEZ, ATTORNEY FOR CASEY: I think Caylee would never have wanted her mother to suffer this way. And Caylee certainly would never have wanted her mother to die. And I don't think we could have dishonored Caylee's memory with a false conviction. And that's what would have happened if she were found guilty of her murder.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
KING: As early as tomorrow, Casey Anthony will be a free woman. But the legal wrangling isn't over. Once again, here's Martin Savidge.
MARTIN SAVIDGE, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): Stunned by its loss in the Casey Anthony trial, the state of Florida tonight is filing a motion to tax Anthony for what it called special costs of investigation and prosecution. In other words, bill her for the state's police and legal work. Any money she makes as a result of her fame could go to those costs.
In addition, there is a potential civil suit. Remember Anthony's original claim that her daughter was kidnapped by her nanny, who she identified as Zenaida Gonzalez? The story was a lie, but police actually tracked down and questioned a woman by the same name. Now, that woman is planning to sue Anthony for defamation. Both suits greet Anthony as she potentially walks free tomorrow.
The four guilty verdicts could mean a total sentence of about four years. The big question is would that time be served concurrently, all at the same time, or consecutively, meaning one after another?
VINNIE POLITAN, HOST, HLN'S "SPECIAL REPORT": That's going to depend on how the judge sees these four count. Does he see them as four lies about the same thing? Or four separate acts?
SAVIDGE: Even if the judge decided to give her the max time, consecutively, she's already served three years. Allowing for what in Florida is called gain time and good behavior, any additional sentence might be a wash.
There are some potential complicating factors. Casey Anthony already has a felony conviction, check fraud. And the judge might take that into account. POLITAN: This prior conviction, which occurred during the 31 days, by the way, for this check fraud, is going to hurt her. Because on that score sheet that the judge has, that's now going to put her closer to one year than it would to probation.
SAVIDGE: So let's say Casey gets to walk. It won't be out the front door of the courthouse. A statement from the Orange County Corrections Department says that, "due to the high-profile nature of this case, and intense emotional interest, appropriate measures will be taken to release the acquitted into the community in such a manner so as to preserve the safety of the acquitted individual and the public."
But where would Casey go? Given the way the trial seemed to bitterly divide the Anthony family, it seems unlikely she'll go live with Mom and Dad. Instead, her legal team is likely to whisk her away to points unknown.
Martin Savidge, CNN, Orlando.
KING: Not since O.J. Simpson was found not guilty has there been such a strong public reaction to a jury verdict. Marcia Clark was the prosecutor in the Simpson trial and is the author now of the novel "Guilt by Association." She joins us. And back with us, our senior legal analyst, Jeffrey Toobin. Marcia is no stranger to controversial verdicts.
You think this one even more shocking than the Simpson verdict. Why?
MARCIA CLARK, FORMER PROSECUTOR: Well, I do. I do. Because in the Simpson case we began with someone who was a nationally-recognized football star, a star of television and the big screen in "Naked Gun." People already had an opinion of what they thought of him. And it certainly wasn't murderer.
And there was also, of course, the Rodney King trial, which polarized racial attitudes in the -- especially in Los Angeles.
So we came into it with a whole lot of attitudes that had nothing to do with the evidence and had everything to do with how people felt about this particular defendant. And that was all brought to bear in the trial, as a result of that, and from the very beginning of the case and all the way through. There were many who understood and believed that there would be no way to secure a conviction.
In this case, Casey Anthony, there was no such belief about Casey, Casey Anthony. No one knew her. This is a woman who's accused of killing her baby. Unfortunately, this is not the first time a mother has been charged and we have been aware of that case, Susan Smith, Andrea Yates. Now, those are different cases, but still it's a mother killing a child. Not something that has never been heard of before. And we don't have any feelings about Casey Anthony in terms of, oh, she's a wonderful person. We can't believe she would do this. So you don't start out with that kind of bias.
And then, of course on top of that, I do believe that this was a strong circumstantial case in which she was proven to have been guilty. Guilty of what might be a more debatable issue. But certainly guilty of a homicide.
KING: Well, so Jeff, come in on that point. More shocked than the O.J. verdict? Especially when you hear these accounts now of the jurors coming out where two of them essentially saying, "We wish we could have convicted her but the state just fell short"?
