>> no immunity for trump.

an appeals court ruling the former president will have to answer for any of his efforts to overturn the last election. trump says that court shouldn't have the final say. and hope for a hostage deal. hamas, giving a quote, positive response for a framework agreement as secretary blinken says the u.s. is reviewing that reply now and will hold talks with israel tomorrow. >> plus, country music saying goodbye to a legend. with a complicated legacy. we are following these leaders of developing stories and many more coming in right here to cnn news central. >> a federal appeals court dealing a major legal blow to former president donald trump. the three judge panel rejecting trump's claims that he is immune from prosecution for alleged crimes that he committed while he was president. the decision is now opening the way for special counsel jack

smith to prosecute trump on multiple charges, accusing him of trying to undermine the 2020 election. the judges in the d.c. circuit court not only sided with the justice department, but they repeatedly eviscerated trump's behavior, after his 2020 defeat. the ruling said in part, quote, former president trump lacked any lawful discretionary authority to defy federal criminal law, and he is answerable in court for his conduct. with us, now we have cnn chief legal affairs correspondent paula reid. paula, trump spokesman says the former president plans to appeal this. how much time to his lawyers have? >> reporter: so, the circuit gave them until next tuesday to tell the supreme court that they intend to appeal. and then we will likely see a process play out where both sides of this case will be able to weigh in on whether they think the supreme court should get involved here. of course, trump's team would love to make another trip to the supreme court this year, because their strategy is really about delay. former members of his legal team have said publicly that

they don't believe this is really, truly, a winning issue on the merits for trump. so this is really about trying to drag this out. as long as they possibly can, and trying to get this trial pushed until after the november 2024 election. i would expect, of course, to see the special counsel say the supreme court does not need to weigh in, even though this would be an issue of first impression for the high court. i think they are also likely going to be relying heavily on this opinion we got today from these three appellate judges, where they found, quote, any executive immunity that may have protected trump while he served as president no longer protects him against this prosecution. breonna, one of the things that was so interesting about this opinion is they went far beyond just the constitutional analysis. eviscerated trump's theory of absolute presidential immunity, and his actions in and around january 6th, saying, quote, former president trump's stance would collapse our system of separated powers by placing the president beyond the reach of

all three branches. so as much as this is about constitutional questions, important, really untested questions, of constitutional powers and presidency, it's also about timing, brianna. so now we are watching to see how long it takes for this appeals request to play out. >> all right, we will be watching this critical period. paula, thank you. let's talk now with joan biskupic, she's a cnn senior supreme court analyst. joan, how likely is it that the supreme court is going to take up this appeal? >> reporter: well, it's a very strong opinion from the lower court. unanimous, well grounded, and just hits all the right notes for these justices. but, as well grounded as it is and how much it's consistent with court precedent in this area, they might feel it's theirs to decide. it is a question that has never been definitively answered, whether a former president can be absolutely immune from

criminal prosecution after he leaves office. and so i think it's going to cause some tensions behind the scenes, not just because this is an unanswered question, but because it's also donald trump. now, we have on thursday, the justices already are scheduled to hear arguments in an important case on whether he can even stay on state ballots. the colorado supreme court had ruled that he should be disqualified, because he engaged in insurrection on january 6th, 2021. so there was just all sorts of questions that the supreme court is already going to be deciding, having to do with donald trump, that will affect the upcoming election. but, this one, they could decide, look, it's been well handled by the d.c. circuit court of appeals, we don't need to intervene. but we are not going to know that right away. the justices have until -- donald trump has until february 12th, next monday, to let the court know that he wants to

appeal this. the justices then will set probably a very expedited briefing schedule for donald trump and jack smith, who's trying to currently prosecute the former president, for them to submit their filings. the justices next meet in private in a conference on february 16th. we can see some sort of order as soon as that, or it could take some time. if the justices decide to hear this case, breonna, they would likely let us know sooner rather than later, because that would mean that they would have to set a new schedule of getting the more substantive brief on the merits of this immunity claim to them, and they want to do it before we get to summer, when the election is practically underway. >> yeah, certainly. joan, thank you for that. we do appreciate it. boris? >> >> let spring and cnn anchor and chief legal analyst, laura coates. laura, did some of the language in the ruling itself stands out

