because they also have a caucus. this saturday. and the gop has chosen to award the delegates via the caucus says, not through today's primary. trump also chose not to appear on the primary ballot. but he will be on the caucus ballot. and thank you for watching news night. laura coates live starts right now! ♪ ♪ ♪ a huge legal smackdown for donald trump. and the word that he lease likes to hear. tonight on laura coates live! ♪ ♪ ♪ that word is no. a federal appellate court ruling today, now, you do not have immunity from the crimes you allegedly committed during your presidency. no, you do not have unlimited power. and no, you are not above the law. a court could not be any clear

on this point. i am quoting here, we cannot except former president trump's claim that a president has unbounded authority to commit crimes. and we neutralize the most fundamental check on the executive power, in recognition, an implementation of election results. and going on to say, nor can we sanctioned his apparent contention that the executive has carte blanche to violate the rights of individual citizens to vote, and to have their votes count. the court throwing out trump's arguments that he should not have to go on trial, on federal election subversion charges. charges that you would expect, vowing to appeal to the supreme court. but he only has until monday to decide whether he can do that. let's talk right now with cnn analyst, norm eisen, and prosecutor, joe moreno. i'm so happy that both of you are here today. first of all, we have been talking about this for the better part of a month, norm. the fact that it took this long,

it's perhaps a surprising announcement. a 50 plus-page opinion. but we, were you surprised that it was this after this month? >> now, you and i have a great from the get-go that it cannot be right. it is contrary to the whole idea of american law that a president could be absolutely immune if he sent s.e.a.l. team six to assassinate a political opponent. now why did it take this long? four weeks is still very fast for, by any normal standard, but they wanted unanimity, laura, they wanted to get karen henderson, that bush appointed judge who is known to be prickly. she asked harder questions at the oral arguments to join with judge can and judge child's. they got that and the rezoning power of the opinion, the depth of the opinion is a landmark in what has been a long history of

an important opinion from the d.c. circuit. >> do we know that they were trying to persuade? is that the reason why there was a delay? or is that the thought? >> that is the assumption. because we, given the speed in which they scheduled the oral argument, and the clarity of the views of the two of the judges, you have to ask yourself why did it take for full weeks? pan and charles were in a hurry. it was in bringing henderson along, and that was the right decision. >> you look at this joe, and you think about, it was unanimous and the court shut down this idea that there was absolute immunity. the court shut down the idea of double jeopardy attaching because there had been a political impeachment. they shot down these notions, also the idea, and this is really important part, about whether he was acting in his official capacity, so to speak, they were not convinced that the actions that he was alleged to have taken, fell under the scope

of a president. >> that was almost an aside, in a footnote when they address that. and they said look, it's not really in front of us, but if we were going to go, there if we were to even consider looking back to the nixon case and saying, okay, let's think about dredging that concept of immunity to civil matters on the political realm. it only applies to physical acts. and we don't think it was an official act anyway this is the president not pursuing his power. this is candidate trump. this is a candid saying i don't agree with the results, i want to change them. so if this is what you want, it's not gonna get, there because it still does not fall within what the supreme court has held as falls within presidential immunity. >> i was so intrigued by that argument. because when it was first raised at the oral argument, and the briefing, the thought was you could only criminally prosecute a former president, or a president, if they had

first been impeached and convicted, and of course removed. that had so many people thinking wild and hold on, while the president will just have to wait out and keep something hidden enough to have impeachment. or have to convince maybe one or two, or whatever it is for the senate, that it could be right. and they said it is not. >> the number of presidents who have been impeached and convicted in american history is zero. i know that because i worked on the first trump impeachment. so that would be the functional equivalent of giving a president the authority to commit any crime. when in the oval office would be a get out of jail free card. that it can't be right now. it also turns the language of the impeachment judgment clause which says not the the less, it does not say only if. so it turns the impeachment

judgment clause out. i think the reason that it was in there is expressed in the first 20 or so pages of the opinion where they talk about jurisdiction. can we even hear this case now as an interlocutory appeal before the trial is concluded? the rule is you can only hear the case if there is an express constitutional guarantee so they were pointing to the impeachment judgment clause to get that interlocutory appeal. i think that was part of the ruling. >> interlocutory meaning out of order essentially to have a, let me sidestep for a moment and decide the bigger issue before we get to the meat of the matter. and you had two different opinions on this in the idea of what is happening. he has until next monday, trump, not the supreme court, they cannot decide in the supreme court what the counter is. but for trump he only has until next monday to decide whether he is going to appeal this case. otherwise it has no impacts on whether the underlying case

