joey jackson joining me to discuss. in this colorado truck driver case as you heard, the judge's hands were tied by mandatory minimums of sentencing. you heard him say that. what does this say about the justice system? >> good to be with you. what happens is the laws need to reflect the values of the community and when they offend those notions of values in justice, people get upset, concerned and do something about it. that's why we have this petition. now make no mistake about it, every jurisdiction that we state is entitled to create their own laws. you have a governor and sl legislature that does that. the laws can't be so over blown people say what are you doing here? let's talk for a minute. there are sometimes people get killed and as a result of that, it's because of somebody did it intentionally. they did it because they premeditated and it did it based on deliberation. that's most harsh and you get to other conduct like recklessness. you weave in and out of traffic. you know consciously that something could oc

in the meantime, i want to bring back in our cnn legal analysts, jennifer rogers and joey jackson, whotanding by, who have walked through this case a little bit with us as well. we know, joey, that this video was released today from the los angeles police department. our colleague, josh campbell, saying they wanted to get it out there quickly for transparency. but we are listening and looking at this father with utter anguish on his face. it is inconceivable to take your daughter to try on a dress and for her to end up dead at the end of that. what are you expecting as we hear from this family and as the lapd and also the authorities move through the investigation in this case? >> so, jessica, you put it absolutely right. it's inconceivable. from the family's perspective, they're heartbroken and i think what you only have in our system, right, is you have, from a civil perspective, the compensation and monetary damages, but there's a couple of components. the first component is, how do we get better? what do we learn? tactically, what could have been done better to prevent this? should

and joey jackson, let me bring you back. so there were six counts and apparently the -- she was found guilty of five of them. the one that she was not found guilty of related to one having to do with jane and that had to do with enticing a minor to travel and transport a minor. two charges had to do with jane between '94 and 1997. so now that we know the exact details of it, put it in perspective. sounds like the jury, for the most part, believed the four former girls, now women, accusing ghislaine maxwell and accusing jeffrey epstein of these heinous, horrible crimes. >> yeah, that's exactly what it sounds like. you know, whenever you have a trial, jake, you have these narratives. the narrative here was she was an enabler, facilitator. mr. epstein was engaged in misconduct and she'd otherwise condition and groom and lure these women so that he could ultimately or excuse me, now women, then girls, so that he could then ultimately engage in misconduct that he did. and with respect to reviewing those narratives, just to be cle

. >>> joining me the cnn criminal analyst and criminal defense attorney joey jackson and former u.s. attorney elie honig. elie, your reaction to the verdict and its potential impact on other cases going forward. >> the first thought has to be with these victims. four of them testified at this trial, but really they spoke on behalf of dozens of dozens of victims victimized by jeffrey epstein, ghislaine maxwell, and others over the years. it's important to remember that prosecutors initially gave jeffrey epstein essentially a free pass over a decade ago down in florida. and really the only reason we were able to see justice here after all these years is because of intrepid, really effective local reporting down in florida and because the southern district of new york stepped up and pursued justice for ghislaine maxwell. i think victims are right to point out this is a partial step towards justice. one person has been convict preponderance of the evidence way more than one or two people involved in this. we'll see. the prosecutors have the evidence and the will do to go after those peop

joining me now cnn legal analyst and criminal defense attorney my friend joey jackson. police and prosecutors say the parents were on the run. defense attorneys say they were in fear for their safety and they always planned to turn themselves in. how does their disappearance impact the case against them? >> that will be a question of fact. the attorneys during arraignment making very clear there was a miscommunication with the prosecutor with respect to the time they were to turn themselves in. if you look factually, i don't know it was a secret they were being pursued by law enforcement. i don't know it was a secret that their presence was required before the court and obviously you have this revelation with respect to where they were warehoused, how they got into that location, the fact that they were trying to secret themselves. so that does not appear factually and common sense wise they were simply waiting to go to the arraignment and they did not attempt to abscond from justice. how it plays into the case will be it goes toward consciousness of guilt. where you're

