2014 cases that we received. looking at the investigator's case load the median case load for investigators last calendar year was 24 cases, but only 13 journey level investigators had full case loads at the close of 2014. two of these were acting 8126's so two of the journey level investigators were acting as supervising investigator and i indicated 16 per investigator is best practices according to the 2007 controller's report. the occ continues to receive cases of note high profile cases and require more investigator time and meaning a investigator that receives one of these cases whether an officer involved shooting, a death in the hospital, the bicycle's case involving the bicyclists killed in a collision with a truck and those have the case load reduced to focus on the high profile cases which means that the other investigators accumulate higher case loads. >> >> in addition to these cases we also called to investigate the valencia gardens incident and we had a complaint from the sexual assault victim who w

have a case load of 10 or 11 cases and that means that the other cases go to other investigator additionally they not only interview witnesses and going out in the field et cetera but they do what is called intake so that means that complainants can walk into the occ during regular business hours and they are interviewed. they can also phone in for their interviews, and so the investigators who have the officer involved shootings or another high profile case they are relieved from intake so that means the remaining 10 or so investigators or 12 investigators are having to do intake once a week or so because there is intake and back up or every other week so it's like squeezing a balloon. >> seems like administrative support i am just wondering if some of the bar bers of the lack of -- barriers of lack of administrative support and other support for your office. >> well, the occ has a small clerical support staff and that clerical support staff the service that they provide is sending out disposition letters to complainants and to officers, and some other functions that aren't specific to a pa

case. >> that is a case that people are queuing up for. they will discuss same-sex marriage licenses under the 14th amendment all stop -- amendment. they will decide if they will recognize same-sex marriages in other states. here is what some had to say. >> we have appealed to congress to restrain the judges and congress has heard our cries. steve king has introduced hr 19682 restrain -- 1968 to restrain the judges. the case before the supreme court is appellate. congress has the ability to remove appellate jurisdiction. we can take out their right to rule on marriage before they rule on marriage. >> i am from birmingham, michigan and we were married a year ago. we are here to listen to the oral argument and i hope the judges say "i odo." >> i'm here to see the supreme court wrangle with and hopefully come up with the right decision so that i can travel from california to other states and have my marriage go with me. i'm scared of entering a state that does not recognize it. >> coverage of

we had a different case going up there. the windsor case ends up there in 2013. during that same time, we had the challenge to prop eight filed in california. those two cases wound their way up simultaneously culminating on arguments in the supreme court two years ago. that is the brief history from 1972 to 2013. caroline frederickson: you mentioned the prop 8 case. and they decided not to move forward. but the decision to file was not necessarily well received throughout the movement. thinking that it was too soon? paul m. smith: right, the groups have been working together for 20 years at that point. first on the sodomy issue and then on the marriage issue erred --. they got with only one state two states having marriage equality was too soon to ask that supreme court to nationalize it. on the other hand, the fact that proposition 8 had been overruled, it meant for people in california there was no other option than a federal claim. that was the dilemma everyone faced in 2009 after the 2008 election. there was a disagreement about whether to go ahead and ask th

some cases there is a taking. a taking. i think we and other courts have said that. [inaudible conversations] >> only so long as is reasonably for so long as the case. complicated sets of rules having to do with contraband and property used as an instrumentality of a crime. but but this is extremely far afield from raisins, which are a valuable piece of property. [inaudible conversations] >> i'm trying to understand why it is far afield and what it is far afield from. if the government says, you have to give us that information, why is that not subject your rule? >> information can be property, intellectual property for example, trade secrets. i do not think ordinary records such as the irs demands from taxpayers is a taking. >> well, we set the turning over of trade secrets, which is property for the privilege of selling commodities, pesticides was ok. it was not a taking. >> there is broad language in that case which this court court cut back upon in nolan versus california coastal commission. the court held tha

and in the specific case, a case called u.s. v. thomas a case involving a dog, a canine-sniffing dog. and in that case the ninth circuit said under rule 16 not necessarily brady but under rule 16 evidence of the dog's reliability is discoverable in order -- because it's relevant to raising a suppression motion. and so, i have argued that that approach, if it applies to the dog it applies to the technology, right? the dog tells you about the presence of contraband, and the government has argued that the dog-sniff cases basically support their use of technology that only looks for contraband electronic files like programs that are able to search a computer file's hash image in order to decipher whether it's a known image of child pornography, for example. to the extent the dog evidence is discoverable i would say any information about the reliability of electronic evidence gathering would be discoverable in the same vein. but you is to pin it to i want to raise a suppression motion. it is not discoverable for the sake of discoverable