gets to stay even longer and delayed. do you see this as expediting possibly getting back to judge chutkan? >> i do. they made a point here at the circuit court where they said look, you can try to get on and bug hearing. which we all know that is not going to happen. >> meaning the entire court of appeals hearing the argument? >> very rare. but if you want to wait a few weeks are few months trying to get that hearing? we're throwing it back to judge chutkan at the trial level. so it's basically going for the supreme court review, you might get it you might not, but we're only giving that period of time while we continue to freeze the case. otherwise it's going back to judge chutkan to resume pre- trudge judge hearings, motions, -- >> is that what you're hearing? >> i think the supreme court in a few days is gonna get an

application for a stay. trump is going to say hey, pause everything, like the d.c. circuit gave me the opportunity to do. pause everything while i present you with an application for --, on application for supreme court to hear the merits like they did in the supreme court case. they're gonna hear it like in this week. then it gets interesting. i think probably that's today, temporary stay, will be granted but i think that it is slightly more likely than not that the supreme court says we are not grantee certain, when they get to it. that they refused to take it up. nobody knows for sure, it's only a little bit more likely than not. but why would they want to thrust themselves into the middle of this controversy? multiple courts have already held no immunity. the position is absurd that you could commit political

assassinations in america? the supreme court could simply say sir, denied, and then it goes back to judge chutkan fast. >> that idea, the hypothetical continues to resonate. all that says, one of those moments when you risk losing your credibility, if you do not answer the question in the obvious about what you cannot do. joe, norm, thank you so much. i want to turn now to what the president means for today's landmark movement. does it set for litigation? join me now former nixon white house counsel, john dean. john, i've been talking to you about this for a long time. we were wondering when the ruling was going to come out. what is your reaction to tonight that this d.c. circuit court of appeals is saying, no, absolutely immunity mister president? >> not surprised at the answer, but very pleased with the opinion. it was thoughtful, it was carefully a laid out argument. knocking down every single thing that trump had raised.

and some of which could've been answered with an emoji. they traded at very politely, and flushed out, and i think it is a land, as norm said, it is an excuse me, it is a landmark decision that would be cited for many years. >> i think a john dean emoji in my mind, has the glasses, it has the tie i'm. thinking the whole thing. you're a kid in this notion. but the point is the press precedents, like surprise surprise, president nixon. to refute donald trump. in fact, nixon's name was cited 14 time in this ruling. and at one point the court pointed out this, as the nixon court explained, holy taking the president out of the process would disturb the judicial duty of the branch to do justice and

prosecution. really the remark on checks and balances, right? what is your reaction? >> well, i actually pause for a minute reading the opinion and ran a control f to to see how many times nixon was mentioned. you are right, there were 16 nixon, because there is a judge nixon that was actually mentioned as well. and not richard nixon. but i was interested in the cases that were drew upon the fitzgerald case, which this will clearly replace. that is a civil immunity case. and they also drew upon u.s. versus nixon, which is the case where nixon was forced to turn over the tapes, which indeed resulted in his resignation. so they drew upon, there is a lot of history in those cases that they pull down through this case to the president and very

applicable law. >> they're thinking about the history, donald trump is claiming that this addition goes to the future and it puts a presidency at risk. he's actually arguing on social media, john, that quote a president would be afraid to act for fear of the opposite parties vicious retribution after leaving office. do you think that this will have a chilling effect on the president and his staff? >> i do not, i think that shows trump's frame of mind, i think that trump if he gets back in is planning to indict everybody he can indict. including, as he has said, joe biden. so he is thinking other people think like he does when they do not. we have made it several hundred years now without that kind of mentality, and succession at the right house. so this is just trump thinking and it's not the norm. >> well, now we do know that this d.c. circuit court is saying, look, this is not carte

blanche. there is no absolute immunity, there is no double jeopardy, impeachment is not a criminal assembly, and what you are bolden is not office and official duty. john dean, thank you so much. >> thank you laura. coming up! to the supreme court of it all! from the highest court in the land, will they take up this case? the bigger question is maybe, should they? it's their prerogative. we will break it all down, next!