JEFFREY TOOBIN, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: You know, I thought that Marcia and her colleagues proved O.J. Simpson guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. I think that verdict was a terrible, terrible miscarriage of justice.
I am less certain about this case. I think the jurors' comments showed that the jurors did what jurors are supposed to do. They listened to the instructions from the judge, and they weighed whether the government proved its case.
And I could definitely see, particularly on the first-degree murder count, how they found the evidence wanting.
Obviously, anyone who listened to this case, who heard about this mother waiting 30 days to report her daughter missing, you couldn't help but be outraged. You couldn't help but think this is a bad person and a bad mother. But that wasn't the charge. The charge was first-degree murder. And I could definitely see how the jurors found that she was not guilty, given the proof that was presented.
KING: And we had this debate after the O.J. verdict. We've had it after over controversial verdicts. Marcia, it calls into question for some the efficacy of the jury system. Should it?
CLARK: We can't help but question when a verdict comes out the way we don't think it should, when we disagree with a verdict. First place we go. Wow, why don't we abolish the jury and find another way to do it?
I say let's consider or let's reconsider the practice we have of sequestering juries. I'm not so sure this is the answer to getting juries that are most fair and most unbiased. I think we have to think again about how we manage these high-profile cases.
I think a sequestered jury is one that actually attains a different mindset. There's a group dynamic that I think occurs in which they need consensus, because they can't go home and -- they can't disagree with the people in the jury room and then go home to their places and feel safe and secure. They have to get along with these people. They become a family with them. And long -- and also a family with the people in the courtroom. I think that creates a mindset where they desire consensus, and they actually have a visceral reaction against disagreeing with one another that is not the same thing that a regular jury might have. And I think that may produce these kinds of unusual verdicts, especially if you have a couple of leaders in there that were no friends to the prosecution and were able to pull the rest of the jurors along.
It's something that's a group dynamic that I think deserves study and serious consideration.
KING: And Marcia, you first and Jeff I want your views on this, as well. What about now the idea should these jurors, because this case received so much attention, there could be money to be made out there. Should they be allowed to capitalize on what is essentially performing a civic duty?
CLARK: Well, we have a law now in California that prevents it ever since -- Jeff is laughing because he knows.
TOOBIN: I know.
CLARK: But they did. I mean, the jurors went out right away. They sold interviews, and they sold a book. And, you know, the problem is this, you know. I'm not saying that these jurors got into this particular case for the purpose of selling a book or selling interviews.
But let's face it. If you want to be absolutely sure that jurors are not getting into a case for the purpose of finding book deals later on, then put this rule in that we have in California which says you may not profit, sell anything related to this trial for 90 days after the verdict. And I think that's a good way of ensuring that no one gets on the jury for an improper purpose.
TOOBIN: Just parenthetically, Marcia will remember this better than I will. The O.J. case was so crazy. There were books written during the trial by jurors who were dismissed during the trial. I mean, that -- that, I mean, will never happen again.
I don't think you need a lot of rules. These cases are very unusual. If people want to write books, I don't see any problem with that.
People have a very false idea about the book publishing industry, that publishers are throwing around hundreds of thousands of dollars in these cases. I don't think there's a lot of interest in a book by the jurors here. I doubt Casey Anthony herself is going to get some enormous amount of money if she wants to write a book.
You know, I just think making any sort of rules based on these very aberrational cases is probably not a very good idea.
CLARK: I don't think it's such -- OK. Sorry. KING: I was going to say quickly on this one. So the state loses on the three felonies, wins on the four misdemeanors. Jeff Toobin, can the state of Florida tax or somehow try to take back money to get money from Casey Anthony to pay for the prosecution?
TOOBIN: I think that is such a bogus move by the state. You know what happened in this state? Casey Anthony won, and the state lost. The state's got to deal with that fact. Maybe they should be better at their jobs, not trying to sue the winner of this case. I just think that is silly, trivial, demeaning to all concerned.
KING: Any disagreement, Marcia?