case. it's the degree that i would argue doctrinal development case. judge sutton: lawrence and roemer were doctrinal development. i think you rely on those cases. >> we do. >> that didn't fall through their view to look at this? >> it didn't alter the sixth circuit -- >> in the second circuit's view before windsor? one of those cases was windsor itself? carole stanyar: i understand that, the court in perry certainly -- let me put it this way, the court, the supreme court had that issue before it. there was a discussion on the record with i believe justice ginsburg talking about don doctrinal development and the court didn't think anything on that. the court doesn't think much about that. it didn't even mention baker. it didn't even talk about it. and the court allowed california's ban to be struck down. judge sutton: it would have been pretty strange for windsor to say anything about baker given that the companion case to windsor is hollingsworth and they decided there was a jurisdictional

of them had ever tried a capital case, in fact, may never have tried a case at all.o looking back on it, though they gave it their best effort, they simply were not skilled in this particular area and mr. ford did not have the benefit of adequate counsel by any stretch of the imagination. amy: when did you realize you may have sent an innocent man to death row, marty stroud? >> shortly after the case, as it is working its way through the appeal, i became concerned about the lack of funding that was afforded to mr. ford in the case, and the lack of visibility to have competent counsel due to the manner in which counsel appointed in louisiana. for the first two years, i was concerned about the trial itself. i still believed that mr. ford was guilty at that time however, i have doubts about the fairness of his trial and i thought he should be afforded a new trial. as the case continued and going through the appellate process, i testified on one or maybe two occasions. i was asked about evidence and police reports that i don't remember seeing. that caused concerns for me

cases were watered down. so it is a curiosity. >> please join me in a round of a this is an administrative enforcement proceeding brought by the department of agriculture against my clients commending the relinquishment of funds connected to specific pieces of property namely reserve raises. my clients appear in the capacity of handlers but under the particular facts of this case the economic circumstances are somewhat different than are ordinarily through in this industry because as handlers, the joshua horowitz ands assumed financial responsibility for the reasons that were not turned over to the department of agriculture. the producers in this case were fully paid for their reasons. this is a factual finding to be found in the officers's opinion 66 a.m. the appendix to the petition. they paid the producers for their reasons according to the judicial officer, those reasons became part of the inventory of the hornes. the administrative committee came after 80 raisins. it was the hornes who bore the economic

and that was the key to the case. but the government in that case said that doesn't matter fourth amendment doesn't protect you because you're on the public roads. exactly zero justices accepted that argument. that gives me hope that the drone that follows you around is violation of a fourth amendment. unless there's a warrant that permits it. >> so eager for your answer that i had your jump in without introducing you. of course, greg, the senior council director of the project at the center for democracy and technology. that's enough of an introduction. >> you left out the website. it's www.cdt.org. >> don't forget the plug. >> listen, i -- it's easy to come here and be pessimistic about the future of the fourth amendment in the technology and digital age. it's kind of easy because you look at what courts decided in the past. when i was at the aclu about 20 years ago, used to call the fourth amendment the incredible shrinking fourth amendment. well, i'm not so sure that the fourth amendment is going to continue to sh

with 300 cases, you have a lot of cases to compare. and this is a lot of paperwork a lot of individuals, a lot of minutes of time going into these lawsuits. documenting these lives. the most interesting psychological fact that i discovered, that i learned from this was about the fact that none of these people filed lawsuits impulsively. they knew what they were doing. they took their risk at a particular time. they thought about it. often they had a claim for freedom long before they filed the suit. but they needed some further trigger that meant that staying in place would be about much more uncomfortable -- would be that much more uncomfortable than going through the suit. they knew that if they went through the suit they might end up in general as lydia's children were put in jail for several months. the filings were not done impulsively or recklessly. these individuals always had to calculate the strategies of survival with the resources that they had. and that is the psychology that i found most interesting. >> my question did not

