they have almost no reason for grand jury secrecy. second is, the court said, and the supreme court has said these aren't going to be used against witnesses who -- witnesses before the grand jury and entered at trial. that's extremely unlikely to happen before the senate, so it's not that kind of interest, so there's almost no -- nothing left on the balance of grand jury secrecy. again, supreme court decisions make that absolutely clear. mr. freeman cannot deny that. he cannot stand up here and deny that. second then is, what is the interest, how is that to be balanced with the interest of justice? as i think one of -- what judge rao said, this is the most -- this is it. there's nothing more important than determining whether the president of the united states should remain the president of the united states. >> so mr. letter, before the district court you asked the committee asked only for authorizing the release of the materials. did not ask for an order compelling the department to produce those materials. is that correct? if we we

>> [inaudible] we look at the needs for grand jury secrecy. reason for most no grand jury secrecy. these aree court said not going to be used against witnesses who were witnesses before the trial. unlikely, so it is not that kind of interest. there is nothing less. again, the supreme court decision made it absolutely clear and cannot deny that. interest what is the that is balanced with justice? this is it. there is nothing more important than determining whether the president of the united states should remain the president of the united states. asked only fore authorizing the release of the material. it did not ask for an order compelling the department to produce those materials, is that correct? thee were to uphold authorization by the district , would it be the house that needs to bring a separate suit to force the subpoena? >> absolutely not. i hope when mr. freeman gets back up. he will assure the court. and if just stunning this court rules that the house is entitled to this material, the attorney general is going to say no? hypothetical. don't turn it over -- i'm going to

not the grand jury information. first of all, it is limited because it is what special counsel mueller decided to put judge report, and all the gave us where the reduction -- redactions and the underlying transcripts of those red action. it is very limited unlike where the court said in order to have a fair trial, they are entitled to all of the grand jury material. no line by nine is necessary. so first of all, it is a small part, and second, the judge said we will do this in stages. if we look at that very limited amount of material, we can go and maybe atey that point, she can do it differently, but the key thing is this is vastly more limited than just coming in and saying impeachment, we get everything. >> maybe i did not understand it. that could very well be the case. how is the district court judge supposed to do that without picking up the unredacted report and looking at it? i don't get that. the supreme court said you don't have to do that, ok. how are you supposed to do your job, making a particularized

jury secrecy. second the court, the supreme court said these aren't going to be used against witnesses before the grand jury and at trial. that is extremely unlikely to happen for the senate so it is not that kind of interest. there is almost nothing left on the balance of grand jury secrecy. supreme court decisions make that absolutely clear, cannot deny that. you cannot stand appear and deny that. secondly, how does that balance with the interest of justice? this is the most, this is it. there is nothing more important than determining whether the president of the united states should remain the president of the united states. >> you asked for authorizing the release of material, did not ask for an order compelling those materials. is that by the district court to vacate the order compelling the department to produce that information would it be the house that brings a separate suit to enforce your subpoena? >> absolutely not. clearly i hope when mister freeman gets appear he will assure the cour

right there in front of you. >> june 16, 1993 the case was handed to the jury. room the tension was palpable as jurors poured over weeks of testimony, documents and evidence and by july the deliberations had reached a record length. >> this is the longest wait for a jury verdict in idaho history, 20 days. there's nothing like sitting around for 20 days one will happen. >> it was all of tension for 20 days of the jury deliberations. >> july 8, 1993 the jury acquitted randy weaver and kevin harris a murder and conspiracy. the jury also determined that weaver had been entrapped by the atf on the initial gun case. clearing him on federal weapons charges. weaver was found guilty of only one charge, failure to appear in court. >> beds lose big was a banner headline in the local paper after the jury verdict came back and it was a decisive defeat for the government. >> for the defense team the verdict brought vindication. >> randy weaver could count on those 12 idaho citizens who follow the law, not rules of engagement and drafted at 30000 feet applying from washington

