tv CNN Newsroom CNN March 26, 2013 8:00am-9:00am PDT
governor of getting it done. you know how to dance... with a deadline. and you...rent from national. because only national lets you choose any car in the aisle... and go. you can even take a full-size or above, and still pay the mid-size price. this is awesome. [ male announcer ] yes, it is, business pro. yes, it is. go national. go like a pro.
#. talk back question, if you fly, should you have to pay what you weigh? from wally, we live in a free market. if the airlines feel it costs more, they have a right to recoup the cost. there don, not father at all. someo and from tom, i'd pay a fee for adding more weight. so nice of you, tom. thank you so much for participating and joining in on the conversation. thank you so much for joining me today. newsroom continues now. thank you, carol. i'm ashley banfield. amanda knox may not be not guilty. believe it or not. the highest court in italy
ordered a brand new murder trial for the young american who was acquitted of killing her roommate. the highest court in america takes up a case that is supremely personal. do same-sex couples have a right to get married? who has the right to decide? and a domestic violence expert returns to the witness stand in the jodi arias murder trial. arias claims she slashed and stabbed and shot travis alexander in self-defense. what does the domestic violence expert say. a bombshell dropped by italy's supreme court. it wants amanda knox to go to trial again for murder. remember, she was quiblgtsed c the murder of her roommate, but that was overturned by an appeals court. that court cited shod candy work by the prosecutors for the decision that they reached. paul callan joins me live here in new york. first of all, explain how this
works. because so many people have tossed out double jeopardy. why would we extradite her. there is no clear cut answer. effectively what are we looking at? >> very complicate because the italian system is so different from ours. in america, you have a jury trial. if the jury acquits you, that's the end of the case. double jeopardy applies. >> constitutional right not to be tried twice. >> for the same offense. but the question is when is the trial finished. the italians say this is our system. she was tried in a lower court and by the way their jurors consist of a judge with laypeople, sort of a mixed bag. then it goes up to an appellate court. and you know what, they start over again. they have a complete trial. but the judges look at the legal issues and then it goes up finally to the italian supreme court. >> before you get to the italian supreme court, because that's where effectively we may be headed with this, when they acquitted her, and i use those
words because when translated, their judgment just before she left that country was acquittal. in our language that means definite. >> that means end of the story in american language. the italian judge who issued a 144 page decision said we acquit her of the murder. >> but whose definition do we use when it comes to whether this country will send that young woman back there if necessary? do we use our language in america, acquittal is acquittal, we're not sending her pack, or do we use the italian's language which was acquittal is not really acquittal, the final process hasn't been finished? >> there is where the really smart criminal lawyers who do international cases occasionally come into play. ted simon also does international cases and his contention ultimately will be that she cannot be brought back to italy because fundamentally double jeopardy has come into play. but he won't make that argument yet. he's a very smart guy.
and he's waiting for the final written decision of the italian supreme court to see precisely why the case was reversed. we haven't seen the details so he's laying back a bit as a good lawyer should do. >> one thing we do know for sure, also an unusual circumstance, she doesn't have to be present for the next process. she doesn't have to sit in that courtroom for this process. what will be fascinating, though, is if they render a guilty verdict, does that mean this country's government really has a tough decision to make. >> if the lower court issues a guilty finding, it can go up on appeal again to the italian supreme court and it's still not over. >> could be years. paul, thank you. we'll talk more about this in a moment. but i want to zip to washington, d.c. because there is a place that exists to tackle big cases, the supreme court and it's buzzing. because a huge case potentially leading to a monumental decision is being argued in the most
hallowed halls as we speak. you know it as prop 8, the california referendum passed by the voters there, but overturned by the lower courts there. a decision that would outlaw same-sex marriage in that state. a supreme court ruling could do a few things. it could clear the way for same-sex marriage in every state of the union. or it could do so for some states. or it could do that for no states at all. or it could decide to do nothing at all. the arguments began last hour and they should be winding down shortly and we could see the opposing parties come streaming out of those doors of that building in just minutes. this is a live picture. and by the way, outside the court is shannon travis and he's surrounded by a lot of voices and a lot of people. when i say a lot of people, i'm not exaggerating.
