valiant effort for dan abrams. >> i never stood a chance. >> i cannot believe he did it. >> yeah. >> no. i'll never forget it. >>> also coming up on monday, something called "the hunger games." so incredibly popular. people are crazy about this. it's going to be a blockbuster movie. and you're going to see a sneak peek of it, only on "gma." and that's going to be on monday. >> incredible. >>> and michael symon, you might notice, is here. he is getting us ready for our change of seasons. and helping us make good with our crops. >> you know, you wouldn't know it. but here in times square, the only indigenous corn, the island of manhattan. manhattan corn. sprouts about 7:01. drops beneath the asphalt about 9:01. but we have to make room for the holiday grove here. so, it's time to eat the set. >> if you're going to be my sous chef, you better do a better job getting the silk off the corn. come on. can you clean the corn properly? >>> while he's doing this. we'll look at this. looking for something cool, comfy and chic? there's one person that can do that. it's tory johnson h

valiant effort for dan abrams. >> i never stood a chance. >> i cannot believe he did it. n? >> yeah. >> no. i'll never forget it. >>> also coming up on monday, something called "the hunger games." so incredibly popular. people are crazy about this. it's going to be a blockbuster movie. and you're going to see a sneak peek of it, only on "gma." and that's going to be on monday. >> incredible. >>> and michael symon, you might notice, is here. he is getting us ready for our change of seasons. and helping us make good with our crops. >> you know, you wouldn't know it. but here in times square, the only indigenous corn, the island of manhattan. manhattan corn. sprouts about 7:01. drops beneath the asphalt about 9:01. but we have to make room for the holiday grove here. so, it's time to eat the set. >> if you're going to be my sous chef, you better do a better job getting the silk off the corn. come on. can you clean the corn properly? >>> while he's doing this. we'll look at this. looking for something cool, comfy and chic? there's one person that can do that. it's tory johnson

and we want to dig a little more deeply into this, and with us now is abc's legal analyst dan abrams. dan, you're a lawyer, you've covered these cases your whole career. what do you see or sense in this one? >> reporter: well, you have the consistency now. a number of people coming forward. which is significant when evaluating the big picture. i don't know that it's necessarily true that you can look at a settlement and say, because they settled, therefore it was a valid claim. >> but we know this is a debate around living rooms everywhere, what is sexual harassment. what does the law say? rises to the level of sexual harassment? >> reporter: creating a hostile or offensive work environment. and that can make making unwelcome sexual comments. it can be unwelcome actions. it can even be gender specific comments in the workplace. but it always requires evaluating the totality of the circumstance. >> but when you're talking about unwelcome, he mentioned, commenting on her height -- >> yeah, that's not going to be enough for a valid sexual harassment claim. i think that if they were going

let's get more on this now with our "gma" legal analyst, dan abrams. thanks for coming in. ppreciate it. >> good morning, dan. >> you have said, there's a real danger for a hung jury. why is that? >> well, because this is a tricky case, in there's a lot of evidence that the prosecutors presented, that conrad murray did things that he shouldn't have done. there were a lot of things he should have done that he didn't do. but i don't think there's any question he was grossly negligent here. the question is, cause of death. what if these jurors believe there is a chance that michael jackson could have injected the fatal dose? >> some reasonable doubt. >> that's right. there's still a way they could convict even if they believe that. but that's why i think there's a potential the jurors could get a little caught up and maybe disagree. >> i thought it was incredible they are not sequestered. does the fact they're home with their families over the weekend, in any way, potentially impact on this? >> certainly. you don't just sequester. sequestering is a very draconian thing. you ver

and on behalf of dan abrams, we thank you for being with us for this special report. we return you now to your regular programming, a full wrap-up tonight on "world news" and, of course, the latest details minute by minute on nbc news.com. for all of us here, thank you for joining us again. we'll see you tonight. >>> this has been a special could, if he wanted her. he's gigantic. >> he's a gentle giant. >> i still think he could eat her. >>> i just love when technology meets extreme sports. because what happens is always something amazing. >> i specialize in panorama photography. >> this is jorgen who teamed up with sony's xperia studios and smartphones. >> use smartphones in a cluster for this 360 video, nobody was done this before. >> these are the handlebars of a professional biker's bike. this guy rode down the slick rock trail at moab, utah, which is so cool. they created this video that you can interact with, you can control the view from your key board on your computer and can you see every single view on his ride which is almost better than the reality. >> thi

