jeffrey toobin, i begin with you. what's -- tell me about the court deciding to consider these cases now and hear them on consecutive days. >> well, that is major event in american history. i don't think i'm overhyping it to say this. you know, the supreme court has never said is s it okay -- has never answered the question is it okay to put gay people in one category and straight people in another and say we're going to give government benefits-- whether it's marriage, whether it's tax benefits, whether it's access to child custody-- we're going to give benefits to straight people and keep them away from gay people. that's the core question at the heart of both of these cases and we're going to know a lot more about the answers starting tomorrow at 10:00 in the morning. >> in the largest view, no matter what the supreme court says this term, my prediction is we're going to have gay marriage everywhere in america even if the supreme court doesn't do it this term. very soon, within the next five to ten years. that's ju

nancy grace, mark geragos, and jeffrey toobin weigh in on today's developments ahead.e best on-time delivery records and a low claims ratio, we do whatever it takes to make your business our business. od. helping the world keep promises. >>> crime in punishment now. a blockbuster day of juror questions in the jodi arias trial, and possible signs that the jury is simply not buying her story. her third version of events, that she killed her boyfriend in self defense. killed him, you'll remember, just two minutes after photographing him right here, taking that picture in the shower. alexander appeared relaxed, not looking like the rage filled monster arias said she had no choice but to kill. our legal panel agrees on this. any sympathy the jurors might have had for the defendant seem all but gone. as randi kaye reports, you could hear it in their questions today. >> reporter: good she hadn't been caught in a web of lies, would jodi arias ever have come clean about killing travis alexander? jurors wanted to know. >> would you decide to tell the truth if you ever got arrest

jeffrey toobin and peter bergen and james spider marks join me. what susan just said, there is a 22 page long statement. if this a confession, inadmissible? >> we don't know that. certainly confessions are admissible in american courtrooms all the time, but there are certain rules that have to be followed. did he receive his miranda warnings. one of the major differences between a criminal court and military tribunal relates potentially at least to miranda warnings. in a criminal court, the statement is only admissible if he had received his miranda warnings. there are ways in military tribunals to admit those statements even if they were not given. >> and even if you're interrogated and you get that information via the water board, you can use it in guantanamo, you can't use it here. >> i don't think that's true. you cannot use information obtained by torture in guantanamo. >> but that's enhanced interrogation and that's fair game. >> i think the government has said they will not attempt even against major figures like khalid shaikh mohammed to u

. >> joining me is jeffrey toobin and also mark geragos.surprised that she was on the stand again and will be there tomorrow. you were saying the defense should get her on there and get her off as quickly as possible. >> there may be a method to this madness. the more she is on there the more she resonates. i think it is a gender kind of a split. the longer she is up there the more she will turn off most males. i think there are women who can understand or at least appreciate what she is talking about. >> i actually would draw the opposite conclusion. i think it is possible that some jurors might have sympathy. women jurors are often very tough on women particularly in rape cases. i don't think it is necessarily men -- >> i agree. i think that's why they dressed her down and frumped her up. women are harder on women. there is a developing sense even in the beginning when she was on direct that women were starting to say i kind of understand that. you start to see that. >> her story is that she feared for her life and that is why she killed

the latest from inside the courtroom, and nancy grace, mark geragos, and jeffrey toobin mix it up. >> also, my exclusive with speak court justice sonia sotomayor. she went back to the grade school that helped make her what she is today and nurtured so many other kids but is now being closed down. we'll talk to her about that, but we begin tonight with breaking news. >> some solace, however small, for the family of dianna hanson. a short time ago, the fresno county coroner said the 24-year-old woman died quickly after she was attacked by a 350-pound lion and she didn't suffer. she died of a broken neck and other neck injuries the preliminary autopsy shows. she was an intern at the wildcat sanctuary where she died. she was working toward a certification that would have qualified her for her dream job working at a zoo one day. her family said she loved animals, especially big cats. you're going to hear from them in a moment. this is the animal that attacked her. it was an african male lion named cous cous. he was shot, killed yesterday. he lived at the sanctuary his entire life since he