the second with a hung jury. with this next you're reach a -- would the next jury reach a verdict?from the last trial said the prosecutors failed to convince them that ryan widmer had killed his wife. >> there's just nothing to prove to me he had anything to do with her death. >> and the next group of jurors would also not be able to reach a unanimous decision. >> we sat in jury deliberations for 36 hours. the likelihood of 12 jurors coming to the same conclusion was very unlikely. >> we really didn't think that another jury would not be deadlocked. >> they would soon find out. ryan widmer's extraordinary third trial for the murder of his wife was about to start all over again. the prosecutors felt it was their duty to argue their case for sarah. >> we're committed to seeing that justice is done for the victim of this case. and that's what we've got to think about. >> it promised to be a judicial groundhog day. repeat testimony from the emts and arriving officers at the widmer home. the oddity of a bathtub drowning victim with a damp head and dry body. a 911 call that to some liste

i read the jury instructions several times. there's nothing in there that would alert a jury -- a juror to the obligation to find that baroni was unauthorized, unless i missed something. >> let me say a couple things. they did not make an objection to the jury instructions properly in the court of appeals. not part of the question here. >> i know that but i've never seen a criminal case where we're asked to defer to a jury's finding on something that the jury didn't find. putting aside the question whether there's any evidence to show that he lacked authority. >> let me point you to a come of places and then let me talk about the evidence of lack of authority. first of all, that's the instruction that the court of appeals deemed adequate and that's at page 875 of the joint apen dis, the instruction on obtaining property, which the court of appeals deems suffered to notify the jury that when someone is acting on behalf of an organization, acting as the agent of that organization, he is not obtaining property when he exercises th

i have read his jury instructions several times. there is nothing in there that to thelert the juror obligation to find that baroni was unauthorized, unless i missed something. >> a couple of things about that. they did not make objection to the jury instructions properly in the court of appeals. justice: i know that, but i have never seen a criminal case where jurye asked to defer to a 's findings on something that the jury did not find. putting aside the question of whether there is any evidence to .how he lacked authority >> let me point you to a couple of places. first of all, there is the instruction that the court of appeals deemed adequate, page 875, the joint appendix, the instruction on obtaining property which the court of appeals deemed sufficient to notify the jury that when someone is acting on behalf of therganization, acting as agent about organization, he is not obtaining property when he exercises the authority that the agency has duly conferred on him. but even better than that is the materiality instruction from p

a jury would never hear it. so there was a hearing.r questioned the deputy. >> did you read her her miranda warning? >> i did. >> how long had she been in the patrol car when you did that? >> about 15 minutes. >> reporter: and here's how the deputy said cara responded. >> her comment was, "yes, i understand." >> reporter: but cara swore that never happened. >> absolutely not. >> reporter: who was right? that's when futerman got a big idea. >> we got a lip reader. >> reporter: you got a lip reader? >> we got a lip reader. i was looking at this video and i started thinking. i said, "if he so-called read miranda, even though the sound's not on, if we get a lip reader we're going to be able to tell if she answered like he explained that she answered." >> reporter: and if she didn't maybe futerman could prevent a jury from hearing that first conflicting story. does it surprise people when they find out how well you can read lips? >> yes. >> reporter: and here she is. lucinda hebbler, who is deaf, is the lip reader hired by attorney futerman

the molar grand jury material should be unsealed so it can be potentially used in ongoing impeachment efforts. >> be seated, please. >> good morning again, your honor. as the court knows, in the time since the last oral argument in this case, the committee referred to the floor of the house of representatives and the house of representatives approved two articles of impeachment against the president. neither of those articles arrived out of the events that were investigated. neither of them concerned the event described in the report of the special counsel. we are facing a different claim by the committee. brief, the 17 of the argument is, they need the information underlying the mueller report in order to prove in a senate trial on the articles of impeachment the president probability for those crimes and misdemeanors. there are problems with that. the first is, this is not the need. concernsurt knows, with the test that the district court applied, put that aside for the moment. what the district court was that the house of representatives was acting preliminary to a senate impeachme

after the jury districted a guilty verdict, tom foley faced life behind bars. in a stunning turn, just 24 hours later, a witness emerged to public set him free. once again, josh mankiewicz. >> foley baseline jumper, 18, good! he hits it with five seconds! >> 24 years after the one-time hometown hero named tom foley made coldwater history, the now convicted murderer of the same name sat behind bars awaiting his sentence. >> you ready to spend the rest of your life in prison? >> no, absolutely not. >> to tom foley's attorney, tom shaffer, and to his private eye ken kobersten the guilty verdict landed a big blow. >> we thought we had shown it wasn't this person who had done it. >> i was devastated. when this ended, i could have walked into a wall. >> but just one day after tom foley's conviction, a woman stepped forward. she had new information that suddenly gave new life to tom's defense. >> she came forward and said i saw this white car storming out of the driveway, almost hit me, looked like somebody was either high or running away from something. >> the woman

