with jeffrey toobin and mark geragos and in columbia, south carolina, mark clackston. the d.o.j. report, it's said, may have had the effect of not just changing things in the police force but depolicing, meaning cops won't want to be cops as much, may back off, may actually allow crime to play out rather than get involved. is that a concern? >> that is a concern i've heard expressed by many people. i think, however, that that concern is really quite ludicrous when you think about it. listen, the job of a professional police officer is to uphold the laws, apply them fairly and equally and have an understanding about constitution, state, local laws, et cetera. if you're expecting a professional police department and professional police service which is about public service, then change is inevitable. and the situation such as was happening in ferguson, it's quite mandatory. and i think the d.o.j. report clearly detailed the areas of concern and suggested some things that need to be changed down there. and i think a smart police department and smart law enforcement will accept it on

cnn legal analyst, mark geragos and jeffrey toobin. mark they're not ruling out a lawsuit. they don't want to do that. do they have a case? >> not as far as i can tell. he's interested in a gentleman's agreement. maybe mark can correct me but in my experience when someone wants a gentleman's agreement, they hope for a deal because they don't really have a case. if he had a case, he'd be threatening it. remember. it's not just that the university wants them off campus. it's the national organization of the frat. so they i don't know who they'd sue. how could they sue their own fraternity because it's their own fraternity that threw them off as well as the university. >> mark i mean anybody could file a lawsuit. what would they actually sue for? >> if they were shut down by the president, this is where jeff and i were discussing this earlier today, then i could see the lawsuit against the university because frankly, this is right smack dab in my opinion in the middle of the first amendment. it's vile, repulsive speech. but it's clearly protected speech. i don't think it's clo

. >> there's one person i want to hear from on this and it's criminal defense lawyer mark geragos. he joins me from los angeles. mark thanks for being here. >> thank you for having me. >> i wanted to hear your reaction to what the attorney said on 48 hours last night. is that the sort of positioning you would take with this as well? >> absolutely spot on. victor geron has, i think, articulated what any lawyer who defended a client in this situation would be saying. number one, there's 100 different ore maybe 500 different interpretations for what happened. yes, it is very shakespearean, king learesque. i agree with joe, your previous guest, this is a triumph of a documentary. who i would fault here is our local police department if you will for waiting, if you will to arrest kind of on the heels of the last episode to boost the ratings. it looks like exactly what dick said a made for tv spectacular and made for tv prosecution. >> do you think the audio from durst audio in the bathroom will be admissible in court? >> yes. unfortunately i don't think the mother of the judge has been b

. >>> mark geragos, defense attorney and cnn legal analyst. it was self-defense or not. he has been charged with a murder right? obviously, attempted murder. but he claims that he wasn't trying to run over either man. he was trying to escape. his attorney says the video shows he was attacked. >> i'm teming you, i think this video is a key piece of evidence and it supports suge. remember you have to prove this case beyond a reasonable doubt. everything that jim blat who was suge's original attorney, was saying to the media right after this happened seems to be supported by this video, where everybody was saying there was no video originally and this video seems to support it. and it looks like it's favorable for the defense. >> okay because if you look at it i don't know why the video is blurred, i would like to see it. they have said all along, he was holding something. but why would suge back up and then run over him? >> well, i've had these cases before couple of them in l.a. and the idea is if you're getting attacked if you're trying to esca

. >> there's plenty to talk about tonight with jeffrey toobin and mark geragos. the director of the movie said they gave the audio to the california authorities months ago and they hoped durst would be arrested sooner. >> did you ask me? >> yes, jeff. >> i don't know. but surely the film had a lot to do with this. remember this is a story about a competent journalist and incompetent police across three states. so the fact that the lapd and the l.a. district attorney's office is whining, or saying things that oh we had him all along, where the heck have they been for the past few decades? the fact is andrew broke this case and the police are finally catching up. thanks to these filmmakers' outstanding work. >> now, mark the two big pieces of i guess evidence to be considered by the court, one is this handwriting sample which matches the anonymous note that was written to police after susan berman was found, saying go to that address, there's a cadaver there. according to their handwriting analyst and just about everybody, it looks the same. is that admissible? is