there are forces for and against. they have had to be core doned in to areas for keep the order and there is an additional security presence, too, right? >> reporter: absolutely. you mentioned the arguments inside the court. there are loud arguments outside the court here, protesters for and against same-sex marriage want to give you a sense of what we've been looking at. look across the street there. there is the capitol in the background directly across from the supreme court building. take a look at some of these signs. we've been watching opponents of same-sex marriage for a while now. basically holding up signs that say protect the sanctity of marriage. you see another group of protesters down here basically saying equality across america. obviously they are supporters of same-sex marriage. behind me, more protest arers i the distance. inside, back to the arguments you were talking about inside, pro and against, obviously we're talking about proposition 8, that california measure that
banned same-sex marriage. you'll hear inside the arguments against same-sex marriage basically a few things. one, conservatives many people who oppose same-sex marriage have traditionally been saying the definition of marriage is between one man and one woman and you also hear them saying voters in 2008 app pro proved t measure. obviously the arguments against same-sex marriage, they'll say the constitution provides protection for same-sex couples to get married and they'll also say justices should apply a higher standard, a stricter standard when it comes to discriminating against gays and less pea bian lesbians. >> shannon travis watching it all unfolding for us. thank you. i want to remind our viewer what is a big deal this is. sometimes you know by the names involved how big a deal a case can be. look, if it's at the supreme court, it's big. but when you have ted olson and
david boies arguing for this, they are he on the same side on this one and they're argue against prop 8. and the solicitor general, the guy who is the government's lawyer, is joining forces with those two. on the other side of it, dennis collinsworth who has essentially been the backbone in support of prop 8 to protect what he calls is the legal definition of marriage. so big players. high stakes. and all coming to a head momentarily. so we have the live cameras trained. we can't hear it and can't see it because the supreme court doesn't let us yet. they will release tapes later in the day. we will hear some of the arguments. but our best coverage of in will come from our attorneys and our reporters who will come streaming out of those doors just as soon as the arguments wrap up. and later in the hour, we'll talk to our legal panel, as well, about just how important this case is and how this is a moment you will likely not forget.
want to take a look now at some of our top stories and the markets being one of them. take a look at how close we are to being up 100 points in the dow today. up 96 and change. stock market's been over for about 90 minutes now. continuing to watch the big board to see how this day will progress. david petraeus is returning to the spotlight for the first time since he resigned over the extramarital affair. the very messy extramarital affair. "new york times" is reporting that general petraeus will begin with an apology when he speaks apan eve a at an even event tonight honoring veterans. a florida woman accused of trying to kill her husband lost it. no other way to say it. lost it in court. have a look. that's an outburst. apparently triggered when the judge denied her bond. she told police that she stabbed her husband because he abused
her. by the way, that's the same judge who got the middle finger from another person in that same courtroom just within the last month. a heartbroken mother is calling for the death penalty for a teenager accused of killing her boy. you can't do that in country, but you can tell how devastated this has been. 13 month old shot in his stroller in brunswick, georgia last week. two teenagers charged with murder. a 15-year-old and a 17-year-old both in court yesterday. the baby's mother talked to piers morgan. >> they're being charged with felony murder. and i just -- i just hope, you know, that the shooter dies. i mean, i had to watch high baby die and i want him to die. a life for a life. and the young one, he was an
accessory, an accomplice. i hope that he gets a juvenile correctional facility to age 21 and a consecutive life sentence in state prison. >> the mother of the 15-year-old says her son wasn't involved. neither teenager has yet entered a plea in this case. want to take you now to the jodi arias trial in phoenix. we're getting close an end. 112 jury questions came over two days and that was just for the psychologist the defense put forward. richard samuels finally wrapped up his testimony yesterday, but not before some real fireworks erupted and a nasty accusation from the prosecutor. >> we've discussed this and the question was isn't it true that she discussed thoughts, feeling, conversations associated with the trauma in the 48 hours intervi interview. >> yes. >> so again that speaks against