he testified for the grand jury for three days. he testified before the grand jury for five days. and is also imposed by the independent counsel. mike allowing us he would testify two days before the grand jury. was supposed but impending counsel. was interviewed by independent counsel. twenty times. let's be clear. i've heard these very girl in republican acknowledged that they did not expect new information from these witnesses. republican and democrats the small group of senators. to be there for the three depositions. i was one of them. resided with the linsky deposition. would the house managers republican manager said, that the witnesses are consistent, the say the same before our according to the previous testimony and already before the senate. i told most fluency, obviously testified extensively in the grand jury. sue going to obviously be things today. and the third house manager told mr. jordan, i know that probably got every question have been asked has been asked. there might be answered. and indeed those republicans will correct. it was not easy material from these d

that's what the prosecutor told the jury, that's what his alleged mistress told the jury.tified. >> he admits to the shooting, correct? >> yes. >> but hemy newman's defense attorney said their client shouldn't go to prison because the 48-year-old engineer, outwardly so calm and rational, had one more secret to confess. he had been tormented by demons since he was a boy. defense attorney bob rubin -- >> mr. neuman's problems really began years ago, and they went undiagnosed over the course of his lifetime and, as a result, he got progressively worse. >> and the defense made a bold allegation to the jury that hemy's violent act against rusty was triggered by none other than rusty's wife andrea. >> she had planted the seed, she had stoked the fire. and she knew that what she set out to do with somebody who was sick, that she had accomplished. >> his psyche was so fragile, the defense argued, that it hadn't taken much from andrea to send hemy over the edge, and if the defense could prove hemy neuman was not guilty by reason of insanity, that he didn't know right from wrong whe

she testified before the grand jury for three days. jordan testified before the grand jury for five days and also was deposed by the independent counsel. monica lewinsky testified before thee grand jury was the post by the council who was interviewed by the independent counsel 20 times. now let's be clear, i remembered these days very well even republicans at this timeow acknowledged they did not expect to learn new information from the witnesses. i know republicans, democrats picked a small group of senators to be there for the depositions. i was one of them. i resided over the deposition. and one of the house managers and republican managers said of the witnesses areey consistent, they will say the same report into the previous testimony already before the senate. obviously you testified extensively in the grand jury and repeat things today. the third house manager told mr. jordan i know about every question that could have been asked has been asked and they were correct. we didn't learn anything material from these deposition. now u

then it is up to the senate entirely to take the charges, sitting like a jury, a regular jury of peers -- they are not peers but presided by the chief justice of the supreme court -- to decide whether the charges -- they take those home. they don't make them up themselves. they take the charges that come over from the house of representatives and they decide, like a jury, whether that is enough to remove a president. the impeachment process is not the entire impeachment and removal but that is what most people think when you say impeachment. they think that is part of removing the president. one, ofe step, step making the charges. they are both important. they are both unique to their forms of government. there is hardly anything like it in the world. the system did work and it worked for this basic reason -- senator ervin and senator bakr said it would work. i am not sure we are there yet in today's proceedings. the procedure is not there to do that because you saw the storming of the secret room the other day by members of the republican party. that is hardly working together. [laugh

but would that be enough to persuade the jury?th the conclusion to "collision" is andrea canning. >> reporter: as the jury deciding frances hall's fate deliberated into the evening hours of september 8th, 2016, neither side felt confident. >> as time passes, you get more worried. >> reporter: did you have a gut feeling which way it would go? >> no. >> reporter: nothing? >> i didn't want to think about it. i didn't want to think about it. >> reporter: then just before 8:45 p.m., the jury had its verdict. >> we the jury find the defendant, frances hall, guilty of murder. >> reporter: guilty of murder and aggravated assault. frances's friends and family were shocked. >> it was the worst feeling in my life. >> reporter: it was a moment frances herself did not seem prepared for. >> no! >> reporter: you were found guilty. and you were facing possibly life behind bars. >> yes, i was. i didn't want to be there. i wanted to go home to bill. i was like, i can't do this. >> reporter: but things weren't over yet for frances. there was still a