CLARK: I do. I think that -- well, I know that we frequently do, and in California, it's an absolute mandatory that every defendant is fined, whether win, lose or draw. As a matter of fact, especially if they lose and they are convicted. They are fined, and they get restitution fines, and they can be very substantial.
Look, we're all in dire straits financially, and when a case costs undue amount of money and there's extra costs, really, should the taxpayer bear that cost? Why shouldn't the defendant bear the cost? She was convicted, after all. She wasn't completely acquitted of this case. So to the extent that she was convicted, I don't think there's anything wrong with fining a defendant. I have no problem with it.
KING: Love to see how they figure out that math. She gets off on the felonies, convicted of misdemeanors. How do you make that calculation? We'll see how that one goes forward.
Marcia Clark, Jeffrey Toobin, thanks for being with us
Still ahead here, tonight could be the last night that Casey Anthony spends behind bars. If she walks free after tomorrow's sentencing what will she face on the outside and what will it take to rebuild her life? Dr. Drew Pinsky next.
KING: In "Crime & Punishment," more on the Casey Anthony verdict and what comes next. After tomorrow's sentencing, Casey Anthony could very well walk out of the courthouse a free woman. Free but also infamous in the eyes of many, despite her acquittal.
During her trial her character was shattered by the testimony of others and by her own lies preserved on tape.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: We're tired of the lies. No more lies. What happened to Caylee?
CASEY ANTHONY, ACQUITTED OF MURDER: I don't know.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: You do know. CASEY ANTHONY: I don't know where she is. That is the God's honest truth.
They never searched by her full name, Z-E-N-A-I-D-A. and I know she went by both last names. She always has since she was younger, since her mom remarried. Victor and Gloria are her parents.
CINDY ANTHONY, MOTHER OF CASEY: Victor and Gloria are her parents.
CASEY ANTHONY: I know she has a lot of money. That's where she got the car from. She has his last name and her mother's last name.
CINDY ANTHONY: Oh, he adopted her?
CASEY ANTHONY: He adopted her. He legally adopted her, yes.
CINDY ANTHONY: What message do you want me to give to Zanny and to Caylee?
CASEY ANTHONY: That she needs to return Caylee.
I as a mom, I know in my gut there's feelings. You know certain things about your child. You can feel that connection. And I still have that feeling, that presence. I know that she's alive.
KING: Now, remember, the defense said Caylee drowned in the family pool weeks before Casey made those statements. Even her own lawyers admitted Casey excels at lying. So it's hard to know whether to believe what Casey wrote to a fellow prison inmate about having more kids.
She wrote, quote, "I had a dream not too long ago that I was pregnant. It was like having Cays all over again. I've thought about adopting, which even sounds weird to me saying it, but there are so many children that deserve to be loved."
Now Cays was a nickname Casey used for Caylee. So does she really have a plan to have more children? For many, no doubt that's a disturbing thought. I talked earlier to Dr. Drew Pinsky, the host of HLN's "Doctor Drew," about what comes next for Casey Anthony.
KING: So Dr. Drew, Casey Anthony could be free as early as tomorrow. We expect her to be free very soon. Then what? How does she -- we don't know of a home. We don't know of any resources. We know of a severely dysfunctional family. How does this most infamous defendant reintegrate herself to civilian life?
DR. DREW PINSKY, HOST, HLN'S "DOCTOR DREW": It's a great question. And not only is there a dysfunctional family; there's a family that has been thrown under the bus and shattered by the proceedings of this case. I don't see her going home maybe ever. I mean, I don't see how this family reconciles. There's just so much blood that's been drained out of the system. It's almost impossible to heal something like this.
The other issue is that I think she's physically in harm's way. I've seen -- if you check YouTube today and look at people's outrage, and the kind of incredible fury and frenzy that people are worked up into now, I actually think she's going to have to probably go into hiding for awhile.
Then there's the issue of how she makes a living and how she pays back the state for whatever she owes for the trial. Unfortunately, I think that's kind of a disgusting part of this story, which is that she is likely to capitalize on this -- these proceedings.
KING: Let's -- let's walk through this, then. Because you say likely to capitalize. There will be a financial opportunity for her book, selling her story because of how dramatic and how fascinating and how much of a capture of the imagination here she has had.