to you? >> they were very pointed in their language. they are not mincing words, they are not pulling any punches. this was a definitive ruling by the court to say we do not have a blank check, you do not have all the power, and you certainly need to have a system of checks and balances where you cannot say that just by virtue of being in office you are not going to be held to account for things that happened that are outside of the official conduct. that's the most important aspect, here. they were not saying that there are no circumstances in which someone could have immunity from liability at the civil side, for official performance of duties. but they were saying that if it's not an official act, if it falls outside of that scope, you can be held to account. which is exactly what this -- really already contemplates for us. the other important part here was the idea of what role the impeachments have in the past two now influence this. before there was an argument

from the council by trump to suggest you can only go after a former president if they were first impeached, convicted, and removed from office. there was already met with a lot of skepticism, for us. but suffice to say, this court said, first of all, there's no double jeopardy attached for a political action like impeachment. and number two, that's not a criminal matter and it's still fair game. >> that line about trump collapsing the separation of powers with his view of presidential immunity stands out. the thing i thought was also interesting is that trump's team plans to appeal the court gave trump until monday to appeal to the supreme court. but i'm wondering what options do they have now? can they still put it in front of the entire panel of circuit appeals charges? >> well they could have that full review, that unbound review. remember, there is a wider number of judges that have heard the case. that's usually done to streamline the process, you can imagine the volume of cases

before the appellate court, and the streamline it by assigning different range of judges together to hear a particular case. but let's talk with the supreme court. they want to have it before the supreme court. if you're trump's team, because it might be a more productive process, the lab time to see if they want to take up the case. if they do, there's the oral argument calendar. then there's the briefing. you remember, there docket goes until june. so they don't have that much between june and the general election, should he secure that nomination. but in reality, the supreme court could keep their hands clean here. i think one of the reasons why this opinion is so thought about, is so comprehensive, is because it does invite the supreme court to say, will, hold on. what would we be examining on different grounds? is there actually a controversy before us? do we somehow want to have a different finessed point, or a totally different direction? and with their not being cases in this area and with frankly

the proposition of checks and balances being so clear, i wouldn't be surprised if the supreme court was a little bit reluctant to even weigh in, not just politically but because it's so thorough in the court below. laura, i'm also curious about the argument we've seen from trump. it was put out there again by his surrogates, moments after this decision, that presidents could go on trial after they've left office for actions they took. he specifically mentioned harry truman recently, getting prosecuted for the atom bomb under this view of the law by the appeals court. could ruling against immunity really open the door to that kind of prosecution? do you think this sets that kind of precedent? >> they were concerned about pandora's box being opened, but one would argue, and they did effectively argue on the other side, that pandora's box is open even if you allow for there to be no check and balance. if you allow for a president to

perform actions while in office, they are not in line with their official duties, and they'll have to wait out the election period. or keep it under the rug long enough to avoid political consequence like an impeachment. i think that's really what the court was concerned about with pandora's box being opened. but remember, there are checks and balances on this civil liability beyond that you can oppose on trump, what they are doing is a part of their official duties. police officers, for example, probably the most known example for conduct while in office, and having a kind of qualified immunity as a result. that's a very controversial area that is distinct from what we are talking about here, but the broader thing that we do protect people in their official money line of duty. to suggest that a president i would be in a position, unlike any other employee of an official matter, to have absolute immunity, would really stretch the bounds of our entire system. and so i think in this instance the pandora's box hyperbole and

the hypotheticals are just not applicable. >> laura coates, great to see you. we will see you again at 11 pm. >> good to see you. >> of course. >> coming, up secretary of state tony blinken is back in the middle east for a new round of talks as the war rages in gaza. what we are learning about those meetings, and a key update on where hostage negotiations stand right now. plus, new signs of the bipartisan deal may be doomed. president biden said to speak at any moment, you see a live view of the podium at the white house right there. we will bring you his remarks as they have been. and country music star toby keith has passed away. we are going to take a look at his career and legacy in just a few moments.