let's get more on this now with our "gma" legal analyst, dan abrams. thanks for coming in.eally appreciate it. you have said, there's a real danger for a hung jury. why is that? >> this is a tricky case. there's a lot of evidence that the prosecutors presented that conrad murray did things that he shouldn't have done. there were a lot of things he should have done that he didn't do. but i don't think there's any question he was grossly negligent here. the question is, cause of death. what if the jurors believe there is a chance that michael jackson could have injected the fatal dose. >> reasonable doubt. >> exactly. they could believe that. but there's a potential the jurors could get caught up and in fact, disagree. >> i thought it was incredible they are not sequestered. does the fact they're home with their families, have an impact on this? >> srnly. you don't just sequester. you very rarely sequester juries. the defense asked for sequestation over the weekend. the judge said no. they talk to their spouses. they all get their opinions, exactly what's not supposed to happ

. >> dan abrams and nancy grace on the latest revelations in this case. >>> no bieber baby. the pop superstar isn't a father afterle all. high the woman suing him appears to have backed off from her bombshell claim. >>> and the season's most controversial couple is out. hope calling it the toughest competition she's ever been in. now, the final three join us live this morning before the showdown in the ballroom. is is. >>> and george and i were just saying, november 16th. >> already. >> you've got to be kidding me. good morning, everyone. we have some breaking weather headlines right now down south. tornado warnings and watches across that region. at least one tornado has touched down just north of new orleans. and sam, of course, is tracking the latest. >> keeping an eye on that. >>> also, take a look at this. look at this video. the guy appears to be talking into his cigarette. you see it right there. it's one of the biggest and elaborate casino scams in history. millions and millions were stolen. we'll take you inside this morning. >>> and we start with josh elliott. he h

nancy grace and our "gma" legal analyst, dan abrams., let me begin -- i take it nancy's not here right now. okay. do we have her there? nancy, okay. you're a former prosecutor. let's talk about the prosecution's closing arguments. there's a lot of emotion. a little sarcasm, as well. >> yeah. you're right about that. but what's concerning me, in addition to the closing arguments that went down, is what you just played. two bodyguards claiming doctors should be on trial for keeping michael jackson awake. hello? nobody's on trial because it's not a crime to be awake. it's a crime to be dead by having propofol shot into your dead body until all of your organs are saturated with a powerful, surgical anesthetic that is not to be used outside the operating. those guys didn't know what they were talking about. >> it's actually not a crime to be putting drugs into a dead body. but if you put it in a live body, that is a crime. >> great. >> i know. closing arguments, look. i think that the prosecution's closing was a bit stronger than the defense

the case and following it right through to the verdict and i want to bring in abc's legal analyst dan abrams because we were talking earlier today and you said there is a bigger message than what the judge was saying. >> i think it's going to doctors and prosecutors, by this judge saying to conrad murray, you've got to start serving time right now i think he's clearly trying to send a message. no criminal history, no indication that he would flee. the judge certainly could have waited until the sentencing hearing to make him serve time but by basically putting him in the cuffs today it's just a reminder about how seriously this court wants people to take this. >> and doctors to take prescribing drugs and administering dangerous drubs but i assume he will appeal. will he pin? >> very much a long shot. certain evidence that was admitted and certain that wasn't, it's going to be an uphill battle. >> dan, thanks to you. so this case is closed for the moment. but it's worth remembering, the haunted man at the center of this story all along preparing for a comeback tour. he once told me that getti