what's in number one, doesn't it? >> sorry, i don't see it that way. >> you wouldn't see it that way because you have feelings for the defendant. >> i beg your pardon, sir. >> beg your pardon, sir. all right. so next up, the defense's final witness. she's a domestic violence expert. she will be back on the stand about an hour from now, so she's probably getting ready as we speak. her system again expected to last all week long. jodi arias says she killed her ex-boyfriend, but she says she did it in self-defense because he attacked her she says. but those who knew him say he was not a violent person. in some audio that was obtained by hln's dr. drew on call, we hear from the victim. he was a motivational speaker and he had a great sense of humor and this may be the last known audio recording of travis. >> there's two things they say as a public speaker you should
never talk about. one is religion and the other is politics. i usually talk about religion, but tonight i'm going to talk about politics. >> again audio recordings, possibly the last known ones of the victim in this case. the accused, jodi arias, seems to have gone to a lot of trouble to get the police going in circles early on. did she think she could outsmart them? how her actions could give away what she was really thinking. [ male announcer ] this is kevin.
to prove to you that aleve is the better choice for him, he's agreed to give it up. that's today? [ male announcer ] we'll be with him all day as he goes back to taking tylenol. i was okay, but after lunch my knee started to hurt again. and now i've got to take more pills. ♪ yup. another pill stop. can i get my aleve back yet? ♪ for my pain, i want my aleve. ♪ [ male announcer ] look for the easy-open red arthritis cap.
...and we inspected his brakes for free. -free is good. -free is very good. [ male announcer ] now get 50% off brake pads and shoes at meineke. prosecutors say jodi arias thought she was so smart and she told "inside edition" that she'd be a free woman after the trial. >> no jury will convict me. >> why not? >> because i'm innocent. and you can mark my words on that. no jury will convict me. >> she says she says that because she was planning to kill herself. here she is smiling in her mug shot. when that picture was taken, she was thinking she was also smart enough to fool the police perhaps because she rented a car in redding, california, a 90
minute drive away from where she lived. she drove that car to travis's house. prosecution says she staged a burglary at her grandparent's house to hide the theft of a handgun, the same caliber used to shoot trach advialexander. and her boyfriend loaned her two 5-gallon gas cans that were never returned. the camera hidden inside a washing machine. she also planned a date with another man right after the killing. prosecution says that was supposed to be her ally by. so if you're trying to plan the perfect crime on paper, that might work. but when you have beth karas and vinnie politan and ryan smith, those three have seen a thing or
two about people who think they can outsmart the cops. beth, how many cases have you covered in which you find criminals who think they're smarter than forensics and police? >> well, a lot of them do. i handled a lot of cases in my eight years as a prosecutor in manhattan, but the bulk of the cases plead out. you strike a deal. only a fraction actually go to trial. so there are many cases, though, where defendants do think they can outsmart the place, casey anthony, and she did, and of course jodi arias is one of them, but not all are like that. >> i don't know if casey anthony outsmarted the police. i don't know that the prosecutors did their job. but i'll move on from that or my head will pop right off. vinnie politan, we have covered the same case, a young man named justin barber in florida who went for a romantic walk with his wife and ultimately
convicted of shooting her in the head. but the police say he really did an elaborate job of trying to stage this thing by shooting himself, but googling essentially how to shoot yourself without dying. what countries tonight extradite you for murder. and also he done loaded a guns and roses song used to love her and then deleted her, only one song that he deleted. also searched for florida divorce. he had a $2 million life insurance policy on his wife. is this another example of a guy who thinks he's so smart and yet his digital footprints come back to bite him? >> absolutely. and we don't catch the real smart ones. we only catch the ones who think they're smart. or the really dumb once. and we've seen that, as well. the bottom line is the world has changed and what investigators can to forensically in tracking town what down what you did on a computer, what you leave at the scene of a
killing is incredible and changed and evolved so much in the last 10, 15 years that it's a brand new world out there and it's much, much more difficult to try it get away with something when you're an amateur killer. >> there are what i like to call kn molecular smoking guns out. a woman this new jersey killed her husband, put him in luggage and tossed him into the water. about unfortunately, the suitcases washed up on shore and there were garbage bags used inside that matched the triations of the bags in her home. she also bought a .38 caliber gun two days before. surveillance video of her was found moving her husband's car where she said he disappeared from instead of from her home. i couldn't help but think that many of the things, ryan, in the case of jodi arias seemed similar to melanie mcguire's, just so much things set up to