well, it's another bad day for donald trump as a federal appeals court denies his claim that he is immune from prosecution for crimes that he allegedly committed while he was still in office. rejecting his argument, saying he shouldn't have to go to trial on election subversion trial. the judge is strongly writing in their decision, and i quote,

former president trump's stance would collapse our system of separated powers by placing the president beyond the reach of all three branches. trump has vowed to appeal. how will all of this play out with these nine justices in the supreme court? joining me now, the author of the nine, inside the secret world of the supreme court, jeffrey toobin. jeffrey, good to see you, my friend. on a day like now, we were wondering when this opinion was going to actually come out. the court has some difficult decisions. will they weigh in? will they take up this case? will they say, all right, you have decided, we want our hands to be clean. what do you think? >> there are two big issues the supreme court has to decide. one, procedural, and the other is substantive. the procedural question, do they grant a stay? do they say, we want to think about this, we want to consider this in the normal course of

business, and then they have the issue of which way they want to rule on this case? in fact, i think the procedural is, maybe, more important than the substantive. if they grant a stay, and decide this case at the end of june, at the end of the term, even if they decide against donald trump, that will effectively make this case impossible to try before the end, before the election. that is why this is such a complicated and interesting question. the procedural question about the state, that requires five votes, but deciding to take the case to grant -- only takes four votes. are there five votes to grant a stay? that is the question. i think there are going to be at least two votes. clarence thomas and samuel alito have been with trump down the

line in virtually every case. the question is, can't trump get three more votes from brett kavanaugh, amy coney barrett, or -- >> neil gorsuch. >> justice gorsuch, and chief justice roberts. i think that is -- it is a hard question. i just don't know. this is such an unusual situation. >> we are in the wild, wild west. i'm surprised a tumbleweed has not gone across the screen all of a sudden as we are looking at all of the novel things that are happening. one could say, of course, this court doesn't want to venture into politics. they are probably still reeling, in some respects, over the bush v. gore and hanging chad's. this case does go to an issue in the supreme court that does want to be involved, the question of separation of powers, not so much an election year, but whether there can be a check or balance on the head

of the executive branch. shouldn't the court weigh in on an issue like that? >> back in the day, i was covering the recount in florida. we were having exactly these discussions about will the supreme court want to get involved. i remember many people saying, including me, you know, they want to be above the fray, they don't want to get involved. of course, they did get involved. here, it is a similar scenario. i think there will be definitely members of that court who say, look, the magnitude of this issue is as such, this is why we have a supreme court. if they get involved in that way , that will be very good news for donald trump, if they grant this stay, even if he ultimately loses the case. so, i think the institutional interest of the supreme court in resolving this question is something that trump has going for him. whether that is enough to get

him five votes for a stay, i don't know. the point you make about the supreme court wanting to address such a profoundly important issue is something that will push them towards taking this case, even though this issue is pretty easy, i think. the idea that donald trump can commit any crime he wants and never be prosecuted for it is a pretty crazy idea. it is an important question. that is something, at least, some of the justices are going to want to address. >> let's remind the audience, a savings that we will be able to delay actually having any trial in the lower court until the court in the supreme court has fully resolved the case, which, of course, could take months depending on their calendar and their own prerogative. you are right to talk about this fundamental issue of whether a president, while in office, can engage in behavior that is outside of the scope of his or her, eventually, duties, and still not be prosecuted. on thursday, as you know, the

supreme court is going to hear arguments on the case about the 14th amendment, and whether trump is eligible to run in the colorado presidential primary. there are sources telling cnn trump is not expected to be in that room. i wonder if that means he knows how serious it is, or if his presence is not, in his mind, necessary, or won't be televised, in some white. we know it's not recorded. is it a smart move for him to attend that particular oral argument? it is the supreme court, not the everyday court that he has been in recently. >> laura, i have enough respect for the court to think, i don't think it makes a bit of difference whether he shows up there or not. i don't think it's going to move any votes. you know, they are going to decide what they're going to decide. unlike the immunity question that the d.c. circuits decided today, the question about the 14th amendment, the question of whether these states can exclude