i asked jeffrey toobin to explain that. >> all we can say for sure is bill clinton thinks it was a mistakea. he wrote an op ed a couple of weeks ago saying whatever justification he may have had in 1996 wasn't good enough. and he, like virtually the entire democratic party, repudiates it and wants to see it overturned. >> this isn't a thumbs-up or thumbs-down decision. this is the supreme court. what are we looking at here? >> this is a bit of a rubik's coupe, the defense of marriage act and the case of proposition 8, the ban that prohibits same-sex marriage in california. the federal law says the federal government will not recognize same-sex marriages even in states where it's legal. so people -- gay people who are married in new york and new england and all of the states where it's legal, they can't file joint tax returns or get joint survivor's social security benefits. if the supreme court upholds doma, all of that remains the same. if they overturn it, the federal government will have to treat married people as married people. >> more than half of the country now in support of same-s

i have asked jeffrey toobin to explain this. >> all we can say is that president clinton believes it a mistake and whatever justification he had in 1996 was not good enough, and he, like virtually the entire democratic party now, repudiates it and they want to see it overturned. >> this is not a thumb's up or thumb's down decision, right? this is the supreme court, and so what are we looking at here? >> well, this is a bit of a rubik's cube, and both the defense of marriage act case and the challenge to proposition 8, the case that the law that bans same-sex marriage in california. the defense of marriage act case refers to the federal law that says that the federal government will not recognize same-sex marriages even in states where it is legal. so people, and gay people who are married in new york and new england and all of the states where it is legal, they cannot file joint tax return, and they can't get social security survivor's benefits and if the court upholds doe m s doma all is overturn and if it is overturned then the federal government will have to treat married people l

senior legal analyst jeffrey toobin joining me now from new york.linton said that 1996 was a very different time. so how influential will the former president's words be when the justices take this up? >> well, it's really in a remarkable just event in american history to have a president of the united states say that a bill he signed was unconstitutional. i can't think of another example of a president doing that. you know, as a technical legal matter, this is not relevant to the justices. the justices are dealing with the law of the constitution and the precedence of the supreme court. but in the real world, the changes in all attitudes towards gay rights, towards same-sex marriage, i think will have a big impact. >> and to what degree? we are talking about an evolution of thinking. we are talking about even the justices, you know, some might acknowledge that their legal opinions change just as times change. contrary -- whether it's contrary to what the law states. >> you know, this is a philosophical debate that goes on at the supreme court all t

"outfront" tonight, senior legal analyst jeffrey toobin who was in the courtroom today.ense watching this that the defensive marriage act is going down? >> reporter: well, fair warning, i don't exactly have a perfect record on predicting supreme court decisions based on the oral argument. but, anyway, that said, it did look like there were five votes to overturn the defensive marriage act not on the ground that it was discriminatory against gay people but on the ground that anthony kennedy suggested in that clip you just ran that this was a federal law that interferes with state power to regulate marriage. that looked like an argument that had five votes but that would be a victory for edith windsor and that would overturn the law. >> here's what i'm interested in. you think about this. if you're a conservative justice in, favor of states' rights. you would then be likely to overturn this. but, of course, this is a bill that requires marriage to be between a man and woman which is what a conservative justice believes that marriage should be. so when you are given such a

so will cc cnn senior analyst jeffrey toobin who will prep us on that, the author of "the oath."f, thanks for being here on "the lead." you're the lead on "the lead." there are a lot of legal issues and torts. but for you this comes down to one question. >> both cases, same question -- can the government, in giving out benefits, whether it's taxes, whether it's marriage, whether it's child custody, say gay people get one set of benefits and straight people get another? can gay people get less? those are really the questions in both cases, and the court has never really answered that question clearly. and we should know a lot more tomorrow. >> and in terms of court watching, we know that there are generally four -- traditionally four liberal justices we assume will support same-sex justices, three or four conservative justices who will probably oppose it. does this, like so many other cases before it, come down to justice kennedy? >> anthony kennedy is the most powerful judge and maybe the most powerful person in america because of the split you talk about. one reason why supporte

jeffrey toobin, he was in the courtroom today. jeff, what's your sense of how the court is going to rule? this is obviously if they go ahead and do something big here, this is huge. this is transformational for much of the country. >> it is but, you know, this was an unusually baffling argument. i have to say. usually, you have some sense, sometimes you can have a wrong sense and i've certainly had wrong senses before, but the court so fractured over so many issues that, frankly, it wouldn't surprise me to see almost any result at this point. it did seem that even the liberals as well as the conservatives were weary of a 50-state solution. i don't think this court is going to tell texas and mississippi, you have to have same sex marriage at the end of this case. but whether they tell california that california has to have same-sex marriage, that seems a real possibility. but there are lots of moving parts and none of them are settled at this point. >> it's interesting. david cole of georgetown wrote this op-ed in "the new york tim