look a certain way but on scientific analysis look another. >> exactly. and as vinnie was saying, scientific analysis tells the story. and if you have those inconsistencies, then a jury will focus on that and say, hey, wait a second, this doesn't make sense. so you look at all the things you lined up and you see a case like that, there are so many people that think they can outsmart the authorities. but when you have a situation like that with so many different things coming back to bite you, it is just impossible. >> and then as beth so aptly pointed out, we have a casey anthony. so who knows what will happen when the jury gets the case. thank you to all three of you. stand by if you will. i like to call the infamous tif. the top five countries in the world that execute the highest number of people. do you think the good old usa is on the list and if so, who are our brothers? find out. our examination of the death
penalty in this country because jodi arias is facing it. waking . connecting to the global phenomenon we call the internet of everything. ♪ it's going to be amazing. and exciting. and maybe, most remarkably, not that far away. we're going to wake the world up. and watch, with eyes wide, as it gets to work. cisco. tomorrow starts here.
if jodi arias is convicted of first-degree murder in the violent death of her boyfriend, she could become the fourth woman on death row in arizona. if she were convicted anywhere else, say like in most other countries on the planet, death would not be on the table for ms. arias. want to give issue death penalty statistics that might come as a surprise. take a look at this map. there are currently 58 countries in the world including the united states that use the death penalty. some others, china, cuba, india, iran, iraq, japan, north korea, saudi arabia. interesting brothers in this movement. there is, though, a movement to abolish the death penalty and the it's been you said wear fun
years. today the number is at 140 countries and this is for all crimes. not the united states, though. the u.s. was among the top five executioners in the world in 2011. and the company we keep in that statistic, the others in the top five? china, iran, saudi arabia, and iraq. some of those we say are state sponsors of terror, too. of the 50 united states, only 17 have abolished the death penalty, the most recent illinois. want to bring our legal panel back. beth karas, vinnie politan, ryan smith. beth, i want to start with you because you have been a prosecutor and we together and this whole team in fact have covered a lot of death penalty cases. and if you ask the average american out there, many would say they have no idea that we
share this death penalty with some of those very frightening other countries and not with most of the rest of the world. >> let me make an addition to what you just read. actually connecticut was the most recent state almost a year ago april 2012 they repealed the death penalty. it's not retroactive. it's anyone from that date nord. end of april last year. so now 17 states in the united states do not have it. 33 do have it. and it is shock to ing to many people because we're called the civilized world that does not have the western world, we're the only one that has the death penalty. there had been a trend for a while against the death penalty. i think that trend continues. authority carolina had a moratorium for a while. it was on the table to be repealed in connecticut and then
the pettitte family was murdered, they took it off the table and wrougbrought it back their trial. >> vinnie, i know there are a lot of people watching the television saying shut up already. for the worst of the worst, this is what they deserve. what if it's not a moral question and what if i take you back to just before the commercial break when i say science is so good, we can outsmart the bad guys. how good is science and how good is our handling of science if we're to be so perfect as to snuff someone's life out state sanctioned? >> the bottom line is life in prison is the alternative. but that's still a life. it's a life different than one outside, but still a life. and when you do a study of the lives that these killers, that these animals lead, you'll find that they actually have a life. there is awake up, there is a morning, there is a routine,
things that they do, things that they enjoy. the bottom line is it's up to each state to make its decision here and as long as it's applied properly and they get appeal after appeal after appeal and if there is evidence that comes forward, it's dealt with. the bottom line is we have it and when it's applied properly, i think it's appropriate. talk to some of these victims. >> i hear you and again, i'm going to hit this again and ryan, i want you to jump in on this. i don't think anybody out there doesn't agree that the people who perpetrated the horrific crimes against dr. petit and his family, innocent girls, raping and burning them alive, nobody will argue that these people are worth saving. but again, if we're as a society deciding to take someone's life, don't we have to be perfect across the board?