>> right now, we are watching

the podium there at the white house, as president biden is expected to speak on this border bill, as it appears that it is very much endangered. so endangered, that it is looking like it is not going to pass this key procedural vote tomorrow in the senate. to be clear, this agreement that has been struck between the white house and senate republicans and democrats and independent -- is one that would severely curtail the asylum process. and yet it's something that former president trump has really come out against and house republicans path as well, and so it's looking very much at this point that it is a no go, barring some kind of miracle. that will be fascinating to see what president biden says, in part because there is a deep divide, even within congress, there are senate republicans that back this bill, not only mitch mcconnell, but also james lankford, who helped negotiate this deal. he was on inside politics a few moments ago, he was talking about his disappointment in

republicans and their description of this bill. here's president biden, let's listen. >> it's long past time to fix it. that's why months ago i instructed my team to begin negotiations with a bipartisan group of senators. to seriously and finally fix our immigration system. for months now, that's what they've done. working round the clock through the holidays, over the weekends, it's been an extraordinary effort by senators lankford, murphy, and sinema. because of all this hard work, there's a bipartisan agreement that represents the most fair, humane, informs of our immigration system in a long time. and the toughest reforms to secure the border ever. now, all indications are this bill won't even move forward to the senate floor. why? a simple reason. donald trump. because donald trump thinks it's bad for him, politically. therefore he doesn't, even though it will help the country, he is not for it.

he rather weaponized this issue than actually solve it. so for the last 24 hours, he's done nothing, i'm told, but reach out to republicans in the house and the senate, and threaten them, and try to intimidate them to vote against his proposal. looks like they are caving. frankly, they owe it to the american people to show some spine, and do what they know to be right. so i want to tell the american people what's in this bill. and why everyone, from the wall street journal, to the border patrol, to the chamber of commerce, the united states chamber of commerce, support this bill. because it's going to make the country safer, make the border more secure, treat people more humanely and fairly, and make legal immigration more efficient and consistent with the values of our nation, and our international treaty obligations. it would finally provide the funding that i've repeatedly, repeatedly requested, most recently in october, to actually secure the border.

that includes an additional 1500 border agents and officers, to secure the border. to physically secure it. condition, 100 cutting edge machines to detect and stop fentanyl at the southwest border. we have that capacity. an additional 100 immigration judges to help reduce the yearlong asylum backlog. -- judge is supposed to talk to you, it takes a year to get that discussion going. this bill would also establish new officiant and fair process for the government to consider an asylum claim for those arriving at the border. today, the process can take 5 to 7 years, as you all know. they show up at the border, get a bracelet, told to come back when calls. 5 to 7 years. that's too long, and it's not rational. with the new policies of this bill, and the addition of 4300

more asylum officers, who spent hours, i might add, with each immigrant to consider their claims, whether they qualify, will be able to reduce that process to six months. not 5 to 7 years. this bipartisan bill will also expedite work permits, so those who are here and who qualify can begin work more quickly. that's something that our governors, our mayors, and our businesses have been asking me for, and asking them for. all across the country they've been asking for this. it will also create more opportunities for families to come together for business, to hire additional workers, and for the first time in 30 years, the first time in 30 years, this bipartisan legislation increases the number of immigrant visas. for people legally able to come to this country, through ports of entry. and it ensures that for the first time, that vulnerable, unaccompanied young children have legal representation at

the border. this bill would also give me as president the emergency authority to temporarily shut down the border, when it becomes overwhelmed. the numbers we are talking, over 5000 people trying to get in in one day. if the bill were a lot today, it would qualify to be shut down right now. while we repair it. the bottom line is this bipartisan bill is a win for america, because it makes important fixes to our broken immigration system. and it's the toughest, fairest a law that's ever been proposed relative to the border. now it doesn't address everything that i wanted, for example, you still need a path for documentation for those who are already here. and we are not walking away from true immigration reform, including permanent protections and a pathway to citizenship for a young dreamers who came here when they were children, and have been good citizens that contribute so much to our country. but the reforms of this bill

are essential to making our border more orderly, more humane, and more secure. that's why the border patrol union, which by the, way endorsed donald trump in the 2020 election, endorses this bill. these are the people whose job it is to secure the border every single solitary day. they're not just showing up for photo ops like some members of congress. they're there to do their job. this is the risk, the thing that many of them risk their lives doing every single day. and they decide, they decide, the border patrol decides, this gives them the tools they need to do the job. more personnel across the board. this also is why the u.s. chamber of commerce endorsed this bill. because they know this bill is not just good for the border, it's also good for american business. and for the american economy. and it's why the wall street journal endorsed the bill. with the headline this morning which reads, quote, a border security bill worth passing.