joining me is criminal defense attorney joey jackson. get for this? >> good morning to you. good morning, john. i think, first of all, there's a due diligence obligation. remember, there is a criminal investigation. in light of that, you want to cross your is and dot your ts. whenever you do a search warrant, you know there is probable cause to believe a crime was committed. and there's evidence there that would be material and relevant to the investigation. i think what you do is not only look for information as to anything prior but during and, more importantly, after. who were you communicating with. what specifically did you say? what did you know? was there any collusion with respect to what you should tell or who to tell it to. all of this information goes to whether or not there was t a crime committed. it's a heavy lift to establish that at that point. but i think that information they glean with regard to who he was speaking to, photographs, other information on the phone would be critical to the investigation. . >> forgive me f

i want to bring in cnn legal analyst and criminal defense attorney joey jackson now. ng to take the stabbed. good idea? >> ana, good to be with you, i think it's fraught with difficulty for the following reason. if you take the stand in the case, and i understand the significance of it, right? let's talk about that first. there's something called symmetry, and you know that a jury notwithstanding the fact that they will be instructed that a defendant doesn't need to. you're to draw no adverse inference from the fact that they don't. people want to see both sides of the equation so there's that imperative, i get it. there's the imperative of humanizing her and i'm sure they will relay that to the video. there's a videotape where she's pretty much saying, ana, i should kill myself. that's how badly she feels about what occurred but in the event she takes the stand she will have to admit to the material elementsch these charges. what do i mean? i mean as follows. you've been an officer for quite some time. isn't that right? you've been an officer for a couple of decades,

joining us now is criminal defense attorney joey jackson. good to have you on here.yers who did not expect the trial to go this way at least on both counts here. were you surprised? >> reporter: i was not, jim. good morning to you. for the following reasons. it's a very difficult process we have in having 12 people reach an accord. so that is really built into it. then when you get the different dynamic facts here and you have an officer, people generally don't like to convict, there are going to be factions, infighting. it's oftentimes the case, believe it or not, where you have a jury that comes out and says, judge, we're really divided and we just don't know what to do. i'm summarizing of course. and the judge says go back and deliberate and reach a consensus. and that's what they did here. >> i don't want to draw lines between cases with fundamentally different facts. but fact is we have had a couple high-profile cases with derrick khchauvin chauvin. the jury's tendency has been to give police officers more leeway. do you see any trend there in terms of how jurie

. >> we're joined now by criminal defense attorney and cnn legal analyst joey jackson.guing she had a right to use deadly force even if she didn't know she was using deadly force. she thought she was using her taser. what does the law say on that defense? >> yeah. i think it's pretty problematic. good morning to you. i think the essence is the defense so going for jury nullification. if you look at the defense they're using, particularly when they put her on the witness stand, she admitted to all of the essential elements of the offense. she admitted it was a mistake. she admitted she didn't need to use deadly force. and so you're admitting to recklessness. guess what? that's manslaughter in the first degree, punishable by 15 years. you're admitting to being careless as it results to the use of a firearm. that's culpable negligence, ten years. i think defense is asking the jury to nullify. that means that the jury can relate to you, they believe you're contrite, think that you really made a mistake, the jury can lawfully say you're admitting to the elements but we'll gi

joey jackson, thank you very much. >>> there is more breaking news next.ffort bzs to fight the surge of the omicron virus variant here in the united states. way for you to sell your car. whether it's a year old or a few years old. we wanna buy your car. so go to carvana and enter your license plate answer a few questions. and our techno wizardry calculates your car's value and gives you a real offer in seconds. when you're ready, we'll come to you, pay you on the spot and pick up your car, that's it. so ditch the old way of selling your car, and say hello to the new way at carvana. ray loves vacations. but his diabetes never seemed to take one. everything felt like a 'no'. everything. but then ray went from no to know. with freestyle libre 2, now he knows his glucose levels when he needs to. and... when he wants to. so ray... can be ray. take the mystery out of your glucose levels, and lower your a1c. now you know. try it for free. visit freestylelibre.us (kate) this holiday, verizon has the deal that gets better and better and better. get iphone 13 pro, o