ryan, are we perfect in our system of jur ris jurisprudence? >> no. and let's talk about the people on death row for a long time, maybe convicted 20, 30 year as know when the technology was imperfect. so that's why we're seeing things like in texas where they're looking at some of the inconsistencies. that being said, i think the tough thing here is it's part of the moral fabric of our culture and when somebody is so ago grieved like for example dr. petit, his family wiped out in that way, there is a sense in our society that someone has to pay and that's why i think you'll see the debt penalty around in this country for a long, long time in many states because there needs to be for a lot of people that extreme punishment when such a heinous crime is committed. >> we need a one hour show and a very large panel to have an even greater discussion of this. because we've only just scratched the surface. thank you to all three of you.
very smart lawyers and i so appreciate your input. also remember watch hln ofafter dark. and again jodi arias is facing the death mpenalty. just ahead, we'll head back to washington, d.c. for rgt as that could change the way we see and perform marriage in the united states. [ male announ when it comes to the financial obstacles military families face, we understand. our financial advice is geared specifically to current and former military members and their families. life brings obstacles. usaa brings retirement advice. at od, whatever business you're in, that's the business we're in. with premium service like one of the best on-time delivery records and a low claims ratio, we do whatever it takes to make your business our business.
od. helping the world keep promises. mommy's having a french fry. yes she is, yes she is. [ bop ] [ male announcer ] could've had a v8. 100% vegetable juice, with three of your daily vegetable servings in every little bottle. i honestly loved smoking, and i honestly didn't think i would ever quit. [ male announcer ] along with support, chantix (varenicline) is proven to help people quit smoking.
it reduces the urge to smoke. it put me at ease that you uld smoke on the first week. [ male announcer ] some people had changes in behavior, thinking or mood, hostility, agitation, depressed mood and suicidal thoughts or actions while taking or after stopping chantix. if you notice any of these stop taking chantix and call your doctor right away. tell your doctor about any history of depression or other mental health problems, which could get worse while taking chantix. don't take chantix if you've had a serious allergic or skin reaction to it. if you develop these stop taking chantix and see your doctor right away as some can be life-threatening. tell your doctor if you have a history of heart or blood vessel problems, or if you develop new or worse symptoms. get medical help right away if you have symptoms of a heart attack or stroke. use caution when driving or operating machinery. common side effects include nausea, trouble sleeping and unusual dreams. with chantix and with the support system it worked for me. [ male announcer ] ask your doctor if chantix is right for you.