But you just mentioned, she needs psychological help. I think you'd believe that without a doubt. She's going to have to deal with perhaps fear of threats against her. If you were counseling her, what would you tell her? What would the steps be?
PINSKY: You know, it depends what's going on with her. You know, one of the interesting part about this case has been the mystery. There's so many empty sets, so many unanswered questions. One of which is, what is going on in her head that she is such an outrageous consummate liar? How could she have no empathy for a child that has died and behaved as a mother in the fashion in which she has?
And it adds up to, you know, either sociopathy or severe borderline kinds of syndromes. I've talked to her ex fiance who said she had a seizure disorder. There may be more biological processes.
I mean, this is somebody who is profoundly impaired and may not be particularly amenable to traditional kinds of treatment interventions. I mean, she -- everyone that I've talked to that knows her talks about how severely impaired she is and how quickly you come to -- come to realize that when you get to meet her.
KING: And if all her energy, all her focus the past three years has been on the lies, on trying to escape the law system here, what happens when you're out? Is there a letdown in some ways? I don't know if that's the right word. What happens? The procedures are over. She's back on the street. The case is behind her. Then what?
PINSKY: What you see is, you know, one of two things. If she is indeed primarily a criminal is you will see more criminal behavior. I mean, O.J. Simpson, I hope, has taught everybody that. That these people go out and do the same thing all over again in some fashion. They're their own worst enemy.
If this is primarily a sick person, which as we begin to hear more about this case, and people begin talking now that the case is over, there's a lot of impairment here. Very, very clearly. If she's a sick person, she will continue to create the chaos and vortex that we've all gotten sucked into.
I mean, think about it. One young woman's behavior has sucked hundreds of lives into her vortex. She is capable of a lot of damage, whether or not she's a murder. So we will see more of that kind of chaos.
KING: We just saw some images there of her in prison talking to her mother and her father. You don't see any reintegration of this family. There are some blockbuster allegations she made against particularly her father during the trial.
KING: But what about them? We saw them walk out during the verdicts being read. What about the pieces of that family? Can that be put back together? The husband and the wife?
PINSKY: Possibly. What we don't know is whether or not -- you know, a marriage under stress is at risk. And God knows this is a situation of profound stress. Sometimes people pull together in situations like this and feel like one another is a lifeline. They feel more attached to that person. Or the whole affair pulls them apart.
We just don't know what these two are experiencing. And I think the next few weeks will tell.
KING: Potentially more bizarre to come. Dr. Drew Pinsky, thanks.
KING: Up next, more "Crime & Punishment." Reputed mobster Whitey Bulger faces a judge and enters a plea to charges including 19 murders, many allegedly committed while was an informant for the FBI.
KING: A lot happening tonight. Isha joins us again with a "360 News & Business Bulletin" -- Isha.
ISHA SESAY, CNN CORRESPONDENT: John, in Boston reputed mobster James "Whitey" Bulger pleaded not guilty to all counts against him, including his alleged role in 19 murders.
Bulger was captured in California late last month after 16 years on the run.
Fort Hood shooting suspect Major Nidal Hasan could face the death penalty if found guilty at his future court martial. The decision came from a U.S. Army general today.
Hasan is accused of killing 13 people at Fort Hood, Texas, in 2009. Shares of NewsCorp fell 4 percent this afternoon after allegations surfaced that journalists from one of its British newspapers hacked the voice mails of celebrities, politicians and even a murdered girl and father of a bombing victim. The scandal involves some staff of the "News of the World" tabloid.
Rupert Murdoch, who runs the media empire, called the allegations, quote, "deplorable and unacceptable."
And John, "Forbes" magazine is out with its list of top-earning women in Hollywood. And there is a tie for the top spot. Yes, you guessed it. Those ladies on the screen, Angelina Jolie and Sarah Jessica Parker each earned an estimated $30 million last year, John.
KING: Is that all? Only $30 million last year?
SESAY: Only that. But I will say if you find yourself hanging out with those ladies, be sure to make them pay for the drinks, OK?
KING: Yes. Absolutely. I'm waiting for that moment to happen, Isha.
SESAY: Keep me posted.
KING: I will indeed. And we'll be right back with more on tonight's breaking news in the Casey Anthony saga.