joey jackson for us once again. really appreciate it. >> always, thanks, paula. >>> a republican congressman is facing fierce criticism for his pro-gun tweet just days after the michigan tragedy. thomas massey posted this photo on saturday showing what appears to be his family gathered around the christmas tree, all holding firearms, as you can see there. the caption reads, "merry christmas, p.s., santa, please bring ammo." gun violence activists responded with a picture of his teenaged daughter, who was killed in the parkland shooting in 2018. he tweeted, since we are now sharing family photos, here are mine. one is the last photo that i ever took of jamie. the other is where she is buried because of the parkland school shooting. now the michigan school shooter and his family used to take photos like yours as well, he wrote. >>> here at cnn, suspended anchor chris cuomo is no longer employed at cnn. his termination was announced saturday. going into effect immediately. the move comes after documents from the new yo

let's discuss now with joey jackson. good to see you. we were just talking about this case.s not about intent, and the jury made the decision about what was proven by the prosecution. what's your reaction? >> yeah, laura, good to be with you. you know this is a very big deal. when you analyze and look at the jury, you know, six men and six women, nine who are white, two who are asian, only one african-american woman, that gave a lot of people pause, right? it gave people pause because of the nature of that jury. but i think it goes to demonstrate that accountability can be found no matter the color of the jury, no matter the fact that, you know, they may not be of the same hue as the person sitting in that chair. we're seeing a police officer being held accountable here. and i think when you look at what the jury did and what the jury analyzed over the course of time, of course getting the verdict as we now know at 10:30 a.m. on tuesday for the second degree, that's the negligent charge, and then taking two more days, laura, wednesday to thursday, today to get the first degr

. >> joining me now cnn's legal analyst joey jackson and former editor of hollywood reporter matt bellamyod evening. more sound bites i want to play. you're shaking your head. why? >> i don't think, listen, inthere is an imperative for public relations purposes you want to get out there and i'm sure he feels terrible as it relates to what happened here but doing an interview in this circumstance is fraught with difficulty. you have a sheriff's department undertaking a criminal investigation. you're making major admissions here as to what you did. this is all about the handling of the weapon and even prior to the handling of the weapon what if anything did you do to assess that weapon to evaluate it, to look at it in addition to what the armorer did to ensure there was no bullet here. when you talk about criminality it is not only we talk about you meant to kill someone. there are other steps. sometimes you kill someone not meaning to do it but you're negligent with respect to what you do or do not do. that is a problem. there is another thing. this are also lawsuits here so it's not only

. >>> joining us is joey jackson, and cnn's senior legal analyst laura coates.alk about the books in the weeks ahead. did potter's testimony today help or hurt her case? >> it was extremely compelling to humanize her for the jurors, to have her be more than a robot, to demonstrate that this was something consistent frankly with what the prosecution and defense have already said, in terms of her attempt to pull one weapon and not the other. the distinction, though, however, is for the prosecution, there's no need to prove intent for the charges these filed. one is based on unreasonable risks, and creating them, recklessness and negligence. the other unreasonableness and actually ignoring the grave risk to bodily harm. there's no requirement they demonstrated intent. the jurors could conceively find that the prosecution has met their burden of proof, even still believes sheelgs remorseful, sympathetic and did not intent to kill dawnede wright. >> she was very, very emotional, saying she never wanted to hurt anybody. as laura said, these charges are not about her i

here to discuss more now is criminal defense attorney and cnn legal analyst joey jackson. always. good to see you. so first off, joey, we heard there from potter's former supervisor on the stand michael johnson, testifying that the officer had a right to use deadly force to prevent bodily harm. look, i could have been dragged or injured or killed if she had not taken action. what did you think of his testimony? was it effective? >> yeah. amara good morning to you. i think what the defense is trying to do in their cross-examination is to refrain the issue. i think the prosecution will get the jury back on track. what the defense is trying to do is say could you rel have killed him any way at the end of the day because of the fact the other officer, supervisor would have been dragged, in danger? that's not the issue. the issue is whether kim potter, the officer who fired the shot, thought in her mind it was objectively reasonable to use deadly force at that time. apparently she did not do so otherwise she would have. how do we think deadly force was appropriate or otherwise n