then it is up to the senate entirely to take the charges, sitting like a jury, a regular jury of your peers, and they are not peers, they are presided over by the chief justice of the supreme court, to decide whether the charges -- and they take those charges only and not other charges. they don't make them up themselves. they take the charges that come over from the house of representatives, and they decide like a jury whether or not they are valid enough to remove a president. the impeachment process is not the entire impeachment and removal, but that is what most people think when you say impeachment, that you mean that is part of removing the president. impeachment is one step, step one of making the charges. and they are both very important and very unique to their forms of government. there is hardly anything like it anywhere else in the world. the system worked for this one basic reason, senator urban and senator baker said it would work. i'm not sure we are there yet in today's proceedings. the procedure is not there to do that because you saw the storming of the secret room t

i stood in front of a jury, i spent our journey jury foreman in a trial in one of the things we had in a jury were witnesses and documents. both sides were able to present their case. i would think the presidents counsel in the presidents team would want to call him in order to exonerate him. they would want to show us the evidence that proved his innocence. instead of this. this is what we get. highly redacted statements from members of the administration that we cannot even read what's under there. show us the evidence that proves the president innocence. many people are getting the news solely on fox news and they are not getting the full story because they are not even airing the trial. i think what you see and hear from witnesses and hear and see the cross-examination. that's the american thing to do. get to face your accusers, you got to bring your documents, your witnesses and you get to make your case. let's do it. they talked about how rushed the house was at 70 plus days interest in such a rush to get to the end because we wanted to go home for christmas. well, let's not rush

2,000 jurors in a jury pool.nd alternates, in case trial goes long, people get sick, get off the jury. our system of justice, best in the world. they can get impartial jurors he will have his day in court. >> given the media spectacle, one of the suggestions and questions was for the rest of the jury selection to be made in secrecy, a secluded jury. will that make a difference, zmoung. >> here is why it does. if you and i are speaking, we're in a closed room, having a conversation, i'm going to be more apt to be candid, right? if you and i are speaking and the world is watching and international media is watching and everything i say is being vetted, evaluated, reported on and spoken about, i might not be as candid as i possibly should be. what the defense is doing is give me candor, outside the media spectacle. no hidden agendas, not that you're selling a book, not that you want on the jury and it gives the best chance to have people who are ca a look, the judge is not going along with that, but the judge did sa

and frankly, it's not the jury's job either.he jury's job is to determine whether harvey weinstein committed a crime that will put him in prison for the rest of his life. >> reporter: for many in the "me too" movement, including some of weinstein's accusers like rose mcgowan, this trial is a watershed moment. >> the trial means so much to so many, but it will mean the most to the brave women testifying and to all of us silence-breakers. >> reporter: despite weinstein's dozens of accusers, the trial will focus upon allegations of only two women, mimi haleyi, who says weinstein forced himself on her in 2006 when she was working as a production assistant. >> women has a right to say no, and no is a no regardless of the circumstances. >> reporter: and an unidentified woman who alleges weinstein raped her in a hotel room in 2013. during today's opening statements, prosecutor megan hast recounted to the jury in detail the stories of six women who will testify as witnesses in weinstein's trial. >> it was graphic. it was intense. it was

in texas, the jury decides.they wanted to hold lars accountable. >> a term of 15 years. >> reporter: 15 years, just a few years shy of the maximum sentence. i spoke with lars at the state penitentiary in texas where he says he carries a photo of debbie in the pocket of his prison uniform. >> i kiss her picture every morning, every night. >> reporter: i asked him to describe, once again, what happened the morning he shot debbie. >> walking in the middle of the night. >> reporter: the story sounded familiar at first but then. >> and i seen the door closing very, very, very slowly. >> reporter: he seen the door closing slowly? as he had it before, lars added a new detail to his murder. moments later he seemed to add another. >> people in their miscellaneous reaching for me. >> reporter: reaching for you? >> well, i just seen moovement. >> reporter: i asked him about his inconsistencies. why is your story changing? >> i don't believe it was. i don't have the script in front of me that i'm reading. this is exactly wh