breaking news for you. we're being told right now that the oral arguments have just wrapped up at the supreme court of the united states on the issue of proposition 8. you can see some of the people streams down the steps and we expect to be hearing from some of the people who may be litigating and also those who can report on this. jeffrey toobin and joe johns are
ready and waiting to be able to analyze what they've heard and what they've seen. jeff toobin, i just need to know, how did it sound? give it all to me. whether we can read any tea leaves. >> this was a deeply divided supreme court and a court that seemed almost to be brokgroping an answer here. i'm now not in the business of making pre-particularses, but i think it is even hard he to predict the result of this case after hearing this argument. certainly it was clear that justice scolia and almost certainly roberts were very positive till to the idea of imposing same-sex marriage. it is quite clear the liberal justices seemed favorably disposed. chief justice kennedy as so often is the case did seem like he was in the middle and he said things that would give comfort
to both sides. he did not seem anxious to even resolving this case. he suggested a couple of times that perhaps in whole issue was premature. so kennedy did not seem to be seeking out the role that the court has presented to him, but he did seem to present the option to decide this case. and that's a brief summary. >> you mentioned conservative justices, but can you quickly brush othver the liberal justic, did they also seem just as entrance gent? >> there was a viv i had series of exchanges between justice kagan and charles cooper who was the lawyer opposing same-sex marriage. and charles cooper had made a number of arguments saying this is all about children, that marriage and children are
intimately connected. and justice kagan kept saying what about older people, what about people who can't have children or don't want to have children and chuck cooper didn't want to engage on that question very much. and finally justice kagan said could the state of california pass a law that says people over 55 can't get married because they can't have children. and he said what about older people, the man could have children will. and justice kagan said i assure you, if two 55-year-old people get married, they are not a lot of children coming from that marriage. >> joe john, i want to get color as to whether it seemed as though they may be inclined towards not deciding, whether there is jurisdiction to start with with the people who took up the banner to uphold prop 8. because that's one of the
building things here. >> it's as if the justices were trying to find an argument that they really liked. and it didn't look like they found any arguments they liked that much. the thing that struck me and i think struck both of us was justice kennedy who a lot of people said could be the swing vote and wrote a previous decision on gay rights, he was questioning whether this issue was properly before the court. so, yeah, there is a question about whether the court is ready to move on this. they also questioned the position of the united states. the united states government has taken this position that because california and a handful of other states all give most of the benefits of marriage to same-sex couples, then that's the same as going all the way. they didn't really buy that either. >> there seemed to be bipartisan
ho hostility to the position of the justice department which was that the eight state taks that civil unions is imper mishl. liberals were saying that you mean if you give all these rights, that's worse than giving no rights at all? and the solicitor general answered that question -- let me that had procedural question which i know is boring to a lot of people but may well be the resolution of this case, the attorney general and the governor of california have refused to defend this law. they don't think it's constitutional. so the question is who can defend the law. does anyone have standing, that is the legal right to defend the law. and there is a substantial argument that the people who are defending it don't have that legal right. >> they are not injured enough. isn't that the technical
language? >> right. just a small side note. justice scolia when talking about the attorney general of california kept referring to he doesn't want to defend the law, he doesn't want to defend the law. the attorney -- >> it's a she. yeah. that's crazy. are you kidding me? >> he kept referring to her rae pe repeatedly as a he. >> jeff, the last time we met on these steps in a circumstance like this,ae repeatedly as a he. >> jeff, the last time we met on these steps in a circumstance like this,e repeatedly as a he. >> jeff, the last time we met on these steps in a circumstance like this, repeatedly as a he. >> jeff, the last time we met on these steps in a circumstance like this,repeatedly as a he. >> jeff, the last time we met on these steps in a circumstance like this, it was about the affordable care act. and don't worry, i'm not going there. but i do want to get your feeling on the kinds of questions that we had from chief justice roberts. because at e time i remember we didn't get the sense that he might end up being the swing vote. but in this courtroom today, his cousin was sitting there listening and she is a gay woman who wants to be able to get married. and i didn't know if it had an
influence or if you could feel that. >> certainly she wasn't seated with the immediate family members. there is a family section, the justices have access to seats elsewhere in the courtroom. if he is sympathetic to his c s cousin's flight, i didn't sense that strongly. there was a lot of questions along these lines. which was we don't know what the expect of same sex parenting is on children. it's too new. there has only been several years of same sex parenting. may be good, may be bad. why don't we wait and let the states experiment. some states will have same-sex marriage, some will not, why do we the supreme court have to get involved in that process. and certainly justice scolia
said that rae peepeatedly. of course i should add clarence thomas didn't say anything as unusual. >> that was my question. >> didn't hear a peep from him. and by the way, one of the most fascinating exchanges was justice scolia again and again and again pressing ted olson for tell me when it was that gay marriage became a right -- same-sex marriage became a constitutional right. and again and again and again, ted olson wouldn't go there. just a fascinating exchange. what that has to do with the law, i couldn't tell you. >> well, all i can tell you to that and i don't know law from whatever, you do, but 14 times the supreme court justices have mentioned a fundamental right, marriage being a fundamental right. and their reasoning in the
supreme court in their opinions. okay. i know it's hard for you to hear with all that's going on there. thank you both for rushing to this camera position for give us that analysis and let us know what happened. we'll all meet again this three months for the opinion when it comes down. in the meantime, look, appellate law is so fascinating. it might bore you sometimes, but when you have a case like the one we just talked about and another case oversea, amanda knox, who spent four years in an italian prison before she was acquitted and sent home to come to her family in america? well, the appellate system strikes again. now italy's top court says come on back, we want to retry for you murder.