i want to turn now to abc's legal analyst dan abrams. so, what did sandusky just do to himself and why did his lawyer let him? >> reporter: that's right. going public. you heard the pause there when asked if he's sexually attracted to young boys. and to think he's going to engender -- the notion that somehow that's going to help him in the public is just delusional. >> and you said to me, that phrase horsing around eck copes something we've read before. >> reporter: we may be seeing the seeds of the defense. let's listen again to exactly the language he used last night. >> okay, i think we had trouble with that sound. he did say horsing around. >> reporter: he uses the term horsing around and then in the grand jury report you had the exact same language coming from a penn state official said, look, i wasn't told about rape. i was told that one of the officials termed the conduct as merely horsing around. you're seeing sandusky using the same words as was used by one of the penn state officials. clearly that's going to be the defense here

let's bring in dan abrams, our senior analyst. saying today, we received information which we felt was substantial enough in their words, to reopen this thing. >> stunning development. 30 years later and they're opening the investigation. but, look, to reopen this investigation, the standard is pretty low. they need some new information. they need something that says to them, it's time. but it's a much higher standard to say we're going to actually take legal action. the courts or someone prosecuted -- >> the next higher bar. that's the big question. >> that's right, would someone, could someone be prosecuted? remember, at this point, it's been deemed an accident. so the authorities would have to decide to take some sort of action this wasn't an accident, it was a crime. >>> now to another breaking story. out west, a massive wildfire tearing through parts of reno, nevada. more than 10,000 people already evacuated. winds whipping up to 60 miles per hour. abc's cecilia vega is on the scene there tonight. cecilia. >> reporter: the fi

i want to turn now to abc's legal analyst dan abrams. so, what did sandusky just do to himself with that interview and why did his lawyer let him? >> reporter: that's right. going public. you heard the pause there when asked if he's sexually attracted to boys, but also the notion that he thinks he's going to endanger public sympathy by saying, it wasn't sexual assault, it was just showers. the notion that somehow that's going to help him in the public is just delusional. >> and you said to me, that phrase horsing around echoes something we've read before. sp. >> reporter: that's really important. we may be seeing the seeds of the defense. let's listen again to exactly the language he used last night. >> okay, we were showering and horsing around and he actually turned all the showers on and was actually sliding across the floor. and we were, as i recall, possibly, like, snapping a towel, horseplay. >> reporter: he uses the term horsing around and then in the grand jury report, you had the exact same language coming from one of the penn s

and following it right through to the verdict, and i want to bring in abc's legal analyst now, dan abrams, because we were talking earlier today, and you said there is a bigger message in what the judge was saying in this case. >> i think it's going to doctors, it's going to prosecutors. by this judge saying to conrad murray, you've got to start serving time right now, i think he's clearly trying to send a message. this is a guy with no criminal history, this is someone with no indication that he would flee. the judge certainly could have waited until the sentencing hearing to make him serve time, but by basically putting him in the cuffs today, i think it's just a reminder about how seriously this court wants people to take this. >> and doctors to take prescribing drugs and administering dangerous drugs, but i assume he'll appeal. is there a chance he will win? >> very much a long shot. he'll certainly appeal the fact that the jury wasn't sequestered and certain evidence that was admitted and certain that wasn't admitted. it's going to be an uphill battle. >> dan, thanks to you. so this

i want to bring in abc's legal analyst, dan abrams, once again, tonight. you were saying earlier, this is an uphill battle for the doctor because even if the jury isn't convinced that he administered that last dose, he's in trouble. >> that's right. the judge issued a huge victory to the prosecutors, telling the jurors, in effect, even if you think michael jackson may have administered that final dose, you can still find him guilty if you think it was reasonably foreseeable that harm could occur by leaving him alone in the room with the drugs. >> you mean a drug within arm's length could still be a manslaughter charge? >> reporter: involuntary manslaughter. big fight, by the way, the defense was furious when the judge agreed with the prosecutors to give that instruction to the jury. >> so does the defense have anything to hope for? >> reporter: i think it's a human hope. they have to believe that michael administered the final dose but they think, this is a guy who made mistakes but who cared for michael jackson, who was fundamentally a good person who got