let's speak to joey jackson for more on the legal analysis of the verdict. lyst, criminal defense attorney. joey, you made the point that part of the issue here, right, is the smollett doubled down on this, even after the questions arose. do you believe he will face both jail time as well as civil financial liability here? >> yeah, jim, i really do. good morning to you and good morning, erica. i think there is a number of imperatives when you look at sentencing that a judge is going to consider. what is that? punishment, deterrence, rehabilitation. we know the prospects for rehabilitation are excellent. he's a young man with a future. i think the judge will be hung up on two other things. punishment and deterrence. why? when you look at the issue of punishment, you have to look and say, well, you know what, this was a fake report, regarding a hate crime. there is so many other people who are suffering from hate crimes that are genuine, and what does it do to diminish and devalue them? i think the judge will be very concerned about that. the punishment for tha

enroll by december 31st at coveredca.com >>> i'm back now with joey jackson and matt bellamy.rised that alec baldwin did this interview? >> i'm surprised his lawyers let him do that interview. i'm not surprised he would want to do that interview. he's a very emotional, kind of hot-headed fwie. and i understand given all the attention on this guy, his desire to get his story out there and tell people what his side of the story is. i'm very surprised they let him given the ongoing investigation, given all the things that are involved, the civil cases. very surprised. >> joey, there's at least one member of the crew who is backing up baldwin's claim that he didn't pull the trigger, but another one has filed a lawsuit. alec baldwin says he's been told he is highly unlikely to be charged criminally. do you agree with that? >> it's a difficult criminal prosecution. as i was noting before, not all crime is predicated upon, i intended to do it. sometimes you could be so careless and so reckless in what you do that it amounts to criminality. so the prosecutor has a real decision to mak

if i'm the defense, i'm feeling not so bad. >> joey jackson there.well faces up to 70 years in prison if convicted on all six counts including sex trafficking of a minor. she has pleaded not guilty. >>> a colorado judge has now set a hearing for next month to reconsider the 110-year sentence for a truck driver. he was convicted in 2019. a crash that killed four people, cnn's lucy cavanaugh has that. >> reporter: the district attorney alexis king asked the judge to reconsider the 110 year prison sentence, potentially reducing it to 20 or 30 years. she said this was based on the facts of the case as well as conversations with the victims and their families. now, when the court reconvenes next month, it will be an in-person hearing. the judge said he does not want the defendant to testify. maderos was driving 75 miles an hour causing the crash. four people died, others were injured. he was found guilty of several charges including vehicular homicide and vehicular assault. because colorado's mandatory minimum sentencing laws requires sentences for each o

let's go bring back laura coates, cnn senior legal analyst and we also have joey jackson with us, cnn legal analyst and criminal defense attorney. joey, let me start with you because you are a defense attorney. do you think potter has helped or hurt her defense today? >> i certainly think she has significant problems, ana, to be good with you and laura, and they are just built into the nature of the case. let's talk about the positives first with respect to how she helped. she was there from a defense perspective to humanize herself. this is a person who has been an overs for 26 years, her life long dream, her husband is in the audience, his name is jeff. she has two sons, one of them is in military service. she feels so bad about this she quit at the end of the day because she couldn't take it. didn't want to put the police department through anything, left the state in fact where she no longer is a resident and that resonates. that's important to show what, you know, i feel horrible about this and that was one of the reasons she did it, and the other thing i think is to explain the

joining us cnn legal analyst joey jackson and senior law enforcement analyst charles ramsey. defense says this is a horrible accident. the prosecution is making the case, this is a crime. give us your analysis. >> yeah, wolf, there are really three questions in my view with respect to this case. there are two counts. number one relating to recklessness. the question is, do you believe as viewers as jurors that this officer acted recklessly with respect to pulling that firearm and discharming it as opposed to the taser? that's as to count one, if the jurors believe she was reckless with respect to pulling out, drawing the wrong weapon, then that's problematic. step two, in the event you don't believe she is reckless but you do believe she is neglect, what does that mean? you were careless, you consciously disregarded the risk that your behavior was reasonable, if you respond she was careless with regard to pulling the wrong weapon, then have you responsibility as a guilty. the final question is whether or not an officer to the extent you pull the wrong we upon, you feel horrib

