and joining me now, our legal analyst, danny cevallos. administration his attorney general. bob menendez is the loudest and most vocal and many ways the most influential voice, and he's a democrat against a deal with iran. there are some who say, is this a link to that? some say that's crazy thinking but it could be possible right? >> federal criminal statutes are often criticized for being so broadly written it becomes a matter of discretion by the u.s. attorney. and in cases like these, i've handled cases like these that are so difficult to defend. this is a classic instance. you have very rich citizen giving gifts to public official and then public official happens to give some benefits some official acts that benefit very rich guy and under the federal criminal statutes and there is a ponopoly of them with this given behavior. bribery, services fraud. it becomes the burden on the defendant to prove they weren't so. >> so broadly written. who do you want to pick? rich guy giving a lot of money to a politician guy getting benefits kind

cnn legal analyst mel robbins is here and danny cevallos, a criminal defense attorney. what about this whopper that john berman brings up. it seems a pretty big deal to bring up for the first time in closings. by the way, he was there. he witnessed it. >> i'm actually not surprised. the entire case -- there is so much powerful circumstantial evidence he was there, you had to wonder when the defense would address this issue and what better time to do that than closing arguments when prosecution can't put evidence on anymore. the other counter to this. have you lost your credibility with the jurors if you don't raise this defense during the entire case but only at the end say, okay, it's not a who done it anymore. he was there but he's an innocent babe in the woods and other guys are bad guys. i will add that in courtrooms across the country, this is a much more familiar defense when you have two, three, four dudes and they all point the finger directly at each other. that's a very common theme. i didn't do it. i didn't know he had a gun. i don't know that guy's last name.

joey jackson and danny cevallos. if you're his attorney, one of the best in the nation, what are you going to close with because you opened with he did it? >> you're going to close with the fact that you have to consider the context. the defense brought in an expert to talk about the fingerprints and whose fingerprints were on the components of the bomb it was tamerlan. whose fingerprints were on the pressure cooker. it was his brother. and if you look at the writings and the searching done, the searches were of his brother's computer. what are they attempting to do? the defense is attempting to spare his life. not finding him innocent but allowing the jury to evaluate this in the context of him being controlled. >> she wants three cracks at ul of that information. during the guilt phase, the wrap up and the death phase we call it. what i want to do right now, if you'll just indulge me for a moment, is put up the charges. we're talking about 30 charges. don't do it yet because i want to give you a preamble. you're ab

and here with me in new york is danny cevallos. wed the young woman in this case. and, danny, you need 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 i

danny cevallos is out front. a few things stand out to you. this guy suing for $6 million.o be subdued and the airline is at fault for letting him fly because he had undiagnosed brain injury as a child. it sort of sounds rekick louse when you look at those few headlines. >> this is directly from the plaintiff's complaint himself. claims just like you said he suffered from an undiagnosed completely unknown asimpleymptomatic brain injury. completely unknown asymptomatic condition. >> he didn't know. none of his doctors but the airline should have known. that's his argument. >> that's his argument and what this comes down to the allegations and the complaint, these are the plaintiff's own words, that i had this condition. i was unfit to fly and now i had no idea i was unfit to fly until it was clear that i was unfit to fly. so really you can boil this complaint down to we know that jetblue acted. we know they put him out of the cockpit. his complaint is that they should have done so earlier, but the thing is this: it is true that the faa requires the pilots get certified by a

danny cevallos, thank you very much. major neil franklin, thank you so much. major, we'll continue this conversation and all the breaking news coming out of baltimore ahead in just a minute. now that the police have handed over their report to prosecutors, will the community get the answers that they're demanding and all of the new questions that are being raised? one man is now reaching out to students, especially, trying to help prepare them for what might not and might not come out in light of all of this news. this is coming up. big day? ah, the usual. moved some new cars. hauled a bunch of steel. kept the supermarket shelves stocked. made sure everyone got their latest gadgets. what's up for the next shift? ah, nothing much. just keeping the lights on. (laugh) nice. doing the big things that move an economy. see you tomorrow, mac. see you tomorrow, sam. just another day at norfolk southern. nobody's hurt,but there will you totstill be pain.new car. it comes when your insurance company says they'll only pay three-quarters of what it takes to replace it. wh

danny cevallos is also here. a criminal defense attorney. let's go through this.e juryroom. we know that. surprises always come out of a juryroom but it's fun to talk about it. inside the juryroom, what are the advantages that the defense team has, do you think? >> they have three. of these three advantages, they're not very strong. first one is motive. the defense hammered this home. they said it doesn't make sense why would he do this? there's no motive. but, remember, motive is not an element of any crime. if you find yourself arguing motive to a jury, your chase in chief may have weaknesses. two jury instructions this jury received which is mere presence and mere knowledge. mere presence at a crime without participation is not enough to be found guilty of the crime and mere knowledge that a crime is about to happen is also not enough. you have to go the extra step and show some kind of -- magic word is participation. so defense is clinging to that. if you look at the jury argument at the end of the days. they did a little surprise and said, okay, he was there.