trump from the ballot, that is a much more wide open question. that is something this court has never addressed, never anything close. i would venture to guess most of the justices had never even thought about section three of the 13th amendment because there hasn't been a supreme court case about it, essentially, ever. this is something that was really directed at the civil war, and its aftermath, and has not come up since. it is still part of the constitution, and there is a very good argument that it applies to trump in this. as for whether trump's attendance will affect their outcome, i think the answer is no. >> something tells me they won't be shaking under those robes at his mere sight on these issues. the notion that he has not been charged with insurrection, i wonder what impact that will have. these are different cases, you

rightly point out, how am i surprised. i'm not, when you note the distinctions, between one involving separation of powers, and checks and balances, and absolute immunity, and the other on whether someone can remain on a ballot for a general election. really significant. jeffrey toobin, thank you so much. >> see you, laura. >> ahead, a verdict that could have huge implications for parents. the mother of michigan shooter, school shooter, ethan crumbley, found guilty of involuntary manslaughter. the family of one of the survivors joins me next.

i'm daniel lurie and i've spent my career fighting poverty, helping people right here in san francisco. i'm also a father raising two kids in the city. deeply concerned that city hall

is allowing crime and lawlessness to spread. now we can do something about it by voting yes on prop e. a common sense solution that ensures we use community safety cameras to catch repeat offenders and hold them accountable. vote yes on e.

there was an unprecedented verdict today in michigan, jennifer crumbley, the mother and convicted school shooter, ethan crumbley, faces now up to 15 years behind bars. it took ten hours over two days with a jury to unanimously find her guilty of four counts of involuntary manslaughter, one for each of the students who were killed. her son killed four fellow students at oxford high school in november, 2021. he is serving a life sentence with no chance of parole. jennifer's husband, james, is said to go on trial next month. jennifer will be sentenced in april. the prosecution argued successfully that she was, quote, grossly negligent for giving her gun to her son who was 15 years old at the time, and failing to get an adequate mental health treatment in spite of the warning signs and red flags. this may have been the moment that decided the case. >> i've asked myself if i would've done anything

differently, and i would not have. >> if you could change what happened, would you? >> absolutely. i wish he would have killed us instead. >> i want to bring in megan and chatting gregory, their son survived the shooting. also with us, van johnson, an attorney for the family suing james and jennifer crumbley, and the oxford community schools. thank you for being here. i'm glad we are speaking again. i know we have met in the past. i have been thinking a great deal about your son. he lived through this horrific tragedy. you told me he was forever scarred, and he was changed by seeing justin shilling's final moments, that they were hiding in a bathroom together. he texted you, i understand, in a family group chat as it was happening. megan, how are you feeling, and your family feeling tonight now that this verdict has come down of a guilty verdict for his mother? >> we are ecstatic for us, this

just proves that there was the gross negligence we all believed that was their. it is a huge win for oxford, for the for families, for the entire community, to know there is some accountability, finally, at this point. >> chad, thinking about what it's been like for so many members of the community more broadly, let alone your son, he has had to go to therapy for years to process what's happened. the survivors guilty of spoken about, his feeling of not wanting to have left the bathroom, he could do nothing to have changed this, and they felt that in his heart. between ethan crumbley now having a life in prison, sentence without parole, and the guilty verdict, does your son feel some sense of justice being served? will this help him?

>> it's a complicated question to answer. wilder tried to remain private in our family life, our son is working through his own recovery right now. it is a very complex ptsd. like we talked about with trauma, it doesn't respect time. the good news is, he is relatively shielded from this. i believe, as he processes through his a motions, and he feels what the emotions come out from that day, he was angry with the parents. he shared that with us openly. he didn't lean into his anger as much before because he suppressed it. we, as parents, holds all of this at a much -- we feel the gravity of, it where he is still working through what this really

has impacted him personally, and our entire family. it is hard. i think there's no closure right now. it is one more step, one more accountability measure. >> that's important. i thank you for your honesty, because, for so many reasons, this will be a work in progress , and a moment that will touch all of our lives, let alone your community and personal life for the reasons you have said. the sentencing is coming up. she is facing up to 15 years in prison, meghan. there will be a time, undoubtedly, for what is known as victim impact statements, members of the community can talk about what this experience has done, and offer their suggestion for an appropriate sentence to the judge, considering this very case. have you given any thought to what you think is appropriate for her sentence?