joey jackson and former new york city prosecutor paul callum. ey, based on that question, does it look like there could be a hung jury? >> erica, good morning to you. good morning, paul. we should caution -- and the answer is yes, right. it looks like they are not able to reach consensus. we should caution that there are oftentimes, oftentimes where jurors come in to a courtroom, and they'll indicate to the judge they're having a problem. so this is not something that is unusual, i should add. and following that, there are oftentimes where jurors then do reach a conclusion. so when you ever have -- it brings the question the process. whenever you have 12 individuals from separate backgrounds, separate perspectives, having different points of view, that have to evaluate and analyze evidence, there's going to be disagreements, disputes, some discord. it doesn't mean they're not going to get there, they are just having some issues getting there now. as a result, the judge had to give them guidance, go back, do the best you can, change your views if

joining me now cnn legal analyst joey jackson. good to see you, joey.this has been quite a week of trials and waiting and waiting on jury watch all this time. what do you make of the fact that there is still a jury out in the potter trial and no notes, no questions today? take me inside that room with the mind that you have. what's going on? >> yeah, sure, laura. good to be with you, of course, as always. what happens in potter, i think, is that there is a clear distinction. on the one hand the defense made the case that this was a terrible mistake, she feels so badly about it, they put her on the stand, she had authenticity, and i think jurors are not going to convict or who are loathe to convict saying she is an officer, she made a mistake, she deserves the benefit of the doubt. on the other hand, i think these juror want accountability who say, listen, she testified. she indicated it was a mistake. she indicated she didn't mean to use deadly force. she said she was sorry. she said she should have known the difference. she admitted to every material e

let's get some analysis, cnn legal analyst, joey jackson, is joining us. mber, the distinction between the two. there is a place not only for a state prosecution, which we saw in the state he was convicted, of course, of three counts, as it related to the murder of george floyd. and now, we get to the federal prosecution, which relates to the deprivation of a civil right. and so, the distinction being that the federal government was very concerned, thereby indicting him for violating someone's civil right, that someone being george floyd. everyone has the right to walk around unimpeded, uninterfered with by members of law enforcement and what that further relates to serious bodily injury or death, there is something to be said. and so, in court, what you saw was him take ownership of that and accountability in terms of him violating the civil rights. and as josh campbell pointed out, it was not only as to george floyd who, you know, is very much dead as a result of his actions but it was as to a 14-year-old juvenile. and so, this is significant for many rea

joey jackson is a cnn legal analyst and criminal defense attorney. joey, this is true. the day of the shooting, the day before the shooting, this was online. the school had every red flag that other schools did not have. how do you defend against that? >> therein lies the issue. you're on notice some potentially is brewing to what extent do you have responsibility to protect the fellow students out there from that? look at the facts before relates to searching for ammunition and a teacher concerned and saying were need to have a conversation, as it relates to a photograph with blood and bullets and a person who's apparently dead and say you know what, parents, come on in. taking 90 minutes, come in, sit down and parents pushing back we want your kid outta here. what does the school say, parents say, no. we want to keep them in. school says, nothing to see and you don't search the backpack. to your point, you have that evidence and factual scenario in addition to the tweet you mentioned and others that are referenced in the lawsuit, which go to the question of, did the s

. >> criminal defense attorney sarah ansari joins us, joey jackson, veteran hollywood armorer scott rasmussen. alec baldwin was saying he had the hammer of the gun pulled back as far as it would go without being fully docked and then just let it go. isn't that how a gun is fired? you don't need to pull the trigger if the hammer hits the round. is that correct? >> well, on the type of weapon that's a single action, in order to get it to fire, you pull the hammer to the rear and then you would pull the trigger. on his gun, the way he described it, just there in that little segment, it sounds like possibly the trigger was in the rear position as he was pulling the hammer to the rear. and if that were in fact true, as soon as he let go of the hammer it would fire the weapon, because the hammer would fall forward. >> so i just want to play that part of it again just for our viewers because this is really an important point. >> so then i said to her, now in this scene i'm going cock the gun. i said, do you want to see that in and she said yes. so i take the gun and astart to dock the gun. i'm not g