the senate has reformed, trump name -- never came close to getting. this bill would also address to other important priorities. first, it provides urgent funding for ukraine. i'm wearing my ukraine tie, i'm wearing it because they are in dire straits right now, defending themselves against the russian onslaught. a brutal conquest. the clock is ticking, every week, every month, it passes without new aid to ukraine needs fewer artillery shells, if you are defense systems, fewer tools for ukraine to defend itself against this russian onslaught. just what putin wants. ukrainians are fighting bravely. many of you, i look around the room, you followed me in this for a long time. i pulled together a coalition of over 50 nations that support this. on the, phone talking to these leaders. we unified nato, remember when we first came to office, nato

was here? while they are altogether, and actually increased the size of nato. we can't walk away now. that's what putin is betting on. supporting this bill is standing up to putin. opposing this bill is playing into his hands. as i said before, the stakes of this fight extend well beyond ukraine. if we don't stop putin's appetite for power and control of ukraine, he won't limit himself to just ukraine. and the cost for america and our allies and partners will rise. for those members of congress that oppose funding for ukraine and not be held accountable, history is watching. history is watching. the fair support to ukraine at this critical moment will never be forgotten. the position of the maga republicans can be characterized by the new york times headline. first -- this is the headline.

it reads, trump first, putin's second, america third. that cannot maintain. this bipartisan agreement also provides israel with what it needs to protect its people and defend itself against hamas terrorists. and it will provide the necessary life saving humanitarian assistance for the palestinian people. by opposing this bill, they are denying aid to the people who are really suffering, and desperately need help. you know, there's more work to get this done, over the finish line. and i want to be clear, doing nothing is not an option. republicans have to decide. four years they've said they want to secure the border. now they have the strongest border bill this country has ever seen. we are seeing statements about how many oppose the bill, now. look, i understand the former president is desperately trying to stop this bill, because it's not -- he's not interested in solving the border problem, he

wants the political issue to run against me. people have said that across the board, nobody really denies that, as i'm aware of. the american people want a solution. that puts an end to the empty political rhetoric, which has failed to do anything for so long. we have to get the resources to the border to get the job done. so republicans have to decide, who do they serve? donald trump, or the american people? are they here to solve problems, or just weaponize those problems for political purposes? i know my answer. i serve the american people. i'm here to solve problems. just months ago, the republicans were asking for this exact bill to deal with the border, to provide support for ukraine and israel. and now it's here. and they're saying, never mind. never mind. folks, we've got to move past this toxic politics. it's time to start playing games with the world waiting

and watching, and by the way, the world is waiting, the world is watching. they are waiting and watching what we are going to do. we can't continue to let petty partisan politics get in the way of our responsibility. we are a great nation. it's not acting like a great nation. so i'm calling on congress to pass this bill, get to my desk immediately. but if the bill fails, i want to be absolutely clear about something. the american people are going to know why it fails. i'll be taking this issue to the country, and the voters are going to know that it's not just a vote, just at the moment. we are going to secure the border, and fund these other programs. trump and the maga republicans said, no. because they're afraid of donald trump. afraid of donald trump. every day between now and november, the american people are going to know that the only reason a border is not secured is donald trump. and his maga republican

friends. it's time for republicans in congress to show a little courage, to show a little spine. to make it clear to the american people that you work for them, not for anyone else. i know who i worked for. i work for the american people. it's almost like this, you have to remember who in god's name we are. where the united states of america. we've said it many times, there is nothing beyond our capacity if we do it together. we are right on the verge of doing it together. i hope, i hope and pray we find reason to reconsider blowing this up. may god bless you all, may god protect our troops. folks, you're gonna ask me questions. hang on a second. i'm gonna be back on thursday, and i don't want to prejudice what may be going on in negotiations now. so i'm not going to be answering any questions to this. i will be back thursday to stand here with you and answer all the questions you want

about this issue. thank you. >> this indirectly has a lot to do with a hostage deal, what's going on and at least the decision on what we do relative to israel. the decision about what we do in terms of american funding, whether we're going to engage with the situation in ukraine. it all goes to the question of american power. it all goes to will america keep its word, does america move forward? there is some movement, and i -- excuse my words. there's some movement, there's been a response from them --