>> to be honest, i haven't even gotten to that yet. i haven't thought through what i think is appropriate. in my mind, you know, she has served two years, and there are four children that are no longer with their families. so, if she gave her 15 years, i would not be said. >> when you think about this, and what's to come, there is another trial coming up. it is the husband of jennifer crumbley who is also facing charges for what happened on that fateful day. so many people are looking ahead to this very moment. he will go to trial in march. i wonder, do you think he will face the same guilty verdict in that trial then? >> it's a huge jump forward, right, laura, as you know, as a lawyer. a lot of evidence depends on

the jury and so forth. we know the evidence. we think the evidence is overwhelming against mr. crumbley as well. he purchased the gun for a younger man he knew was disturbed and having extreme difficulties without getting him the appropriate health. so, yeah, i think he is going to see the same fate. unlike a lot of people in this process, i am not shocked, or worried about future parents being charged for crimes that their kid did. that's not what happened here. it is how it's been labeled by certain people. these people, in this case, jennifer crumbley, was found guilty by a jury of her peers in oakland county, her home county, because of the things she did, completely wrong, and things she didn't do completely wrong, one of which happened to be, obviously, supporting a gun being purchased for this young man, and she, her, are going to

the shooting range, days before, and not telling, not ever telling school personnel about that gun. huge problem. >> what an important point you've raised. chad and meghan i, will give you the last word on this. i keep going through my mind, as a mom, right? thinking about how my kids and our kids are having active shooter drills as part of their curriculum. the way we used to have recess is pretty standard. they are having active shooter drills. we look at other parents, we look at what could change. we wonder how this could have happened. it is continuing to happen. when you look at this verdict, and the implications of the possibility this could send the message red flags could not and should not be ignorant, what goes through your mind? >> i am thankful for that. i hope parents are paying attention.

taking mental health seriously, taking care of your children is so important. chad and i are raising five children. i am not worrying about if i'm going to go to jail because i did something wrong. our goal is to get our children into adulthood, teach them how to contribute to society. my hope is people are watching, and if you see things with your child, do something about them. our child told us he was having struggles, like chad had told you before, survivors guilt, it's a lot. we immediately got him help. it wasn't even a question. >> the part i would add is we, all parents, have a duty, and we are not all equipped. you have to take a partner, you have to ask for help, you have to identify the signs. it is a

sad, sad world right now that our kids have to grow up in. they are becoming conditioned for it, the society, and the public are becoming tone-deaf. as uncomfortable as we are doing public here, it's important not to be tone-deaf. you've got to take this very serious. mental health, as meghan said, is so important. >> meghan and chad, ven johnson, thank you. i can't tell you how important and impactful it is to continue to have these conversations. frankly, for parents to have these very honest conversations about what we are trying to do, we are building a plane while flying the plane. our hearts want to do the right thing, and talking about how you are providing for your children, and what it takes to do so, and the care, i just really thank you for that honesty tonight. thank you so much, all of you. >> thank you, laura. >> thank you.

next, he was exonerated after 44 years of wrongful imprisonment. now, he is about to get $25 million in a settlement. ronnie long is my guest in just a moment.

re.

do you need any help? yeah. i was just wondering do what nosh means.p? [blowing whistle] natural. organic, specialty, healthy. yay. nosh everything marked nosh means natural, organic. specialty and healthy. that way, you can eat healthy while sticking to a budget. ♪ grocery outlet bargain market ♪ ummm, no! >> tonight, in our exam exonerated series, i want to introduce you to mr. ronny long. he served 44 years, three months, and 17 days in prison for a crime he did not commit. and just last month he filed a civil melas suit for $25

million. it is the second largest wrongful convictions settlement ever. still, no amount of money can write this wrong. no amount of money can compensate someone from losing 44 years of their life. so why was he even locked up to begin with? let me take you back to 1976, when, along with convicted of a 54-year-old white woman. that was handed down by an all white jury. but it wasn't until 2021 long -- was vacated, it was revealed that evidence had been suppressed, including semen samples and fingerprints from the actual crime scene. those samples did not match long's. and the court said the evidence was deliberately withheld by law enforcement. unbelievable to think about. joining me now, ronny long and his lawyer from the long wrongful convictions clinic. thank you so much for joining us.