. >>> let's dig deeper with charles ramsay and joey jackson.art into a million pieces. it's awful. let me play this body camera video of the moment these officers arrive on the scene. i'm sure you have seen it a few times. what stands out to you now that we see this video? we were talking about it last night. you wanted to see this. what stands out now? >> this is incredibly tragic. any heart goes out to that family. it's unbelievable tragedy that took place. when you look at the shooting, you have to look at in its entirety. from the time they got a call, which started off as an assault, upgraded to a person with a gun. they think they have an active shooter. they form up as they are trained to do. they go upstairs. they encounter the woman bleeding and the suspect. the issue becomes whether or not the use of deadly force was justified against the suspect. in my opinion, it was. he was armed with that bike lock and chain. he caused serious injury to several people. the officer had no way of knowing that that young lady or anyone was behind tha

here to discuss is joey jackson, criminal defense attorney.ning him today. do you think it was a good idea for him to even take the stand? >> you know, don, in some respects he needed to because he has to explain his narrative and the story. at the same time that you do, you expose yourself to so much. like what? like the essence of the story. you're going to have to explain it, and he did when he tried to testify about look, i have come through so much in my life. i'm a musician, and i think part of that is to humanize him. and that's great. but when you get into the details, it gets murky. number one, you ore an actor. as a result of that, you're going to be compelling. but you're going to remind the jury not to get lost in that. what about the fact that there's $3500 that you have to account for that you gave the brothers, how do you explain that? what about the fact that the police asked you for dna to assist you in the case and you say no, because you don't do ancestry.com. you have to explain that. what about the fact that the police jus

joining me, joey jackson and areva martin.this jury is face ing? >> i think it's credibility, kate. you have a he said-he said situation. you have jussie smollett painting the picture of being attacked by these two brothers in what he described as a racist, homophobic rage, that involved the use of a noose, racial slurs. but yoernd, you have these two brothers who took the witness stand for the prosecution and told a different story, a story of being paid by jussie smollett to stage the attack for purposes of instagram and social media and publicity. so the jurors will going to have to really decide who's telling the truth. jussie smollett took the witness stand in his own defense, so he gave his version of the events and, you know, remained consistent that this was a hate crime, that this was not staged, that he did not pay these brothers to attack him. but jurors will have to decide who's telling the truth. that can be very difficult sometimes for jurors. >> everyone accusing everyone of lying from the witness stand in this

let's discuss with cnn legal analyst and criminal defense attorney joey jackson. out to you the most during that interview? >> you know a number of things. good to be with you. you could look to his demeanor, his sincerity. at the same time you could focus on the fact that he described specifically how the gun went off, not really admitting he pulled the trigger, saying he did not, but giving the indication he had not the trigger but at least the hammer portion and describing that. i was surprised that he would be that descriptive or his lawyers would allow him to be so descriptive on such a definitive issue. clearly he's been moved by this. i think a number of people have been moved by this and i think he had a public relations imperative to get out in front of it. whether it was the right legal move i would say it was not. >> do you think it helped or hurt in terms of that legal perspective? would you have advised him to position? >> my basic position is no one is speaking with anyone because only harm shall come. you have a parallel investigate one involving th

earlier, we spoke to cnn legal analyst joey jackson about that. here he is. >> reporter: when you pivot to the school, it's about what they knew, when they knew it, and what specifically they did about it. and apparently, the school did have knowledge as to this child and his misbehavior. there was an indication that he was looking on his phone for ammunition, doing an ammunition search. that concerned school officials enough when he spoke with them. subsequent to that, the following day, we know about a drawing, which was prettimore p morbid with regard to blood and a body and his statements, and at that point the parents were brought in, and there is where the communication really goes south. at that particular time, the question to be asked is, if school officials were possessed of that knowledge, should they have mandated that this child be removed from school. should they have notwithstanding the parent's objection said, you're taking him home and if you're not taking him home, we'll put him in a safe place, but he's not staying here. so it's