joining us is jeffrey toobin and also with us tonight, defense attorney mark geragos, author of "mistrial at how the criminal justice system works and sometimes doesn't." and clinical psychologist, david swanson. mark, the prosecutor really ripped into the defense expert, questioning his objectivity, asking about the self-help book randi was talking about. do you think it presents some sort of ethical issue? >> no, i don't think it presents an ethical issue. that's what good prosecutors do with expert witnesses and even bad prosecutors do with expert witnesses. most of this stuff that was brought up today i don't think was of any great moment and i don't think this is any kind of a news flash, this idea that somebody could have post-traumatic disorders or be disassociative and might have stabbed somebody 29 times. i have been on the receiving end of this so many times when prosecutors will put up experts who will explain so-called complaining witnesses' lack of memory in terms of this kind of testimony, this very kind of testimony. it's just a defense using exactly what prosecutors do all

cnn legal analyst jeffrey toobin is going to be with us. topic but a comedy, julia stiles will join us live to talk about that. and then phil has some explaining to do. punxsutawney phil, groundhog club president taking him to task over his inaccurate early spring predictions. >> you have punxsutawney phil on today? >> yes, we do. >> no. >> yes, yes! people just had him on groundhog day. we have -- >> i'm told he spent a lot of time in hair and makeup. >> it's groundhog day redux because the prediction has not been working out for us. >> no, it has not. >> looking forward to that. we're about a week into spring, right? winterlike conditions still hanging around much of the country. will it finally warm up in time for the holiday weekend? jennifer delgado is live in the cnn weather center. can you send us your questions for how you like us to grill punxsutawney phil people this morning. >> exactly. and tell soledad in self-defense he doesn't have radar. he doesn't have satellite down there. >> oh, you weather people stick together. >> oh, we

same-sex marriage, it will only be in california, not some broad ruling for the whole country. >> jeffrey toobinticle in the "new yorker" as he always does. thank you, jeffrey. >> thank you, wolf. >>> an attorney of the united states says it's impossible to imagine. we're going live to the pentagon. it's proven to be 4x better at smoothing lines we're going live to the pentagon. we're going live to the pentagon. to imagine. we're going live to the pentagon. oimpossible to imagine. we're going live to the pentagon. simpossible to imagine. we're going live to the pentagon. impossible to imagine. we're going live to the pentagon. osimpossible to imagin. we're going live to the pentagon. impossible to imagine. we're going live to the pentagon. to imagine. we're going live to the pentagon. iimpossible to imagine. we're going live to the pentagon. simpossible to imagine. we're going live to the pentagon. mpossible to imagine. we're going live to the pentagon. possible to imagine. we're going live to the pentagon. possible to imagine. we're going live to the pentagon. . . if there was a pill to help pr

assignment for jeffrey toobin. >> what's odd about this case is that the plaintiff, edith windsor, who had to pay a large amount of taxes because the internal revenue service doesn't recognize her marriage. and the federal government -- whoa. >> jimmy: you have to have an umbrella. it's raining men out there. if you're a facebook user, you probably have been seeing this image a lot over the past few days. red equals time. logo of the equal rights campaign. they made a special one and asked people who support same sex marriage to make it their profile picture. changing your profile picture to support something you believe in is the least you can do. literally, it is the least you can do. you almost did nothing. but instead, you did just slightly more than nothing. even so, it's kind of nice to see people finally posting something on facebook besides a sandwich they ate or their feet on vacation. facebook has been a forum for a lot of debate on the subject of equal rights this week. people get very passionate and sometimes insulting when it comes to this sort of thing. which gave me the

let's talk about it with senior legal analyst jeffrey toobin and california's attorney general, kamela harris. tomorrow, the justices will be dealing with whether or not americans have a constitutional right to same sex marriage and they are looking at the constitutionality of proposition 8. what's at the core of the argument for each side? >> really, a simple question. the issue is can a government, state government, federal government, put gay people and straight people into separate categories, and give rights to one group, straight people, and withhold them from the other. that's the issue and on the other side, the defenders of proposition 8 will be saying look, the voters spoke on this issue, this is a political question, the court should stay out of it. if people want the right to vote, they should organize and do it through the political system, not through judges. >> attorney general harris, supporters in your state, california, of the ban there say that the issue is evolving in the public domain, the supreme court shouldn't step in now and short-circuit the democratic process