there's been a response from the opposition, but yes, i'm sorry. from hamas. but it seems to be a little over the top. we are not sure where it, is there are continuing negotiations right now. >> mister president, if this bill fails, would you consider supporting something separate that just addresses israel or ukraine? >> i am not going to concede that now. we need it all. the rest of the world is looking at us. >> your reaction to that ruling? >> we've been listening to president biden from the white house calling on lawmakers in capitol hill to quote, show some spine. the president describing the senate deal brokered on immigration, on aid to ukraine, on aid for israel, among other things. quote, the strongest voter bill the country has ever seen. he says that house republicans

do not want to pass it because they are afraid of donald trump. he says that the american people will know every day between now and election day that the border is not secure, because of donald trump. he went on to tout the positive aspects, as he sees it, of this bill. he's talked about who has endorsed the bill as well. but he's essentially putting this squarely on house republicans and on the issue of ukraine, telling them history is watching, because opposition to this bill is a gift to vladimir putin. >> and we have some breaking news and now that we need to get to. a verdict has been reached in the manslaughter trial of jennifer crumbley, she is the mother of the michigan high school shooter who killed four of his classmates back in 2021. we have been following this, this has really captivated the nation here for days. she is facing these four counts of involuntary manslaughter, one for each of the victims. let's bring in jeanne casarez, he was outside of the court to talk about this. we've been wondering how long the jury would deliberate here, jeanne, and this appears to be

at. >> reporter: we are just about to hear this verdict, i can tell you that it is a little more than ten hours of deliberation. jennifer crumbley, you may see, she's already in the courtroom. the attorneys have entered the court room. the alternates are in the courtroom, family members have entered the courtroom. we are waiting now for the judge and the jury to enter that courtroom, and the jury will then deliberate and deliver their verdict to the judge. of course, there's only one count here. it is involuntary manslaughter, it is all or nothing. it is a guilty of involuntary manslaughter for jennifer crumbley, the mother of ethan crumbley, who was the mass shooter of oxford high school in november 2021, or it will be not guilty, and she will be released. we understand very shortly, if this is a not guilty verdict. but this is the moment of truth that this jury has been deliberating on now for more

than ten hours. >> all right, jeanne. let's bring in areva martin. areva, as we heard jeanne say there, this is all or nothing. when it comes down to what is being looked at here. when you look at how long the jury deliberated, when you consider the entirety of the case and what we heard as well from jennifer crumbley on the stand, what do you think jurors have considered and where they might be leaning? >> reporter: we know, breonna, they were grappling with this decision yesterday. they asked the judge to really important questions. they asked how did ethan get that gun, and of course we don't know how ethan got the gun. that was never introduced into evidence, that still a big mystery in this case. they also ask about the legal definition of -- that they had to consider in terms of making the determination about guilt or not guilty. and that was about this gross

negligence standard. they were having some problems trying to understand how to interpret that legal standard. the judge gave them the answer that we expected him to give, which is basically repeating what he'd already done in the jury instructions. so we know this has not been an easy decision for this jury, and whatever the decision is, it's one that they have gone through, i would believe, painstaking effort to get to. so it's going to be curious to see, jennifer did not put on any witnesses. she's the only witness in her defense, it'll be interesting to see if her testimony alone was enough to cause this jury to say that she's not guilty of these charges. >> i just want to let our viewers know, that is jennifer crumbley that just walked into the courtroom. ostensibly, we are anticipating the jury will now enter the room as soon as we see folks rise. obviously, the cameras aren't going to show the jury as well. we also have with us laura coates and misty marris. laura, i thought i wasn't going to see you again until 11 pm,

but here we are. given the amount of time that the jury spent deliberating, given the questions that they brought up, what are you anticipating we are going to hear in a few moments? >> reporter: you know, this is a trial of historic proportions for us. this will be the very first time in the history of our nation that we have a parent of a school shooter, a mass shooter, who would be held to account for the actions of their child. he is already serving a life sentence without parole. remember, he was initially listed as potentially on her own witness list. he is not on the witness list, he did not actually testify and did not actually testify on her behalf. this has been to two different trials. one for jennifer crumbley, his mother, and the other for his father later down the road. she is try to build a defense, essentially to say i had no idea. i was not on notice, whatever he was going through, it was not foreseeable. to the extent that i knew about what he was grappling with, i thought suicide might be the

likely result, not at all harm towards others. it's going to be a very telling case in terms of how we regard deterrence and prosecution in the future. perhaps most importantly here, we saw a woman take the stand when you have parents on that jury, you have men and women, you have a community where they are in fact gun owners, the second amendment right is still hold dear, particularly in this area, were even a school official talked about the potential of many students hunting before school. the school administrator, boris, you did not check the backpack on the day of the tragic shooting that claimed four lives and injured seven others. this is going to be a monumental decision. either way. >> yeah, that's part of the thing, misty marris. if we can bring you into this. is that you have that issue, right? the school officials are not going to be held to account, even though parents think they should. they have been deemed by a judge to be immune, as government employees.