i natured 100 cases and at one point we were reviewing 130 cases. i decided to go beyond homicide cases, i think we have an obligation to do justice in these cases as well. >> mary snow joins us. in the case of roshan choorming hargrave will they go again to prosecute him? >> they are in a difficult position. if they do retry him they don't have physical evidence. they'll have to rely on the officers in the case, that includes lewis scarcella. >> he went to prison as a very young man a teenager, comes out in 2015 as a 40-year-old man. you asked him that question, he said i dreamt about it, i was dreaming in all the newspapers. he must feel he is on another planet. >> for starters, he's never been online. we were able to get questions to him after his release through his attorney. after his release he says he still has faith in the system. the system put him in hell for many years but he still has faith. >> thank you mary. that is our program. have yourself a great weekend. >> the modern world has been tough on bees, raising uncomfortable questions a

with 300 cases, you have a of cases to compare. this is a lot of paper, and a lot of individuals, a lot of minutes of time going into these lawsuits. documenting these lives. the most interesting psychological fact that i discovered, that i learned from this, was about the fact that none of these people filed lawsuits impulsively. they knew what they were doing. they took their risk at a particular time. they thought about it. often they had a claim of freedom long before they actually filed suit. they needed some further trigger meaning that staying in place would be that much more uncomfortable than going through the process of bringing suit. they knew they brought suit they might end up in jail, as lydia's children were pretty jail -- lydia's children were put in jail, for safekeeping for several months. the filing of the suits were not done impulsively recklessly. the individuals had to calculate the strategies of survival with the resources they had. that is the psychology i found most interesting. dr. vandervelde:-- >> my que

this is what i think is the case. comprehensive evident by the united states against al qaeda and its leadership has resulted in a safer america. that in fact we have been able to decimate al qaeda's leadership, that we've been able to reduce the threat to our forces in afghanistan and our interests around the world and in the united states. my own judgment is that ab isn't these operations like the president described object thursday absent these kinds of operations, a comprehensive effort against al qaeda there would have been further action against u.s. interests perhaps at the homeland. i don't have any doubt about that. >> let's talk about the constitutional rights of the two americans turned al qaeda operatives. the legal situation here is murky. according to the president they didn't know they were targeting, that these two individuals would be there. had they known these two americans turned al qaeda operatedives were there would the strikes have happened? >> let's go through the analysis. these two al qaeda s

to prove it beyond a reasonable doubt we're able to have action on many moment this is not the case one hundred percent of the time unfortunately, that is for a variety of reasons sometimes we're looking for dna dna or additional witness not enough we found one of the police officers arrived there are a variety of reasons thirty percent gets problematic but would i'll urge to do speak with usful about a case or individual certainly we can do something better we'll make the corrections we take into account our charter to make sure we are charging the cases that come to us and we're vigilant about the work that's our mandate to take that seriously if you have a violent individual. >> actually, i mentioned the burglary the arms robbery i was so stafrld a lot of the property crime are the issues i understand that they're low open the pecking order in terms of the concerns and urgency, however, if we have serial folks that are breaking into thirty and 40 vehicles over time to me getting those are one or two people off the street allows the police to use their resources better and it prev

a rule also suggests this -- maybe it is a case by case question.officers culpability, that it would be relevant to deterrence and relevant to the cost benefit and it has this now that we think this has the free-standing culpability question and you run into how do we mez ush culpability -- measure culpability and if there are five officers whose culpability was measured and then you are stuck in a defense perspective when the courts take that approach saying the violation was fundamental or egregious that here we should say the officer is culpable and the difficulty is when the claim is based on an evolving legal standard or a novel legal claim is that it will be hard to argue that an officer was cul possible in violating a rule that didn't exist at the time that the officer was acting. not impossible. because you try to root it in a broader framework. you say, well, this is not a novel application of the law, this is a fundamental prison pal that requires warrants and the perception is carefully construed. and what we're waiting for is eventually

>> in a lot of cases they have done it that way. >> for example? >> the newberg four, a confidential informant who had an steive criminal record including a number of convictions for fraud went into a community where there was no reason to believe that anything was wrong. he found two people who were indigent who were suffering from mental health problems -- >> i want to symptom stop you there. the newberg four were convicted and lost on appeal. >> just because these cases don't -- just because people get convicted doesn't mean that they haven't been problems in the investigation phase. there have been serious problems. >> but the problems in the ent are worked out by the courts. it's not worked out by the fbi or investigators on the front end but on judges and prosecutors who try to make a determination as to whether somebody is guilty -- >> in the newberg four trial this was a case where they had turned a above an who you know was absolutely ridiculous into a terrorist. by -- >> but there was a buffoon who tried to blow up times square, who tried