joining me now is cnn senior legal analyst, jeffrey toobin, and the executive director and founder ofealva. thank you both for being with us this morning. >> good morning. >> jimmy, there's a new poll in "the washington post" that shows a surprising 58% of americans support same-sex marriage. that is a sea change from just a few years ago. to what do you attribute that rise? >> i think that all americans are thinking about this issue differently now. everyone has a gay person in their life, and they want the best for their gay family and friends. that's certainly what we saw over the weekend with senator portman's announcement. so everybody's thinking about this issue differently. and the truth is we're at the tippi inping point. and with any issue, the tipping point comes and moves very, very fast, and that's what we're seeing happen on the issue of same-sex marriage. >> and jimmy, we're seeing more and more politicians coming out and supporting same-sex manger. is it now considered a sort of safe issue, even for republicans? >> yeah, we're living in a very different political realit

our legal panel is joining me, analyst jeffrey toobin and defense attorney mark geragos, author of "mis-trial prosecutor made a lot of the 62 seconds that the crime would have had to have been committed in, saying it was basically impossible. why is that such an important point? >> well, because it's the key to her whole story. she has an explanation as to how the crime unfolded, and the photographs, weirdly -- i mean, that's just one of the weirdest things about this case -- are basically a timestamped version of how the case unfolded. her version doesn't seem to make sense. i thought martinez was so effective in pointing out how absurd it is that she could have done all of that in 62 seconds. >> mark geragos, what did you think of the expert that the defense had, talking about memory loss? i just want to play some of what he said for our viewers who didn't watch it. >> people who suffer from stress-producing trauma will frequently not recall what happened for a certain period starting at the beginning of the trauma until some time thereafter, which could be measured either in hours or even

joining us jeffrey toobin, nancy grace and mark geragos, co-author of the upcoming book "mistrial." nancy, for you, what was the headline out of today's testimony? clearly seemed like defense was trying to convince the jury that alexander's alleged abuse pushed her to kill in self-defense. was that the headline for you? >> i would say that that would be the headline for the defense, but what stunned me is that the defense chose to go back into arias buying multiple gas cans and filling them up with gas. i don't know if you do that on a long trip, anderson, but clearly so she wouldn't be detected traveling to alexander's home where she murdered him. >> what was especially bizarre about today's testimony, is she had an explanation for why she bought gas, which was it was cheaper, so she thought she would buy gas and put it in canisters and take it with her. now, i don't care how much you're economizing. i've never heard of anyone buying gas and putting it in cans. i just thought if you're going to try to lessen the hurt, at least come up with a somewhat believable explanation instead

senior legal analyst jeffrey toobin was there today along with chief political analyst gloria borger. in terms of other cases you have heard in the supreme court, how does this compare? you heard the crowd laughing. does that happen a lot? >> yeah, there actually is often a lot of laughter. justice scalia usually tries to make a few jokes. some were successful, some were not. he has a mixed batting average. what was unusual to me about today's argument is that usually there's a pattern. usually you can identify what the key issues are and what the court is focusing on. what was so confusing about today is they jumped around to so many different issues and even the liberals didn't all agree on everything and the conservatives didn't all agree on everything. so i don't feel like i have at all much of a handle on which way this case is going, with the exception that i don't think that they are going to order 50 states to have same sex marriage. a full complete victory for the supporters of same sex marriage seems unlikely, but a victory in california alone does seem very possible. >> why

let's discuss what is going on with our senior legal analyst jeffrey toobin. is this first of all a surprise that the defense would seek a guilty plea to avoid the death sentence? >> not really. the goal in these cases for the defense is to keep the client from being executed. this is not a whodunit. everybody knows that james holmes committed these horrible murders. the question is what punishment he will get. if they can get life in prison they will consider this a victory. >> would the prosecution accept this kind of guilty plea and avoid the death sentence? >> well, that's the question now. there is an interesting precedent for this. just last year jared lee loughner who committed horrible murders in tucson and grievously murdered congresswoman gabby giffords was given life in prison without parole. obviously both loughner and holmes have terrible mental problems. their trials would be long inquiries into whether they were insane, the insanity defense is a complex, difficult area of the law. this would give both sides a chance to short circuit the trial, l