james crumbley, her husband, who purchased the gun, is going to be tried separately. and actually, let's pause and listen as everyone is rising here, ahead of what we expect is the verdict being read. let's listen. >> your honor, case number two, 2279. >> good afternoon, i'm sheila smith, on behalf of jennifer crumbley who sits to my left. >> i'm going to ask when the jury gives their verdict after that, so we can see it.

[inaudible] >> i really want the audience to see that after that. [inaudible] >> all rise for the jury. >> good afternoon, you may be seated. , ladies and gentlemen --

>> that is correct. >> would you please read your verdict? >> individually? >> sure. >> okay. on count one of involuntary manslaughter, we find the defendant guilty of involuntary manslaughter. on count two of involuntary manslaughter in regards to take mirror, we found the defendant guilty of involuntary manslaughter. on count three of involuntary manslaughter involving hannah thomas, we find the defendant guilty of involuntary manslaughter. and on count for of involuntary manslaughter against -- we find the defendant guilty of involuntary manslaughter. >> jury number one, is that an inside verdict? >> jury number two, was that a

-- verdict? >> jury see number six, is that your verdict? >> jury see number seven, was that in is that your verdict? >> yes. >> jury see number eight, was that and is that your verdict? >> yes. >> jury see number 11, was that an is that your verdict? >> yes. >> jury see number 12, was that and is that your verdict? >> yes. >> georgia sea number 13, was that an is that your verdict? >> yes. >> jury seat number 14, was that it is that your verdict? >> yes. >> jury see number 16, was that an is that your verdict? >> yes. >> thank you very much, ladies and gentlemen. we know this is one of the hardest things you've ever done. we ask you to refer to the jury ruling, under -- >> thank you. >> all rise for the jury.

>> all right, you may be seated. [inaudible] >> i'm going to ask that everyone remain seated, while the defendant is taken out of the courtroom. >> all rise. >> you may be seated.

[inaudible] >> and that is the verdict, in what is a groundbreaking case against the mother of the oxford high school shooter from michigan. that shooting, of course, in november of 2021. all four counts of involuntary manslaughter, jennifer crumbley's been found guilty of for the deaths of medicine baldwin, who was just 17 years old, tate myre, who was 16, hana st. juliana who was 14, and justin shilling, who was 17 at the time of jennifer crumbley's son going into the school with a gun that had been purchased by her husband. >> no visible or audible

reaction from crumbley. standing out the defense table, she briskly walked out after the judge and jury left the room. she did not look at the camera, after it was addressed. you just saw moments ago, people in the audience hugging and shaking hands. obviously a period that has been very traumatic for this community, but it is a historic decision, given that it is one of the only times we've seen apparent tried for -- a school shooter in this case has carried out. we are replaying the moments where jennifer crumbley was escorted out of the courtroom. we should point out, being found guilty of all four counts, there was a mouths imam penalty of 15 years for each count to be served concurrently. clearly, a significant verdict. and now, her husband is going to be facing similar charges, or the same charges, in a courtroom, just weeks

that's, right in this may not bode well for him as well. this jury, in particular, clearly had some issues with the meeting that happened at school, and all of the things of which jennifer crumbley was aware of. so, two, is her husband and he, was the one who purchased weapons. and jennifer crumbley said he was in charge of securing. it we'll see, certainly, what the jury in his case thanks. i do want to bring jeanne, so o the wake of these school shootings, we have a whole team here dedicated to covering this really groundbreaking verdict here. i think so many times, jeanne, after these shootings, and we've covered so many of them unfortunately. we look and think about all of the different things that contributed. where could i have been averted? but never before have we seen it get to this point, where you have a jury convicting a parent for their role in what they could have done and didn't do.