tolds what monica lewinsky the grand jury. she further stated that she was sure, a percent hundred percent sure that the president suggested she might sign an affidavit to avoid testifying. an independent counsel interview, false a tements of which are federal crime. also noted ewinsky that the president never instructed her to lie about the matter. her to he never told file an affidavit detailing the true nature of their sexual only onship which would invite humiliation and prove damaging to the president in the case. jones' she contextually understood that the president wanted her to lie. in the oic referral. furthermore, attorneys for paula evidence of eking sexual relationships the president may have had with or federal employees. such information is often deemed harassment sexual lawsuits to help prove the plaintiff.claim, the it was ruled that paula jones was entitled to this information purposes of discovery. consequently, when the president ncouraged monica lewinsky to file an affidavit, he knew that it would have to b

jury selection is the only time that lawyers get to speak directly to the jury, ask them questions ande a back and forth. it's sometimes awkward because you're saying things that are sort of outrageous when you first meet somebody to say, but that's clearly their defense. and they were people who apparently were receptive to that. there were probably also people who thought oh, this is ridiculous, and weren't receptive. but the defense is going to try to get the people who were open to it. that's going to be their argument. and they're airing it in jury selection. even if we don't get people who believe that, they've gotten a discussion going about the possibility that someone could do that. and that's going to second guess what the victims are saying. >> okay. i want to move on to evelyn yang and her revelation that she was sexually assaulted by a doctor. there is renewed focus on that plea deal between manhattan's district attorney and yang's former doctor this morning. we should also point out -- this is such an important story, we're going to air it later in its entirety in the sho

but the only audience that mattered was the 12-person jury. when the trial began, the prosecution introduced them to the man behind the professorial mask, the person they saw as the real michael peterson. >> this case is about pretense and appearances. it's about things not being as they seem. >> reporter: scratch beneath the glossy veneer, the beautiful house and sparkling dinner parties, and prosecutors would tell the jury they'd find a marriage in shambles. more than the couple's money problems, more than the loss of social standing after michael got caught out lying about his military record, there was what investigators found when they searched his home office. >> it was just so -- so different than what everybody that knew michael peterson believed him to be, as far as a family man, a happily married man. it was jaw dropping. >> reporter: while kathleen toiled away at her executive job to pay the couple's mounting bills, michael's writing career was hitting a wall. >> he had some free time on his hands. and we believed that he, somewhere

the next thing is picking this jury and during jury selection in new york you're allowed to really talke jury more than you are in, say, a federal case. you can begin to frame the case and explain your theory of the case in jury selection so it's very critical in a sex crimes case, especially one where the defense is consent. >> let's talk about the motion where the judge threatened to throw weinstein in jail for using his cell phone. how does that factor in and is that a smart legal move in your opinion? >> it's just a battle. it's meaningless, frankly. defense attorneys like to throw everything up, but it's meaningless. i wouldn't spend too much time on it. >> this trial started in new york on monday and on the same day in los angeles the district attorney announced new charges against weinstein. could that factor in in any way in this new york case? >> it's going to factor in in one big way. in the trial in new york the prosecution has won the right to bring women who have had similar sexual assaults by weinstein. one of those women is the victim in the l.a. case. so it does bring th

that is what monica lewinsky told the grand jury. she stated she was 100% sure, 100% sure that the president suggested she might want to sign an affidavit to avoid testifying. that was through an independent counsel interview, false statements of which are federal crimes. ms. lewinsky noted that the president never explicitly instructed her to lie about the matter, since the president never told her to file an affidavit, detailing the true nature of their sexual relationship, which would only invite humiliation and prove damaging to the president in the apology owns case. -- paula jones case. she contextually understood that the president wanted her to live. that is in the oic referral. attorneys for paula jones were seeking evidence of sexual relationships. and that the president might have had with other state such state in -- state employees. information is deemed relevant in sexual harassment lawsuits to help prove the underlying claim. judge susan webber wright ruled that paula jones was entitled this information. -- information