cnn legal analyst joey jackson and legal analyst and former new york city prosecutor paul callen back you this morning. when we look at where we're at, the fact that we are about to enter day four, we know the jury is sequestered. the holidays are looming. is there anything that we should be zeroing in on at this point to give us some sort of clue as to where they may be leaning? >> yeah, erica. i think you called it in that with the holidays pressing up against us. good morning to you. good morning, paul. that's always a relevant consideration. but if you juxta pose that to what i'm talking about now, ghislaine maxwell trial, we know they are on recess until monday. the jury wants to get it right. i have to say it is a very difficult thing when you look at the process of our system, you're looking at 12 people trying to get something right. we know the jury consists of six men, six women. we know that it has, what is it, two asians. it has eight whites and one woman. i think that's the math that comes to 12. african american woman, that is. you have different perspectives. whenever y

stand by, i want to bring in laura coates and joey jackson laura, let me start with you.o it was about the counts and also how the city of chicago felt as though he had exploited these very, very difficult topics of hate crimes, homophobia, racism, tried to exploit and capitalize, they say for publicity and note rye yet. and we think about hate crime, as you know, it had been on the rise in this country for the past several years. part of the frustration of the special prosecutor and the jurisdiction, people are likely to be less believed if they are to report these falsehoods, that there's a way for future victims of hate crimes, that if you provide this information, if you say these hoaxes, you lessen the credibility of future victims of hate crimes. of course nobody wants that to happen. the jury has spoken clearly on this issue, they will not tolerate and think it was a waste of resource, taxpayer dollars, to try to engage in this behavior. joey, how serious is this conviction on five counts of disorderly conduct? >> it's problematic for him in a number of ways, the f

i want to turn to joey jackson and former federal and state prosecutor ellie, both cnn legal analyst. you-all know precisely what is at stake in these charges and cases and convictions. ellie, take us through the charges. maxwell was found guilty on all counts except two, which is enticing a minor to travel, to engage in illegal sex acts. why was this the count they akitakit quitted on? >> what is clear is the jury did credit and believe these victims. their testimony was powerful and believable. the enticement count is one that ended up in the not guilty verdict and it could be the jury got caught up on what does it mean to entice? cause somebody to doincentive, financial or other. it was jeffrey epstein doing the enticing and maxwell was the transporter and accomplice. either way, i want to be clear the fact that that one count ended up with a not guilty verdict will have no impact on the bottom line sentence. she is looking at a heavy sentence and justifiably so given the evidence. >> of course, they did ask about that enticement definition. one of the notes for the judge. this was

. >> joey jackson, thank you very much, counselor. >> always. >>> coming up, president putin wanted a phone call to discuss complicated issues. president biden accepted. so what this means amid rising tensions over ukraine. >>> plus, chaos erupting in jordan's parliament. lawmakers throwing punches at one another. what in the world set these lawmakers off. throughout history i've observed markets shaped by the intentional and unforeseeable. for investors who can navigate this landscape, leveraging gold, a strategic and sustainable asset... the path is gilded with the potential for rich returns. ♪ it wasn't me by shaggy ♪ you're never responsible for unauthorized purchases on your discover card. switching wireless carriers is easy with xfinity. just lean on our helpful switch squad to help you save with xfinity mobile. they can help break up with your current carrier for you and transfer your info to your new phone. giving you a fast and easy experience that can save you hundreds a year on your wireless bill. visit your nearest xfinity store and see how the switch squad can help you sw

. >> joey jackson, we're so grateful for you and for your professionalism and your great walking us thu thank you, sir. >> thanks, christi. >>> omicron, the new variant of the coronavirus, has been found in the united states, but cases of the delta variant are rising and the numbers are yet again headed in the wrong direction. you'll hear from some experts coming up in a few minutes. stay with us. family not getting clean? get charmin ultra strong. go get 'em. it just cleans better. with a diamond weave texture, your family can use less while still getting clean. goodbye itchy squirm. hello clean bottom! we all go. why not enjoy the go with charmin. alice loves the scent of gain so much, she wished there was a way to make it last longer. say hello to your fairy godmother alice and long-lasting gain scent beads. try spring daydream, now part of our irresistible scent collection. it's another day. and anything could happen. it could be the day you welcome 1,200 guests and all their devices. or it could be the day there's a cyberthreat. only comcast business' secure network solutions give