>> what you're saying, breonna, is this jury found beyond a reasonable doubt that jennifer crumbley was grossly negligent with her son or that she violated a legal duty of a parent to war kherson and two for the community and the victims in this case. i think the jury looked at the big picture, because the prosecution's case was that jennifer ignored her son. that she was never here for him. that she spent more time with her horses, 3 to 5 times a week, after, work that she did with her son. but her son texted her in march, beginning in march, saying, i think the house is haunted. the filter flying off the shelf. maybe it's mike illusions. help me. there was not a response. it may have been a phone call an hour and a half later, but no response. and then, later on, there was testimony that came into this trial that the family didn't know about, but he texted a friend of his saying, i've

asked my mom and dad for help to take me to the doctor. i need help. and my dad told me to suck it up and take uphill, and my mother left. the defense had nothing to cross-examine on that, because ethan crumbley asserted his fifth amendment right, even though we know he told his jailhouse psychiatrist that he lied right there. but the defense didn't have an opportunity to cross examine it. , then, you get to buying feed on. black friday, when the jury had to believe there were mental issues here, there was ignoring their son, buying a gun, allowing him to use, it and then monday, resurging bullets in school, and tuesday, the math drawing where they saw a figure. gun, blood, but let's everywhere, my life is useless. the world is dead. and they said they had to go back to work. the board asked him to take him

out of school, but they said, we'll do it within 48 hours. and the school felt concern it needed to be as soon as possible. the jury had to look at all of that and weigh in balancing. they are the -- effect, and they have determined based on those facts right there, it is beyond a reasonable doubt of guilt for involuntary manslaughter of a parent. the first time in this country. >> laura, to you, i'm curious that the point that she brought up and whether that could work in a potential appeal, the fact butchery heard these claims from kherson that he had asked repeatedly for help from his parents to seek professional advice when it came to his mental health issues. the jury not hearing the other side of that, that he told his psychiatrist those text messages to his best friends were actually untrue. is that something that her defense team could seek out an appeal on? >> they most certainly will appeal this decision, mostly

because the extraordinary historic nature of what we are seeing. every time we have seen, sadly, a school shooting, a mass shooting in this country, what do we all do? viscerally, we ask what the parents knew. we ask what did they know? were there any red flags? this trial was about red flags. it was answering the question of what if red flags are waving right before a parents eyes, and they do not act in a way that we want them to? that's what this trial was about. remember, it's about the collection of evidence. in part, it is those statements by the shooter himself. but it's also that very day of the shooting. remember, the parents were called to the scene. they were, at one point of the, day telling their song, just don't get caught next time, in terms of researching bullets. after there was a shooting known to their parents, what did the mothers say? please don't do it. don't do it, saying it to her son. trying to explain away all those different factors to

justify and defend oneself, on involuntary manslaughter, which is based on not intent, not intending to kill, but on such careless disregard and extreme recklessness and negligence, where you could have prevented something and did not do something, that's what it's about. and finally, remember, boris, to the extent that school officials were on the stand testifying, the parents knew the one thing that these school administrators did not know. that with all they had before them in the classroom, in the notebook and beyond, the parents knew that he also had a gun. they knew because they purchased it for him. the idea of how it was stored, how he went about accessing it. all of that, very much part of this trial. and i go back to a moment when she testified on the stand and she was asked if she could have gone back and done anything different, what would you have done? and she said, she wouldn't have done anything differently if she had gone back in time.

and that the only thing she wished or different was that he had taken her and her husband's lives. it made a huge impact on this jury. as did the judge at the very beginning. asking the jurors to read at the verdict, with respect to each of the four lives taken. what's extraordinary moment, when we've so often have shooters who are not living any longer by the time the police are on the scene, and parents and families and communities are left to pick up the pieces and have nowhere to channel their sense of justice. here, it is a mother, eventually a father who will be on trial, and the behavior of the sun. >> yes, and will be looking towards that. april, sensing dates april 9th, where we will find out what amount of time she is going to serve for this. that was so poignantly put their, laura, as you described this. i wonder, areva, if you were

surprised at all by this verdict? >> no, brianna. we've been having this conversation all week. you, know i've been pretty firm in my belief that this would be the outcome of this case. i felt we've been very troubled by the actions of jennifer crumbley. i was troubled by the fact that she said she advocated the responsibility for safety of the gun to her husband after she admitted that she didn't even trust her husband to handle basic household chores. she texted him throughout the day every day, encouraging him to get out of bed, making she had cut the grass and acting in many days as if she was his mother. so, someone so irresponsible as her husband, yet, she said she gave him the responsibility of safe keeping this gun. in fact, she testified that guns were interfering. amnt of time she spent with e her horses. the fact that she wasn't spending time with her son. i think, for me, as a mother of three kids, the drawing.