or this case. it is whether or not even though you know the defendant, you look the defendant like the defendant's team and you have read about this in the newspaper seen it on television, barring all of that, can you still be fair and impartial in rendering a verdict? that is the test. if you ask people have you heard of him or heard this crime in day and age of all these big cases no, i haven't, i know that person, i never heard of it, i doesn't want them on my jury they have been living and you stone or they're lying. >> if you said you have been a juror and i have not, seriousness people take their oath the jury should not have known he is facing life, correct, judge? >> yes. >> jurors are not supposed to know what the potential -- martha: sentence is not jury's issue. guilt or innocence is the jury's issue. >> they would only know that if they went on google or online. >> probably common knowledge, particularly in light of other events in massachusetts this type of conviction -- bill: they kno

arose in those cases we didn't charge. there was cases where we didn't have enough evidence or concerns about the evaluation evidence and see if that is linked to the officers. >> >> and we're hoping to have cooperation of the police department it have a larger look. the concern is this goes beyond these case and but we're committed to working hopefully collaboratively with everybody to identify the breath of this problem and make sure that we root it out. the thing we don't want is conduct a look back. go through 3,000 cases and in a year or two find ourselves with another scandal on the desk and another situation to unravel. obviously the work we do is exceptionally important. we're dealing with people's lives and liberty and has to be done with integrity and not a game but with severe consequences and we need to do it to the best of our ability. if i could address the systemic conditions that we may want to consider. create a mandatory disclosure to our officers and making that immediate upon referral to ia so we can fl

we've talked about these cases before. tragically in my career as a legal analyst as a lawyer, and in my lifetime as an american citizen i've seen too many of these cases dating back to my childhood. but rarely do we see action taken at all. >> and even in cases where we have video. >> right. >> why did this jurisdiction do what they did as compared to staten island where you hear, i want breathe and yet the officers the process was allowed. >> obviously, the videotape helps. that's one factor, but we've had videotape in other cases the one you referenced, for example that's not the deciding factor. there are procedural reasons. some states requires to convene that delays the process in what seems indefinitely. there is something here that is positive. that is the civic process. meaning all of us coming together and it's not just black folks. people across the spectrum of the country, i would call it the ferguson affect. people are tired and they're voicing their exhaustion with what has been happening to black men, poor m

the gulf coast case. according to the ig's report not my words, following communications with current virginia governor and former chair of the democratic national committee, terry mcauliffe, you subsequently intervened in the gulf coast appeal, even saying to staff that you would rewrite the decision itself, and that set forth in the ig's report. can you respond to that? this is your day to respond to these accusations, sir? >> thank you very much, mr. chairman, for that opportunity. i was asked by the then secretary's office to look into this eb5 case because it was the subject of considerable concern. not only by stake holders outside of the government but by members of congress of both parties as well. and it was at that direction that i looked into the case and learneded that there were serious legal issues at play in that case. legal issues the seriousness of which my own colleagues recognized. zbr i was a prosecutor in the campaign finance reform when chinese government influenced an election. and

that's what this case is about.about to who gets to decide what the definition of marriage is, not what that definition must be, and it's about who gets to decide on two different levels, the judicial hierarchy has felt whether a district court can disregard a directly on point holding by the united states supreme court, namely baker versus nelson and the bigger picture, it's whether federal rights, if there is a creation of a new federal constitutional right if that should be done under the amendment process or by the courts under a doctrine. there is common ground in this state that the u.s. constitution does not directly address same-sex marriage, which means to turn to the question substantive due process. the right being asserted is objectively, deeply rooted in this nation's history and tradition and puts it in the concept of the words liberty such that you can conceive of liberty and justice without it. same-sex marriage doesn't have the deep root. >> what do you do about the fact that one could have said the

firearm in this case. there are firearms and the pressure cooker in the eyes of the law which is a firearm. i need to re-emphasize they're not a wait game. it's a feeling you get as a juror. you i did clark has been employing mitigation specialists to build up that giant basket of things that might save him. >> that will be key. a that is the only thing that might save him. we will see. i want to recap what we've seen happen so far. we've had new counts come in. a firearm count pertaining to the ruger, the gun used during the watertown carjacking and atm theft. the young man that spent 90 minutes with dzhokhar and tamer land tsarnaev. counts 23 and 24 25, 26, 27. we're a waiting three in the case. the now guilty boston marathon bomber. i want to bring in our panel. before i do i want to share some of the color we're getting from inside the courtroom. important to note since we cannot see it what is dzhokhar tsarnaev doing right now? he has been standing as the counts are read one by one. his hands clasped