for over 75 years people ...with geico... ohhh...sorry!. director's voice: here we go. from the top. and action for over 75 years people have saved money with gecko so.... director's voice: cut it! ...what...what did i say? gecko? i said gecko? aw... for over 75 year...(laughs. but still trying to keep it contained) director's voice: keep it together. i'm good. i'm good. for over 75...(uncontrollable laughter). what are you doing there? stop making me laugh. vo: geico. saving people money for over seventy-five years. gecko: don't look at me. don't look at me. something this delicious could only come from nature. discover nectresse™. the 100%-natural no-calorie sweetener made from the goodness of fruit. nectresse™. sweetness naturally. mom? who's mom? i'm the giants mascot. eat up! new jammin jerk chicken soup has tasty pieces of chicken with rice and beans.
to his left, jeff boyd, they are partners in the case as plaintiffs in the prop 8 case. and they're speaking live. rest let's listen in. >> based upon the questions that the justices asked, i have no idea. the court has several ways to decide this case from a very broad sweeping conclusion with respect to the rights of our citizens in this country to a narrower ruling limited basically to california. the court never gives you an idea how they will decide it. they didn't today. they have obviously read the briefs. they care about the issues. and then we'll see what the court decides. we'll answer -- david and i will answer more questions, but i want everyone to hear from the individuals for whom this case is about, the real people, sandy and chris and jeff and paul who have been just everyone's hero right from the beginning of this case.
and we're just in love with them and we're so humbled by the fact that we get to speak for them in the united states supreme court. did you want to go first? >> i'm chris perry, plaintiff in the case just heard at the supreme court. in this country, as children, we learn that there is a founding principle that all men and women are created equal. and we want this equality because this is a founding principle. unfortunately with the passage of proposition 8, we learned that there are a group of people in california who are not being treated equaledly. and that was recognized by a federal court and the ninth circuit court. we look forward to a day when proposition 8 is finally and officially eliminated and equality is restored to the state of california. >> i'm sandy speer and i like
all americans live in equality. i also believe in our judicial system and i have great faith in it. but more than anything, i believe in love. and proposition 8 is a discriminatory law that hurts people. it hurts gays and lesbians in california and it hurts the children we're raising. and it does so for no good reason. it is our hope that we can move forward and remove this harm from society so that gays and lesbians in california can go back to their lives living equally long side their neighbors with the same rights and protections as everyone else. thank you all very much. >> two of the plaintiffs in this case, they have been married by the way since 2004, but their marriage was invalidated six months after their ceremony. they've been raising four sons. this was about marriage equality for them. though for those who stand up
for proposition 8, it's about the courts. i just wanted to ask you, i know this is difficult because as an attorney, as a former clinton adviser, as jack of all trades, you are also proponent for marriage equality as a gay attorney, as well. the argument on the other side is for voters rights. this must be very difficult for you for someone who supports democracy also to equate and yet not. >> it's not really that difficult because voters -- i don't really see it as an issue of voter's rights. the voters cannot vote to h amendment the constitution or vote in something that's unconstitutional. our principles of the constitution are more important than what voters decide. voters couldn't decide that women shouldn't have the right to vote say for instance or that we could have segregated schools. >> or slaves. >> but the interesting thing
about this is that our constitution is a living breathing document. that's the way the founding fathers set it out. so it is interesting how as we progress as a country and as how our culture anges, that we should see the constitution changing to fit different opportunities. but that was a very important moment. ted olson and david boies there with the four plaintiffs, this is their day. it sounds like from jeff toobin and joe johns that the justices were all over the place. so we'll have to wrat and sewai and equal rights for
gay enabled us list the partisan veil and shine the spotlight on the human faces. human faces of suffering. >> conversations at microphones continue i have to squeeze if a break. continuing to cover this live. if you want to listen to those at the podium outside the supreme court you can do so. when we come back a critical decision overseas for our own. amanda knox. is she not guilty and that's not subject to being tried again or might she once again have to go overseas and be tried for murder?