and he approached the jury very, very closely with it.as trying to make a point, a very passionate point. >> brandishing the murder weapon as a prop did not sit well with the judge. >> fravrngly, by that point, we knew what we had done, we had done exactly what we needed to do. we had taken him by surprise. >> after a week of testimony, the case went to the jury. out in the hallway, tv cameras dogged charlie's every move. >> he knows his life is hanging in the balance. that's a tough thing for anybody to go through. >> but he had the unwavering support of team charlie. they all waited with charlie at deliberations began and spilled over into a second day and then another. >> every day we'd show up to court being, like, oh, is it going to happen today. everybody was super nervous. like on the edge of their seats the whole time. and charlie was, i was. >> because if it goes in an adverse way for you and charlie, he's going to be led off and you wouldn't see him for a long long time. >> yeah, it was hard to imagine that. >> jennifer is a jur

if you make a further analogy to the grand jury, the defendant plays no role in the grand jury. none, zero, zip, no counsel, no witnesses, not even in the room. and the jury decides, is there probable cause to believe that x committed an offense worthy of going forward? that's what happens. there's no participation. now, there was participation he. the president had opportunities here. and all the republicans participated and could cross- examine the witnesses that did in fact come forward in both the judiciary committee, the government reform committee, and in the intel committee, foreign affairs committee, financial services committee, government reform committee. i think that's -- i mentioned that once before. so, i would hope that would happen in the senate. if you want to know the truth, mr. speaker, that's what ought to happen. but if it is just presenting information that is not relevant in this trial, i.e. i did a good job on the economy, i.e. i did a good job on foreign policy, i.e. i did a good job in protecting our borders, that's the president's argument in a politic

i have served on a jury, i've been a jury foreman in a trial and one of the things that we had in a juryere witnesses and >> the evidence the process the president innocent. many people are getting their nose slow fully on "fox news". not even during the trial. i think those folks would want to see and hear witnesses and see the cross-examination. that is the american thing to do. you get to face your accusers, you meant to bring your documents and witnesses and you get to make your case. while they must do it. the final presentation this morning talked about how brushed this was at 70s plus days. and it was such a rush to get to the end because we wanted to go home for christmas. well then let's loss let's not rush this process. let's take the time and that the american democracy work. so the rest of the world can see that no one is above the law and also everyone gets to present their witnesses. they get their chance to have their say. let's show that to the world. after all, we have the absolute right person right now, the chief justice of the united states supreme court and who bette

it is sort of like a grand jury. when you are arrested for a crime, you go before a branch -- a grand jury to find probable cause. it is not the same thing, but almost the same thing. the peaches confers -- the impeachment confers charges, in this case it was president nixon, president clinton, and will be president trump. if they follow through on it. then it is up to the senate entirely to take the charges, sit him like a jury of your peers, although they are not peers, they are provided -- presided over by the supreme justice of the supreme court to decide whether the charges, and they take those charges only, and not other charges. they take the charges from the house of representatives, and they decide like a jury whether or not they are valid enough to remove a president. the impeachment process is not the entire impeachment and removal, but that is what most people think. that is part of removing the president. impeachment is one step, step one of making the charges. and, they are both very important and very

the jury would never know. she did not testify on the advice of attorneys, said her family. and of course that was her perfect right. but there was another reason, too. justine suffered a brain injury in that crash so her recollection of the last few days leading up to the crash and that night itself here she doesn't remember. she is charged with a crime about which her memory is a complete blank. so, then, how could the jury know that justine knowingly crossed the center line, having decided to commit suicide by hitting the other car? a question we put to the prosecutor. in order to draw that conclusion, you have to read her mind essentially. you've been a prosecutor for years. you know that car accidents happen in the most bizarre ways, that people do crazy things on the road. but you clearly said this was a situation in which i know what somebody was thinking when they drove across that lane of traffic and into that other car. >> no. >> i just don't know how you can know what she's thinking. >> i can't know what she was thinking. nobody knows what she was thinking at the