for the legal view, i want to bring in legal analyst and defense attorney danny cevallos because that's exactly what they sent a note out asking about. do we have to be close to the 23rd? can we have some definitions of what on or about is supposed to tell us about the date. doesn't this tell you the jury wants to know if it's that date and that date alone we get it but we don't get this on or about and we may have wiggle room here. >> on or about language is commonly used in indictments and complaints and it adheres to the benefit of the prosecution. the rule of thumb is in this jurisdiction, at least in federal court, as long as the on or about date, if the jury finds it occurred within a reasonable period of time, whatever that means, and especially here in cases like rape and assault time is not a material element of the crime charged. >> yeah. >> so as long as the jury finds it happened within a reasonable time. i'll add this, if an indictment says an assault happened between january 2014 and july 2014. >> it's clear. >> that's a broader on or about. this criminal complaint alleges

danny cevallos is a defense attorney. there's bad parenting and there's illegal parenting.oes this fall? dangling your kid over the cheetah enclosure, when does it move from bad parenting to illegal? >> i think dangling over a cheetah enclosure is the definition of illegal parenting because it's hugely reckless. not hugely but reckless under the statute in terms of what makes this illegal. let's back up a minute. you have witnesses that say that they were dangling the child but were they holding the child up, which i've seen a lot of parents do at zoos so the kids can get a better look. i don't do that because i have vertigo. i get near the edge and grab my kids away. was she holding the child up on a ledge to get a better look or doing the michael jackson move where the child was suspended over the ledge? it's a question of fact whether or not what the parents were doing is reckless. >> where is the responsibility on the part of the zoo to make sure the railing, the enclosure, that it's protected enough that a kid can't go in? this is not the first time this has happened.

joining us to talk about this, cnn legal analyst danny cevallos and former nypd detective and law enforcementtom verny. i was unaware that such a thing existed. these volunteer deputy officers that you can donate to a police force and with some number of hours of training go out on operations like this. is this an unusual thing? >> i was unaware of that myself. it's a little frightening to me. here in new york, nypd has auxiliary police force. >> that does what? >> it's 4,000 to 5,000 volunteers that volunteer their time. they're not armed with a firearm. they're not armed with a taser. they're not armed with pepper spray. they carry batons to use in self-defense. they are outfitted with vests because two of them were assassinated in the west village a few years back which you might remember. they wear a uniform that's very much like a patrol officer's uniform. the only difference is it says auxiliary above the patch and shield looks like a mayberry shield. they perform the uniformed presence that nypd can no longer provide since they lost 6,000 officers in the last decade. >> it sounds like

joining me now, jean casarez, and also our senior legal analyst danny cevallos.have mel robbins. we're getting people together as fast as we can. thanks so much. we have susan candiotti inside the courthouse right now await tag awaiting that verdict. seven days of deliberations. mel, i'll start with you. why did it take so long and is there any clue in that as to what this verdict might be? >> not necessarily, carol. good morning. you know just yesterday i was on with paul callen and we were convinced there would be a hung jury. the fact that there is a verdict is very interesting. there have been many very famous cases that have been out for seven days eight days nine days and so it's anybody's guess at this point whether we're going to see a conviction or an acquittal on the murder charges. of course what we're looking at is murder one which would require the prosecutor to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that there was either planning or that there was such cruelty to the killing that to find him guilty. there's also murder two, which does not require the plann

plus criminal defense attorney and cnn legal analyst, danny cevallos in new york.. what does the dash cam video tell you about officer slager's mind set right before the shooting meaning after the routine stop you hear the dialogue of him asking for i.d. about the vehicle, et cetera. is there anything that seems customary to you or out of the ordinary? >> initially, it seems very customary. it's very professional. it's very polite. it's following normal protocols. and the problem is of course when the situation ends up getting escalated and we don't know exactly where that struggle transpired there. we see that mr. scott ran from the vehicle. which obviously was not a good move. but that in no way entitles former officer slager to do what he did. and i can tell you every officer i've talked to universally condemns the outcome of what happened. >> and then danny, the former officer, michael slager is now in jail. and he is facing murder charges. he's had two attorneys, or at least one attorney prior to now his attorney andy savage has released the first statement ye