jeffrey toobin was inside the court again today. he joins us from outside the court. so we know everything comes with the caveat that the supreme court can surprise us and is hard to predict. you say that doma is in trouble. that a majority of justices seem inclined to throw it out? why is that? >> reporter: because of what anthony kennedy said. the four democratic members were all clearly hostile to the defense of marriage act. where were they going to get the fifth vote. anthony kennedy is the only likely possibility. but repeatedly today he expressed what appeared to be his view that the defense of marriage act violated states rights. he did not talk about, that it violated the rights of gay people. he said that it violates the states ability to regulate and create the laws of marriage. and he said it over and over again. and that is a winning argument for the defense of marriage act critics of edith windsor and company. >> john roberts was critical of how president obama is handling dome ma. they're not defending the law in court, it's still enforcing it. here's w

. >> senior legal analyst jeffrey toobin at the supreme court. you are inside at the time and i know there's excitement outside of the supreme court as well. tell us about, first of all, the main issue here of california's prop 8 as it's known, ballot initiative, that bans same-sex marriage. >> the court was deeply divided, that much is clear. that might be the only thing that's clear. the court very much seemed to be groping for a way to resolve this case. does the constitution protect the right to same-sex marriage in california alone? in all 50 states? does this case even need to be decided now? several justices suggested that there were procedural issues that might prevent the case from being resolved now. so i have to si, aftay, i am lee of the resolution than i was when i went into the courtroom. >> that's reassuring, isn't it? one of the biggest social issues for americans they've faced i suppose. you compared it to, i think, loving versus virginia a landmark case that struck down laws banning interracial marriage. what's interesting does

joining me now, nancy grace, jeffrey toobin and mark geragos. what did you make of the questions that the jurors themselves were asking today of arias? >> anderson, i've got to tell you that i was frankly very concerned when i realized the judge was not going to allow recross-examination which is, you know, discretionary to the judge in this jurisdiction. after the defense had redirect. but when i got a load of the jury questions, i could not have been happier. questions like, why did you take time to delete photos off your digital camera after you had just killed travis alexander and her response was, oh, that's one of those things i tell you, i just can't remember that. questions like, well, if your phone, your cell phone died, why didn't you blug plug it in to a charger in they clearly have latched on to every minute fact she testified to on the stand and calling her on it. >> mark, what about you? you said you didn't like the idea of jurors asking questions. >> i don't. precisely the reason unintentionally nancy just mentioned. it's an adver

we'll talk about it with jeffrey toobin.and a lot more at the top of the hour. >> thank you. >>> now our fifth story "outfront." >> the reviews of donald trump's speech are in and your fired may be the next words donald trump hears from his party. donald trump's speech, is he a democratic secret agent? donald trump gave a nonsensical speech and conservatives were dumb struck. donald trump says gop i serious trouble and from the atlantic, donald trump fires everyone's ideas. the atlantic may have a point there. >> the fact is we're run by either very foolish or very stupid people. what's going on in this country is unbelievable. our country is a total mess. a total and complete mess. and what we need is leadership. >> he didn't promise a pick me up. will his speech a dud? tim carney, senior clumist, michael medved and anna navorro. you heard the speech. what did you think? >> i thought it was god awful. there's been some great speeches, some serious and substantiative speeches on all sorts of issues. donald trump was rambling

senior editor at moynihan, senior editor at "newsweek daily beast" and cnn's senior legal analyst, jeffrey toobinjeff, the judge said the ban is, quote, laden with exceptions based on economic and political concerns. there are a number of exceptions, like convenience stores that would be able to sell these supersized drinks, but not restaurants. beverages with high milk content would be exempt. this a controversial issue for the judge, or is it just because there's too many loopholes? >> it's sort of hard to tell. he just doesn't like the law and rules it arbitrary. i think it's a terrible decision, poorly reasoned. and the idea that just because you can't ban everything, and you can't do everything to limit obesity, that you can't do anything, i think, is just a mistaken idea. i think this was a reasonable step by mayor blockberg, and i think an appeals court will overturn it. >> jeff, in order to get it to be overturned, would bloomberg have to try to change the law to make it kind of across the board? and not have there been exemptions or loopholes? >> no, he would just say that this law is re