at last the case was moving forward. he had enough evidence to prove xavier lopez had killed cathy torrez. but once again, the orange county district attorney did not agree. the d.a. decided not to charge? >> correct. >> reporter: and so xavier's set free? >> xavier walks. >> coming up -- a detective who refuses to wit has another good reason not to. >> when dateline continues. containing two long-acting bronchodilators in one inhaler. anoro is not for asthma. anoro contains a type of medicine that increases risk of death in people with asthma. it is not known if this risk is increased in copd. anoro won't replace rescue inhalers for sudden copd symptoms and should not be used more than once a day. tell your doctor if you have a heart condition, or high blood pressure. tell your doctor if you have glaucoma, prostate or bladder problems, or problems passing urine as anoro may make these problems worse. call your doctor right away if you have worsened breathing chest pain, swelling of your mouth or tongue, problems urinati

lawrence case. five 2003, we finally got rid of the sodomy problem. the argument could no longer be made that can't argue for constitutional rights for gay people because you could be put in jail. that case definitively got rid of that. it did two really useful things. it said you could no longer at -- that discrimination against gays is justified on moral grounds. for now on, we are going to recognize it is not up for the government to decide who you spend your life with. it is the choice of the individual. the other, it recognized that gay couples have the same lifelong relationships as everyone else and deserve respect. when you take those elements and put them together, the argument for marriage equality is strong. if you do not believe me, justice scalia said so at the time. we have been waiting since 2003 for the other shoe to drop. this is not an easy process either. but the movement at that time was to go back to the state-by-state strategy to chip away at sodomy laws. first, successfully in

certainly it was a major case, the case gained national attention. i think in the end, a fair trial was provided to the defendant. in the end, he's a celebrity. he's a patriots football player. that attracts everybody. but in the end he was a man who committed a serious murder and was convicted of that by a jury of his peers. >> what did you think of the jurors not coming up with the premeditation or coming up with [ inaudible ] said that they [ inaudible ] different ways. >> i respect the jury system as i said and that's their decision based on what they do in the privacy of the deliberations. he was convicted of first-degree murder, a brutal murder of odin lloyd. >> how important do you think was robert kraft's testimony? >> i think all of the testimony contributed something each portion of the testimony put together evidence that in total presented a strong case of conviction. >> going into jury strininstruc did you know you might need extreme atrocity or cruelty if you couldn't prove premeditation? >> we requested an instruction based on the evid

but it's been said with respect to this case, if this case isn't the classic death penalty case, frankly, also with the classic death penalty jury at this point, a white middle class jury, then there isn't a better case that can be made for the imposition of the death penalty. >> judy clarke, the defense attorney in this case, one of the defense attorneys in this case, she has been very successful in arguing against the death penalty in other high profile cases. from what you know of her earlier cases, nothing's exactly like this, but the way she's defended other people, do you have any insight as to how she might go about arguing against having him put to death? >> there is. this defense team has been called the death penalty dream defense team. they have highly talented lawyers led bay judy clarke and what she's done in other cases is really tried to get the jury to empathize with the defendant. they will never understand how he got to the place he did and participated in these mass destruction. but what she needs to do is try to get them to have some empathy for his upbringing, his ad

stacy, you interviewed the young woman in this case.ed to answer some legal questions for me. stacy, it's so astounding, when i read about ms. randers, she seems as though she has been lost in a system, lost in a shuffle and that the fact pattern in the case certainly didn't suggest that she was an evil woman. and yet this played out. what was your interview like with ms. randers when you interviewed her in custody? >> well, i had a chance to interview her when we knew what the resolution of the case would be but before she was returned to a mental health treatment program. i asked her about it. she didn't want to be in jail anymore. she wanted to go back to treatment and hopefully eventually back to her family in minnesota. when i asked her about the sterilization piece, she was aware of it and she said she thought it was mean that that was put on the table. >> that's all she could articulate is that she thought that the suggestion within the plea was mean. ultimately, stacey, clear it up for me, this did not fly? it was corrected, the