let's bring in the legal team, dan abrams and nancy grace. thanks for both of you for coming in.et's begin with you. a little incongruity here. they say smith is not a suspect. then they go into his father's house with a full s.w.a.t. team. >> you know, you're right. and here's the kicker, george. once that someone is named a "suspect" or a person of interest, all of their constitution nal rights and privileges then attach. they can't be spoken to, tiply without a lawyer pup the police have to carry out every search, every meeting with kid gloves. right nowings he's not a person of interest or a suspect. though a lot went down this weekend. a search seven miles north of where she was last seen, also near where the father of the ex, he happens to be staying there right now, was understand, lives. why? because her cell phone pinged near that area about seven miles north of where she dropped the twins off. then her phone was powered down. that happened around 8:00 p.m. that night. that's the last we know of her. >> why a s.w.a.t. team? >> look. they must have had some notion that th

. >>> let's bring in dan abrams, our "gma" legal analyst. the author of the book, that has been out for a couple of years. but now his co-author coming forward with new backup documents from the book. what is threshold for reopening a 30-year-old case? >> pretty low for the authorities to simply say we're going to take another look here. i think all they would need is some piece of evidence which would lead them to just examine it one more time because all they're saying, for now, is we're taking another look. not pointing any not pointing any fingers. not saying we have suspects. not changing the conclusion that this was an accident. >> presumably, they have robert wagner and christopher walken also on the boat. what happens? >> it's hard to believe that 30 years later they're going to say, actually here's an incredible revelation i haven't mentioned for 30 years. i don't think that's going to happen. because you're talking about a boat. you're talking about a limited number of people. a limited number of witnesses. it's hard to figure out

. >>> let's get more from our legal team, nancy grace and legal analyst dan abrams.cy, i have to begin with you. the queen of multitasking. fascinating accounts from the juror right there. from what you heard, did the jury do their job well? >> they did. it sounds as if that there was a lot of -- let me just say -- heated discussion, to a point where they were raising their hands to -- not to interrupt each other. and that lively discourse, has been discussed, is what you want in a jury room. and also, the fact they broke and they slept on it for a couple days over the weekend is a good thing. i don't think there's going to be any problem with, for instance, jury tampering, jury problems, jury misconduct, in an appeal, which is sure to come. >> i was amazed at how quickly they were able to reach a verdict, then. hearing her say they were this divided on friday. and they come back, and by midday, early in the day monday, they've been able to convince those people is pretty amazing. also, i was struck by the issue of cause of death. she seems to be saying, in effect, n

. >>> let's bring in our "gma" legal analyst, dan abrams. d the jury instructions are key. how devastating are the instructions for murray? >> it's a big loss for them. but not a surprising one, though. this allows prosecutors in the closing arguments to go in the jury and say, no matter what you think about what michael jackson did or didn't do, dr. murray is still guilty because dr. murray created an environment, created a situation, left the material there, that allowed michael jackson to do this to himself. even if you believe that, the prosecutor can say -- >> jackson turned the dial himself, put the drugs in himself? >> this is involuntary manslaughter. right? we're talking about grossly negligent conduct. the question is, does that lead to his death? and what this judge is now saying in this ruling is, yes. it still could have been the cause of death if he created an environment that allowed michael jackson so easily -- as a doctor, he had an additional obligation. >> by putting the drugs there and leaving the room, that could be enoug

dan abrams joins us. they're not deliberating that long. >> i don't think in any way, shape, or form, this is a long process so far. >> no concern right now from the prosecutors thinking, oh, my goodness, this could be a hung jury? >> not yet. this is not a who done it. it is a how did it happen. in a whodunit, it's straightforward. i think this person did it. i don't think this person did it. a lot of facts are not in dispute here. it an interpretation of the facts. you increase the possibility that a couple of jurors are going the say, wait a second, that's not the way i see it. >> a complicated case. but just one charge. >> one charge, two possible ways they can come to the conclusion. one charge. a straightforward case when it comes to the law. but, i still think that because what the jurors have to do is put together a whole series of facts and talk about possibilities and maybes and could bes and doubts, you do increase the chance that a few jurors will say, i don't see it that way. >> what is your