>>> coming up, dave hawk speaks out and so does the jury. >> we, the jury, find the defendant, davidtin hawk -- >> when "dateline" continues. up to 90 percent of people fall short in getting key nutrients from food alone. one a day, covers all of them. in just one serving. one a day, and done. but since they bought their new house... which menu am i looking at here? start with "ta-paz." -oh, it's tapas. -tapas. get out of town. it's like eating dinner with your parents. sandra, are you in school? yes, i'm in art school. oh, wow. so have you thought about how you're gonna make money? at least we're learning some new things. we bundled our home and auto with progressive, saved a bunch. oh, we got a wobbler. progressive can't protect you from becoming your parents, but we can protect your home and auto when you bundle with us. that's what the extra menu's for. instead of using aloe,s. or baby wipes, or powders, try the cooling, soothing relief or preparation h, because your derriere deserves expert care. preparation h. get comfortable with it. >>> welcome back to "dateline." with no phy

in that grand jury than in a normal grand jury and the american just let's explain everyone at home a grand jury every injury is the universe american citizens who stand to determine whether or not the prosecutor has presented enough evidence to actually warrant a trial ok so that's what the house did next part because it was a party as you well know that it was going to you know not to get out of here before grand juries in america buy it as they have no right to do so and in fact. were invited to participate in the house process so i that the due process was fine in the house but in the senate we now know what the republican argument is about the facts which is no one there's all this circumstantial evidence more circumstantial evidence than you would ever need in the world but a whole bunch of republicans have been very clear that we can't do this only on circumstantial evidence we need the people who talk directly but president trump himself and that is what the democrats are seeking to secure in their witness list in the senate they want to hear it from the horse's mouth you ca

>> well, we're going through jury selection now.d on monday with the judge doing hardship screening. he's doing that all week this week and next week. and then the jury questionnaires will be graded by the lawyers on both sides, and that's going to take some time. >> reporter: given that mr. durst had said those things off camera, but on a hot microphone about kill them all, what sort of challenge does that present for you? >> i'm not going to discuss what the facts are, what our strategy is. i'm sorry. >> reporter: and as this case moves forward, though, can you tell us how long you expect this will last? >> you know, the lawyers are not in great agreement about that, but we all think it's going to be at least three months. might be four. i don't think it should take that long, but we'll see. that's what the predictions are. >> reporter: you and mr. durst are optimistic? >> i'm optimistic, yes, because, you see, bob durst did not kill susan berman, and he doesn't know who did. and that's the bottom line. >> we the jury find the def

lewinsky during his grand jury appearance. they're complaining only because of a lack of specificity. if you can believe that, in the president's testimony about who touched who and where and when it happened. they claim there is a clear and convincing evidence of grand jury perjury, but ignored is the panel of experienced prosecutors who testified that no reasonable prosecutor in the land would have brought a perjury case arising out of these facts. as to article two, the impeachment is not justified. they say the president's testimony deprives the plaintiff paula jones of her day in court. not so. the record shows that a federal judge ruled three times that monica lewinsky's allegations were not relevant to the core issue of the jones case and refused to permit the lawyers to pursue the allegations. they say the president lied when testifying about his understanding of the definition of sexual relations. three lawyers and a judge spent half an hour debating the meaning of the contorted phrase with the judge concluding "i'm n

the jury is going to be told that they cannot consider whether or not mr.weinstein testifies in their decision-making process, and i think that once the jury sees the evidence and they see the communications and the conversation and the length of time that it took somebody to come forward, the fact that for years she claimed nothing happened, i mean we have a wealth of evidence in our arsenal to be able to say that these cases don't rise to the level of rape. >> finally question. on balance, the #metoo movement, good or bad for women? >> i think many good things have come from me too. in the end if it strips your rights to due process and a fair trial, then as a criminal defense attorney, i have to say there are problems with it. >> my question was to women. i think your answer is to refer to harvey weinstein, the claim that he's been stripped of due process. i think that's what you mean. straighten me out if i'm wrong. >> no, you're not wrong, but i'm not claiming there are not good things that have come from me too. but in terms of it being good for women

he has no right in the grand jury to be there or have his lawyer be in the grand jury room. we afforded the president that right and he rejected it. his lawyer said thank you, but no thanks. we're not going to play. so you continue, mr. speaker, in my view, the minority whip continues to conflate the responsibility we had here in the house and the responsibility the senate has. the senate is the trier of facts, not the house. the house is a determine ant of whether there is probable cause and we did that and it's over in the senate. and it is their responsibility and duty and as they lift their hands to swear they will be impartial to get all of the relevant evidence, relevant evidence, relevant evidence, not just some fishing expedition on either side, prosecution or defense, and with that, i hope we can end this debate because it will be endless if we do not, simply because we are not going to agree, mr. speaker. we have obviously very different perceptions as to what the duty of the house has and very different perceptions that if what we thought we did in the house was w