a day she was called to that school and she was shown that drawing, she spent only 11 minutes in the meeting with those school officials, and in no time during that meeting did she reached out to her son, did you say, san antonian health? can i take you to my job, we know her job was she could've brought her son to work with her. she didn't do the things that you would think a caring mother would do, although her defense was that she was this very hypervigilant, very involved mother. she tried to prove that through these facebook postings. but it wasn't credible. it was unbelievable. i think the parents sitting on that jury, many of them with children themselves, and know about the dangers are kids face in schools, know about these really horrific school shootings, and if you are the parents of a 15 year old kid who you called the pressed, you said he's depressed and you buy him a gun, and you don't take every precaution to safeguard that's gone, i can't imagine how the defense thought that the jurors would find anything

other than that jennifer crumbley was guilty for involuntary manslaughter. >> misty marris, we spoke multiple times as this case was unfolding, specifically about some of the text messages on facebook messages not only between crumbley and kherson, papa to her and other members of the community, including so much she was having an affair with that detailed some of her feelings about how her son was doing. i think the jury clearly felt that the prosecutions argument outweighed what the defense was saying about those exchanges. >> yeah, absolutely, because this case rises and falls on the element of foreseeability, and whether or not the shooter coming into that school on that fateful day and pulling the trigger was a foreseeable consequence of all of those factors that you just laid out, and speaking of text messages, everyone's made great points about how the totality of the circumstances, clearly, the

jury believes that this was a foreseeable act, and jennifer crumbley should have stepped in. on that day, in the school, told the school he has access to megan. but something that has always stuck out to me is one specific text message. and it comes when word is coming out in the -- >> i'm afraid we lost misty there. mercedes, i do want to ask you, what do you think the ramifications of this will be on other cases, where we see school shootings? because what we know, unfortunately, is there will be more. >> unfortunately so. it is so true. it's a resounding message to anyone that has guns in the home. you can't ignore when your child is calling for help. those journals were so painstaking to read. i'm sure the jurors reacted to those journals, where ethan crumbley made it very clear his parents had deaf ears to all the pleas for help.

please see a doctor. pleased to get help. please he felt alone. office calls he didn't knows journals, all of those text messages that were ignored, it's a big message to anyone that owns a gun. if you own a gun and you have a child that is in crisis, like ethan crumbley clearly was, you must safeguard. it i have to say, the defense tried their best to instill fear in those jurors by saying this could be you. you could be jennifer crumbley. you could have a child that takes these heinous acts, takes these actions, and somehow, you will be found culpable of your child actions. even if you don't know about, it so after some of the scenario. she said, what if your child's sexting and sets a picture of himself exposed? guess what? you could be convicted for child pornography. she did all she could to instill that fear, but it couldn't overcome the mountain of evidence against jennifer crumbley about the many times she could have interceded,

could have assisted her child, and could have certainly made sure that this gun would not be in his possession on that fateful day. >> our thanks to everyone on the panel. please stand by, because we're going to have much more on our breaking news. a guilty verdict in the manslaughter case against the mother of a michigan high school shooter. stay with cnn. we're back in just moments.

is it possible to count on my internet like my customers count on me? it is with comcast business. keeping you up and running with 99.9% network reliability. and security that helps outsmart threats to your data. moaire dida twoo? your data, too. there's even round-the- clock customer support. so you can be there for your customers. hey billy, how you doin? with comcast business, reliability isn't just possible. thanks. it's happening. get started for $49.99 a month.

plus, ask how to get up to a $1000 prepaid card with a qualifying internet package. don't wait, call and switch today! things have gotten better recently, but too many businesses like mine are still getting broken into. it's time our police officers have access to 21st century tools to prevent and solve more crimes. allow public safety cameras that other bay area police departments have to discourage crime, catch criminals, and increase prosecutions. prop e is a smart step our city can take right now to keep san francisco moving in the right direction. please join me in voting yes on prop e.