they have essentially put their case forward in the prosecution case.they very much left to do. what, show the film again? the film is horrible. you watch that film and you say to yourself as bob said if anyone deserves the death penalty, this guy does. walks past children knowing he is going to blow these children up. then he buys a bottle of milk and goes back. the prosecution is just going to repeat it and the jury is going to say, well we heard this already. >> the defenses is under that he is under psychic control of his older brother. then he tweets out stay safe. this is not somebody that is under the mental control of somebody else. it allows judy clark to put together many mitigating factors. i i don't think they'll save this guy from death because he was under the influence of his brother. they'll use that as a way of looking at it and thinking about all the emotional factors in his life, how he was treated as a child, and then he is going to be looking to see if there's anything mitigating that could save him from what his crime clearly deser

scott's case shows, videos don't lie. we also urge governor nikki haley to advocate for that law so black man can say, as she likes to say, it is a great day in south carolina. we also urge united states attorney william neatless to not only look at mr. scott's case, but work with the united states department of justice to review and thoroughly investigate the policy and practice of the north charleston police department, the charleston police department and the charleston county sheriff's department especially when it comes to racial shootings and physical nvolved - altercations. body cameras and that thorough review will make it easy for many good law enforcement officers to do their job, lessen the chance that any other black men will be used for target practice as mr. scott was. it will hopefully make ours a safe and more just community and hopefully eliminate the need for press conferences like this one. thank you. that's our statement. >> questions. >> you hear there from the south carolina chapter of the naacp, the

rights cases. in two of these cases, white business owners denied african-americans hotel rooms. in two, they were denied him -- admission to the opera. in one, railroad officials refuse to allow an african-american woman to ride in the ladies car of the train. in 1883, the supreme court declared the civil rights act to be unconstitutional. congress, the court declared did not have authority under the 13th amendment to pass the law. being denied access to the opera, they said, was not slavery. the court's majority concluded the 14th amendment provided redress only on the operation of state laws, like the black codes or actions by state officers not private individuals. nor shall any states, that means the state government, not private citizens, it did not give congress the authority to create a code of municipal law for the regulation of private rights. in his majority opinion, justice bradley added this rhetorical flourish, which looks unfortunate in hindsight, given what some -- what occurred in

we've done that in this case and every other case. i'm proud of the work that goes into these cases. again we never get to this result without the commitment of so many people. i'm grateful to that. >> bill you -- >> bill -- >> you had -- bill -- >> [ inaudible ]. this family very well decision like this feel personal in a way? >> it's definitely personal. i have gotten to know this family and again, we -- we myself drew strength from just the dignity and the class and the commitment that they showed to let this go out and there's a responsibility that we have to make sure that we do everything [ inaudible ]. and while i'm talking about that i just wanted to thank my family and i know i speak for everybody else, people -- people make sacrifices. we made a sacrifice because we're committed to seeing this thing through and as a result our families wives, kids significant others sometimes we're not there for them and -- but i'm very grateful to them because they understand that we've been so blessed in our lives and when something, some

other cases. these words open justice stevens's fame must concurring opinion in craig versus boren. this is the first case the court applied intermediate to gender based classification. third tier equal protection analysis between strict scrutiny andrx rational basis scrutiny. craig was decided in 1976 at the begin of justice stevens's long and distinguished tenure on the court. with these words he served notice that he was an independent thinker and that he was to be a justice of standards, not a justice of rules. here was a person not going to claim he could avoid making normative judgments in applying doctrinal frameworks or enforcingologynal meaning of the constitution. what does justice stevens mean when he says not withstanding all these articulated tiers there is only one equal protection clause? i will interpret his statement as making two important jurisprudence exare sortation. one he is making exhortation to paraphrase chief justice marshall in mccullough versus marylander we must never

look at how the jury deliberated in these cases. in the scott peterson murder trial, the jury deliberated for seven days. he was convicted of first degree and second degree murder for killing his wife and unborn child. ing the jury in charles manson's case took ten days. for robert blake, lengthy deliberation and acquittal after 35 hours deliberation, stretching out over nine days, blake was cleared of first-degree murder in his wife's death. the jury is certainly taking its time on hernandez' case and we wonder how will it translate when it comes to a verdict. susan candiotti joins me from outside the courthouse in fall river, massachusetts, and back with me in new york paul callen and cnn commentator mel robbins. susan, i'm going to start with you here. does hernandez's celebrity status do you think seem to have an impact on the jury? >> hi, pamela. it's certainly hard to say. i will tell you as i watched the jurors come in and out of the courtroom, during deliberations, they don't look at aaron hernandez. but then again, they hav