okay. so i'm the bad guy for being clean. you said it. ladies, let's not fight dirty. cascade kitchen counselor. see, over time, finish gel can leave hard-water film on your dishes and dishwasher. new cascade platinum's triple-action formula not only cleans your dishes, it helps keep your dishwasher sparkling. so we're good? don't do that. okay. [ female announcer ] cascade's best is new cascade platinum. our largest selection of lobster entrees, like lobster lover's dream or new grilled lobster and lobster tacos. come in now and sea food differently. now, buy one lobsterfest entree and get one 1/2 off with a coupon at redlobster.com.
humans. we are beautifully imperfect creatures living in an imperfect world. that's why liberty mutual insurance has your back, offering exclusive products like optional better car replacement, where if your car is totaled, we give you the money to buy one a model year newer. call... and ask an insurance expert about all our benefits today, like our 24/7 support and service, because at liberty mutual insurance, we believe our customers do their best out there in the world, so we do everything we can to be there for them when they need us. plus, you could save hundreds when you switch, up to $423. call... today. liberty mutual insurance -- responsibility. what's your policy?
released the statement, no matter what happens my family and i will face this continuing legal battle as we always have, confident with the truth and heads held high. here what happens her longtime american attorney sold sole dad o'brien a short time ago. >> it was pane fol receive the news she continues to feel as we do the charges are wholly unfounded and unfair. >> the supreme court of italy didn't do that much. we await their ruling for revision. the appellate court may simply continue to affirm her acquittal appearance is not required. not much has changed. >> richard rejoin me as lisa bloom. a legal analyst. this is not as simple as it sounds. two very different systems of
justice. one says she's's acquitted and ours says if she's acquitted you can't be retried. why is it not simple? >> the u.s. constitution provides double jeopardy applies throughout the united states. if acquitted in the u.s. the case is over, prosecution cannot appeal. look at o.j. simpson. once acquitted here, it's -- you're done. italy has a different system. it's a sovereign nation. they have their own system of laws and acquittal can be overturned. it's going to take a long time if ever for amanda knox to be returned to italy because she will fight extradition and bring up procedural irregularities. >> richard, let me ask you about the definition because in our system, if you are tried and convicted and then that conviction is thrown out on appeal, you can still be tried
again because you were not acquitted. it so happened their second level, appeal, said acquitted. is it just a matter of semant semantics. >> i'm not sure, i mean it's -- it gets lost in the translation, system of justice is not like ours and it's shocking to us because, as lisa said, once acquitted in the united states you're set free. >> when your guilty verdict is overturned because some policeman lied, let's say, you can still be tried again. you're not acquitted just because your verdict was tossed out. isn't that what the italians have done and used the word acquittal? >> i don't know. it seems to me it's shocking to us after what she's been through and it seems that the appellate court in italy found based upon the evidence they made evidentiary ruling that there was not enough evidence to convict her. if they made a ruling there's not enough evidence to