. >>> joining us now with more on the case is "gma" legal analyst, dan abrams. the mother of the family, what to think and what to do. right now, they're standing by the ex-fiance. >> that's incredibly important for him. both in the investigators and in the court of public opinion. imagine if they weren't, right? he appears on "the people's court" with her. there was a restraining order request made. et cetera. everyone would be saying, come on. must have been him. with the family saying, we don't think so, that really does change the equation. but with that said, even if -- the fact that this was the ex, means the authorities would have been looking at him anyway. >> and he is the last one to have seen her. >> absolutely. >> also another reason to talk to him. >> there's no question they're going to focus on him. they need to rule him out first. >> that restraining order. police have to look at that. even though she was denied the restraining order, it had to set off alarms. >> absolutely. and in conjunction with the fact they have this humiliating, public batt

. >>> let's bring in "gma" legal analyst, dan abrams. you heard jim talk about the amount of time. what do you think? >> this but an uphill battle for the defense because the prosecutors were able to present so much evidence of the way that conrad murray behaved and the things he should have done that he didn't do. and things he did do, which he absolutely shouldn't have done. so, from that point forward, the defense had an uphill battle to fight. >> and they didn't waste any time slapping the handcuffs. going right to jail. >> i was surprised. >> why? >> that they did that. because this is a guy with no criminal history. there's no overt risk of flight. the judge made a point that he has contacts in other places. but this is a crime where, as jim points out, he may serve little to almost no time behind bars. to immediately slap the cuffs on him and send him to jail is clearly intended to send a message. i think it's the judge saying, in effect, i know he's not going to serve the kind of time the public expects. and i want to make sure they know, the public, how seriously i'm treat

. >>> let's bring in our legal analyst, dan abrams. i'm reading your tweet here.and it says, i think the defense has a shot here. >> it's shocking that nancy grace and i don't necessarily agree on how the case has gone so far. there's no question in my mind, the prosecution has presented more evidence than has the defense. and nancy's right, the prosecution has delivered more on what they promised. but the defense did present a very serious, very credible witness, who said he thinks the most likely scenario is that michael jackson self-administered. now, is that going to necessarily mean there will be an acquittal? no. is that witness more powerful than the prosecution witness? i don't think so. >> we talked about yesterday, even if he did it himself, look at the jury instructions. you must convict if the defendant should have seen possible harm. just putting propofol in the room. >> that's right. this is an uphill battle for the defense. there's no question about it. dr. murray made so many mistakes here. there were so many things he should have done that he didn

. >>> going to bring in "gma" legal analyst, dan abrams. you were here with nancy yesterday. and you explained why at the time police had not named any suspects. that has certainly changed. so public about it, too, dan. >> at the legal matter, really doesn't change anything. he's not in custody. that doesn't change it. but as a practical matter, it's pretty stunning. this is a high-profile case. ordinarily in high-profile cases, the authorities don't want to name anyone a suspect, much less the prime suspect, unless they're going to arrest the person. why? it causes potential problems for them down the road. they could get sued later, et cetera. they almost never do that. >> why do you think they did it in this case? >> they got to want to put the meet on him in some way. this is a concerted decision on their part to go out publicly and announce, okay. we're now ready to name him a suspect. that says to me that they want him to feel the pressure. either they want him to take a lie-detector test. or they're looking for tips or something else. but this isn't just random. this is

. >>> let's bring in "gma" legal analyst, dan abrams, back with us. dr.d murray, by 11:00 a.m., local time in l.a., has to make the decision. you have said he should not. what are the pros and cons? >> i do not think he is going to take the witness stand. the pros are he gets to explain in a little more detail some of the things he said on the audiotape that's been introduced into evidence. if he's good on the witness stand, he could somehow bond with the jurors. the cons are so many we don't have the time to discuss all of the cons. he'd have to explain so many different things that he did that day that some of which are inexplicable. not calling 911. why he's on the phone with a girlfriend of his. why he was giving him propofol at all in a home setting. i mean, the list goes on and on and on and on. and he's already had a chance to explain himself on that audiotape that was introduced. >> let's talk about dr. white that we saw in jim avila's piece. you think he's key. >> absolutely crucial. it's very rare that an expert witness could be the key to an ac