diversity in the oscar nominations continues, france names director spike lee is the president of the jury at this year's con film festival -- c annes film festival. first, our top stories, live from paris. ♪ ♪ genie: last night in iowa, the fromresidential candidates the democrats still in the race went head-to-head, the final debate for the iowa caucus, the first in the nation nominating contest for the democrats which is now 19 days away. nick rushworth is the details on a debate marked by a heated exchange over whether a woman could attain the presidency. the mean progressive candidates for the democrats, elizabeth warren and bernie sanders, clashed over whether he told her in 2018 he believed a woman could not win the white house in 2020. sanders: i did not say that. nick: senator warren was taken aback and a hit back saying the women onon stage were not loser. woman beat: can a president trump? look at the men on this stage. electitive lee, they have lost 0 elections. the only people on this stage who have won every election they have been and are the women, amy and me. nick: warren,

if you have a jury that i reviewed you know that i think your message to the point is i just want to ask before person that i want to ask you questions or person you feel to further the racial beneficially you feel if you've reached a point which further deliberation from you do you feel that it would be futile. considering all of that i find it terminations this trial is necessary because juries feel who heard within a reasonable time. after reasonable time through deliberations without going to clear and strong. support. stuff but still if you read the function you are performed lou most were civic duties which you will never be equal to fulfill the declaration of a mistrial in this matter your services now we are 1st and every day i see how serious the situation you respond to the suit is furious it's truly remarkable to see nary doubt they say that even though you didn't reach of her you know how hard you work in this case even at this case for over 2 months so what happened now to destroy if you are serious defense and serious to thanks to all of us who serve in our courts. beca

is this the verdict of the jury?>> david pietz, guilty of second-degree murder for strangling nici, his wife of almost four years. >> oh. absolute elation. i just wanted justice for my daughter. and we got it. >> what do you want to say to david pietz now? >> david, i hope -- i hope you find it in your heart to be sorry. because if you don't, you'll burn in hell forever. >> three weeks later, david pietz returned to court for his sentencing. presiding judge michael haden expressed disgust that david had strangled his wife, who trusted him. >> i don't know what was going through her head as she looked into the face of the man she thought she loved as he took her life away. accordingly, the sentence will be -- >> judge haden sentenced david pietz to 18 years in prison, the maximum time allowed in this second-degree murder case. before her daughter's convicted killer was led away, nicole's mother had this to say. >> i've let david take my life for the last seven and a half years. but i'm not going to anymore. david, i f

a judge or jury to look past a forced confession is that ocean approached. the internet is case we're trying to get permission to test all the old evidence from d.n.a. but to do that we have to collect as much information about her innocence as we possibly can. go back and interview old witnesses collect documents go back to the crime scene. i keep coming back to this thing that the cops knew he was in florida and kept going with the story that they did together how can they be permitted to go forward with a serious of a case that they know is not true they made the trial basically matcher and. it just makes me so jaded and really disgusted with the district attorney's offices that i feel like you know the you know they're supposed to be at the top of the chain right there it's supposed to be the ones making sure the cops made mistakes or people below the cops made mistakes then they're the ones who are responsible for fixing it why not do d.n.a. testing we're not infallible we can all make mistakes i mean renee's going to be in prison for the rest of her li

>> i think in some ways that number sort of helps us because once the jury sits down and the jury hears that this is only about two women, i think they start to wonder how truthful those other circumstances are or if there were so many why aren't they a part of the criminal case? >> i want to bring in avery freedman, a civil rights attorney and law professor, and richard herman, a criminal defense attorney and law professor. good to see you both. happy new year. >> happy new year to you. >> richard, to you first. let's talk about this. weinstein's attorney's assessment, how much of her statement do you agree with, that this kind of publicity could actually help them in their case? >> i don't know if it can help them, fred. again, only two charges, two women in the new york case and all the other jurisdictions, there's no other charges brought. l.a. has eight open cases but they haven't filed charges. london is investigating him. they haven't filed anything. only new york, and they've brought two, in my opinion, flimsy cases. now, it's morally reprehensible the way he conducted himself.