i'll talk to nancy grace and jeffrey toobin and mark geragos about all of that. a lot about politics in d.c. a lot more at the top of the hour. >> that is pretty ridiculous. anything that goes on these days. see you in a few minutes, anderson. >>> and our fifth story, president obama is lazy. these are the explosive comments made by roger ailes. "vanity fair" released an excerpt in which he says ref referring to a comment someone made about ann romney, obama's the one who never worked a day in his life. never earned a penny that wasn't public money. how many fund-raisers does he attend every week? how often does he play basketball and golf. he's lazy. obama said that the barbara walters. all right, he did. i'm going to get to that in a moment, but are those comments rationally charged or just frank talk? michael and van jones, a cnn criminal intenter. racial? >> very. very. first of all, i swrus want to say i worked with this president. i worked for him. i know his work ethic. i know not only the quantity of his work, but the quality. but you don't have to be in

jeffrey toobin and joe johns are ready and waiting to be able to analyze what they've heard and what seen. jeff toobin, i just need to know, how did it sound? give it all to me. whether we can read any tea leaves. >> this was a deeply divided supreme court and a court that seemed almost to be brokgroping an answer here. i'm now not in the business of making pre-particularses, but i think it is even hard he to predict the result of this case after hearing this argument. certainly it was clear that justice scolia and almost certainly roberts were very positive till to the idea of imposing same-sex marriage. it is quite clear the liberal justices seemed favorably disposed. chief justice kennedy as so often is the case did seem like he was in the middle and he said things that would give comfort to both sides. he did not seem anxious to even resolving this case. he suggested a couple of times that perhaps in whole issue was premature. so kennedy did not seem to be seeking out the role that the court has presented to him, but he did seem to present the option to decide this case. and that

. >> i want to bring in jeffrey toobin and mark geragos. co-author of "mistrial, how the criminal justice system works and sometimes doesn't." i find it so incredible and want to put up the pictures again that were taken just minutes before travis alexander was k l killed by his then-girlfriend. two minutes just before she kills him. it's so eerie to me and bizarre to me. it's just one of many bizarre things. >> today is the day that mark geragos apologizeds for criticizing the prosecutor so much. >> so rudely -- >> this was an amazing day of cross-examination. >> where did this guy come from? she said, where did this prosecutor come from? >> badgering, all that is gone. >> he finally just got his, i don't know, his legs about him. he was so much better. and she didn't know how to deal with him. >> there was a moment that i actually thought was what prompted her to break down, and there's so much to talk about. she didn't talk about this part. three days after she kills him, she writes an e-mail to him saying i'm going to come see you. just

. >> i want to bring in jeffrey toobin and mark geragos.f "mistrial, how the criminal justice system works and sometimes doesn't." i find it so incredible and want to put up the pictures again that were taken just minutes before travis alexander was killed by his then-girlfriend. two minutes just before she kills him. it's so eerie to me and bizarre to me. it's just one of many bizarre things. >> today is the day that mark geragos apologizes for criticizing the prosecutor so much. >> so rudely -- >> this was an amazing day of cross-examination. >> where did this guy come from? she said, where did this prosecutor come from? >> badgering, all that is gone. >> he finally just got his, i don't know, his legs about him. he was so much better. and she didn't know how to deal with him. >> there was a moment that i actually thought was what prompted her to break down, and there's so much to talk about. she didn't talk about this part. three days after she kills him, she writes an e-mail to him saying i'm going to come see you. just like chatty, lon

. >> our legal panel joins us, jeffrey toobin, mark geragos, coauthor of "mistrial, an inside look at criminal justice system works and sometimes doesn't." mark, you heard them talking about the jodi arias they remember and also the travis alexander they knew. and they say she's nothing like the sort of quiet, meek person now on the stand. what do you make of that? is that just part of the makeunder jeff was talking about before? >> that's precisely what it is. it doesn't take -- you don't have to get somebody who knew here to look at the before and after pictures and understand what is going on. there's a crafted effort to put her -- put forward somebody who does not look like the vixen or the manipulative vixen she looks like beforehand. this is now the frumpy librarian. >> jodi arias has made some pretty serious claims against alexander saying he was a pedophile, he was abusive. and all this stuff. the prosecution hasn't put anybody on to be character witnesses for him. is that something -- >> they could in theory, but that seems likely to be a side show that would actually dignify