just hearing what has happened to you, it is unbelievable to imagine. you were released from prison on august 22nd, 2020. and i hear that you bought yourself the car you always wanted. you're hoping to buy a home with you and your wife. i wonder, what was the first thing you did after regaining your freedom and knowing that it had been fully vacated? >> first and foremost, i give my honor to the greater creator. to be able to be here and tell my story. i appreciate you, i appreciate you people on cnn for having me on. first thing i did, i want to see my mother and father. my mother and father were deceased. they died within those 44 years . first thing i did i had to go visit their graves and let them know that i'm gonna be returning home. even though i know my father

and mother died with a broken heart, it was a pleasure to me to just even be there. the things that i went through, laden even see, they're all never even see that. ian >> and jamie, i want to ask you, can you bring me into this quest for ronny's release? at what point did you realize that there was this evidence that could have exonerated him, that had been withheld? >> when i got involved in the case, we had learned, at the time, a prior attorney had really worked on some state court litigation, and uncovered that they had a bunch of evidence that had been suppressed. that once we obtained the reports for it indicated that it all pointed away from ronny. what he was telling everyone all along, that he was innocent, the evidence supported.

after we got involved in 2015, it was learned that over 40 fingerprints taken from the scene had been compared against long. they were believed to be the fingerprints of the perpetrator of the crime. and he was excluded from each and every one. and so at his trial in 1976, none of this evidence was known to the jury. and line for smith officers took the stand and testified that all the evidence in the case hadn't been tested, hadn't been brought to the lab, knowing full well that it had been brought to the lab and x good ronnie of being the possible perpetrator in the crime. >> that was 2015. not released until 2020, mr. long. just thinking about it, my head is getting ready to explode. just hearing about this evidence being withheld, the jury not

knowing about this exculpatory, potentially, evidence, and it did in fact exclude you. i just wonder if you could speak to those people. if you could go back and understand what was going through their head at that moment. what would you say and also the jury, all white, what would you say looking back? >> i say that each and every step that they took was malicious and within tanned. how do you go to a grand jury and get an indictment with no evidence? because every piece of evidence you could've had from the crime scene excluded me. so what did you present to the grand jury to get an indictment? and then, you have 90 people

you blamed in court and you get three or four black, how do you come up up with these? these jurors? and i found out you are standing out to the police he went to the county commissioner's office and started deleting names, the leading names from a list, a priest progressive juror, this is high-end with an all white jury. this is two injustices that were done here. >> jamie, let me end with you here because i can't think of anything more profound than what ronny long has just said, describe the injustices any justices he is asking. when you look at this broadly, the fact that this was 44 years, i can't help but wonder how many other ronnie long's are there.

>> ronnie's case was a racially charged case in the south in 1976, and he was just released in august of 2020. he's not the only black person serving time in a prison in the south, dating back to a time when the racial legacy of this country is one in which we shouldn't do and can't be proud of. and obviously to the extent that racism was alive and well in the south following the dismantling of jim crow, that legacy lives on with regards to people who are in prison that date back to that time. >> mr. ronny long, jamie lao, thank you so much for being here and for making us all the more aware of what is happened. i'm sorry to have met you this way

but i'm certainly glad we've met, mr. long. thank you. >> i thank. you >> thank you for having us. >> we'll be right back.

>> we have breaking news tonight. cnn projects president joe biden will win nevada's democratic presidential primary, adding delegates from the first in the west contest as he marches towards his party's 2024 nomination. the republican primary, which featured former south carolina governor nikki haley on the ballot but not former president

donald trump, carry little weight. the state gop up toward its delegate to a party run caucus which trump is likely to win on thursday. -- thank you for watching. i'll be live on instagram at laura coates in just a couple of minutes. be sure to tune in for our after shell. our coverage continues.

i'm daniel lurie and i've spent my career fighting poverty, helping people right here in san francisco. i'm also a father raising two kids in the city. deeply concerned that city hall is allowing crime and lawlessness to spread. now we can do something about it by voting yes on prop e. a common sense solution that ensures we use community safety cameras to catch repeat offenders and hold them accountable. vote yes on e. so, you've got the power of xfinity at home. now take it outside with xfinity mobile. like speed? it's the fastest mobile service around... and right now, you can get a free line of our most popular unlimited plan.