but the case is not only the o'bannon case which is somewhat limited, but there are cases much deeper and wider anti-trust cases that totally want to overturn the system and could very well succeed. >> what's changed since college sports inc? back then you detailed that the so-called revenue sports were often costing colleges more than they were collecting in ticket fees and tv fees and so on. is it even worse today? >> well, yeah. it's sort of amazing in that the revenues have exploded. at that time, the highest paid football coach was a guy named jacky cheryl at texas a&m at $249,000 a year. and people were asounded by that. now you have coaches making 5 million, 6 million 7 a year. so the money has exploded but so has the expenses. at that time 25 years ago very few schools made any money out of their college sports programs. it's the same situation today. schools are very adept at paying athletic departments paying themselves, their salaries so outstrip any other part of the university that it's kind of ridicules. itridiculous, it is ridiculous from an academic point of view. >> t

simpson case. i represented the estate of nicole brown simpson in that case.mpson committed the murder, even though he had been acquitted in front of a criminal jury. the problem at the end was he had no assets left. he paid his first group of lawyers most of his money to be defended and the rest of it was protected by an nfl pension, which was protected under federal law. and i suspect that the victims, many of the victims here may suffer from the same problem. >> but wouldn't they be helping, certainly be pushing. he says he's owe 3d million from the in toing bosigning bonus fr patriots. >> each of those deaths could be $5 million, $10 million award. $3 million wouldn't be enough. plus, how much money does he owe his lawyers, who will have first dibs on the money that he has? i think it's going to be an empty bank account at the end of this road. >> fascinating discussion. all right, guys, nice taso see u both. >> and you, randi. thank you. >>> the passed out victim didn't even know that she had been raped until she recognized herself on a video. another arr

. >> somewhere deep in the houston crime files are the secrets to solve the case. he just had to find them. >> houston had 500,000 prints. everybody has ten fingers. that's 5 million prints. >> 34 years later, investigators find the answer. >> i want to know who killed diane. >>> in december of 1969, diane maxwell pulled into the company parking lot in houston, texas. it was sunday, and downtown was virtually empty. diane worked for the southwestern bell company, and her shift started at 1:00 p.m. but she never made it inside the building. a half hour later, a homeless man saw someone walking away from an old shack next to the parking lot. >> he walked back to the shack and walked very close to him and got a good look at him and went on to the shack, and he found this young girl lying on her back with her hands tied behind her back, and he asked her if she had been assaulted. shed a said yes. >> she asked him to untie her, and he said no. but he agreed he would go call the police. >> tragically, by the time police arrived, 25-year-old diane maxwell was dead. >> she

cases.louisiana adopted the law to give the monopoly in the louisiana legislators and some didn't want to work had a challenge into the court rejected the challenge and interpreted every tradition of 13th and 14th amendments. for for example the supreme court said that the equal protection clause can be used only to protect african-americans from discrimination but that's not what it says. it says no person. what did you know that because of that case it wasn't till 1971 the supreme court found anything other than race discrimination they found that it was unconstitutional. in the same opinion in the slaughterhouse cases, the supreme court effectively read a provision of the amendment out of the constitution. one of them i didn't mention is in section number one exercise no state can deprive any citizen of the privileges or immunities of the united states citizenship its picture states can't deprive people of the most fundamental rights but the supreme court and the case said the typical cou

there's all kinds of cases here she's documented. you know, specific cases. are the people -- miss lerner, you don't want to get involved in the person of the person who did -- who retaliated against the whistleblower. you're primarily concerned that the whistleblower is restored. is that correct? >> generally, our intention is on relief for the whistleblower. >> do you then report these issues to her department then so she can act on those? >> sure. yeah. we are working with her in the office of accountability review to expedite their identification of cases where disciplinary action is appropriate. i also just want to mention we know of at least 40 disciplinary actions against employees who were complicit in the wrong doing identified by whistleblowers. so on the disclosure side, where people come to us and make a disclosure of health and safety problems, it is part of our review of the agent's investigation. we look to see if they've taken disciplinary action. on that side of the equation, we know of at least 40 since about two years ago. that's a little b