. >> joey jackson, thank you, sir, i appreciate it. >> always, don, thank you. >>> she was shot. her, and now they're suing the oxford school district for $100 million. stay with us. but if you have diabetes, there can be some not-so-pretty stuff going on inside. it's true, with diabetic retinopathy, excess sugar can damage blood vessels, causing vision loss or even blindness. so remember this: now is the time to get your eyes checked. eye care is important to your long-term diabetes management. see a path forward with actions and treatments that may help your eyes— and protect against vision loss. visit noweyesee.com and take control of your sight. it's the season of smiling. and at aspen dental, we make it easy to gift yourself the smile you deserve. new patients, start today with a full exam and x-rays, with no obligation. if you don't have insurance, it's free. plus everyone saves 20% on their treatment plan with flexible payment solutions for every budget. we're here making smiles shine bright so you can start the new year feelin' alright. call 1-800-aspendental or book toda

i want to bring in cnn legal analyst joey jackson and laura coates.you surprised potter was found guilty on both charges? >> well, you know, given the earlier in the week question about the idea, what would happen if we can't reach consensus, i think we're all thinking that potentially there was the opportunity for a hung jury. but again, when she took the stand, she really confirmed the elements that needed to be proven, by the prosecution to carry their burden of proof. remember, this case did not involve a requirement to prove intent. so two things could be true here, wolf. you could be sympathetic toward her and think that she did not intend to kill daunte wright, and that she did mistake her firearm for a taser. and you could also prove that she did something that requires criminal culpability under two theories, recklessness and of course culpable negligence. so when she took the stand and joey and i talked about this in the past, when she took the stand and confirmed what the prosecution was required to show, it is not shocking that jury nullif

i want to bring in criminal defense attorney joey jackson. the trial and this one is in line of what we're seeing. there is 12 notes from the jury, 12. just about 24 hours of deliberating. if you're defending maxwell, what would be going through your mind at this point right now? >> there are a lot of things. with the jury out you think you did your job. remember the process we know well. there is 12 people on a jury from different walks of life having different perspectives and you're asked to do quite a bit because you have to reach that unanimous decision. all of you have to be in a court to convict someone or to find them not guilty and that is a massive responsibility, right? it will have to weigh on you for the rest of your life so you want to get it right. from a defense perspective, you remember what this defense did here. there is four particular girls then, young women now. and the defense really challenged their memories by calling a psychologist to talk to the issue of faulty memory to talk about suggestion, and also question thei

earlier, cnn legal analyst joey jackson shared his thoughts on the arraignment. here he is. >> the whole purpose of that, of course, is to number one, apprise the parents of what they're chandler with. number two, for the parents to enter a plea, of which they did of not guilty, number three, for bail to be set, and ultimately to have the case come back. and at that particular arraignment, there were some accusations. the defense pretty much indicating that their clients were never absconding from justice, that there was a miscommunication with the prosecutor, and that they, the defendants, who they represent, the crumbleys, at all times had intended to turn themselves. but the only issue with that is it pretty much belies the facts as we know them. in the event that you get assistance into a warehouse, in the event you're hiding in a warehouse, in the event that you take out $4,000 the day before, which may be indicative of you pretty much planning to go somewhere, it sort of is contrary to an allegation that they were not really absconding. and so ultimately, e

joey jackson, cnn legal analyst. and shannon watt, the founder of moms demand action, an organization fighting against gun violence. first, joey, the fact that law enforcement are still looking for the parents at this point. when they eventually do find them, what does that mean for the case that's going to brought against them? >> it means a lot. what it means, kate, it means consciousness of guilt in the event you don't believe you did anything wrong, what do you do? you stay and there is no basis or need for you to run anywhere. i think this is very interesting with respect to what prosecutors are doing now. if there is not going to be a legislative fix with respect to legislatures around the country or congress doing something about guns. this particular prosecutor says i'm going to do something. and if your conduct creates a condition, which you believe can result in death or serious injury, guess what? it's involuntary manslaughter. and when you look at the compel being facts here, i mean, it's compelling the pa