Return to Transcripts main page

CNN NEWSROOM

Three Detectives Acquitted on All Counts in Sean Bell's Death; Evidence on Syrian Nuclear Reactor Secretly Built With North Korea's Help; 400 Children in Texas Heading to Dozen Group Homes

Aired April 25, 2008 - 09:00   ET

THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.

TONY HARRIS, CNN ANCHOR: And good morning, everyone. You are in the CNN NEWSROOM. I'm Tony Harris.
BETTY NGUYEN, CNN ANCHOR: Yes, good morning, everybody. I'm Betty Nguyen in for Heidi Collins who is still on maternity leave.

HARRIS: You will see events come into the CNN NEWSROOM live on this Friday, April 25th.

Here's what's on the rundown.

NGUYEN: First up, Sean Bell gunned down on his wedding day. Minutes from now a verdict for three detectives charged in the case.

HARRIS: The Bush administration taking fire over these photos. Did North Korea help Syria build a nuclear plant? Will the release of the picture hurt nuclear negotiations with the North?

NGUYEN: And a record high for gasoline. One station is selling it for an assured $5.40 a gallon. "Fuming Over Fuel," in the NEWSROOM.

All right. Let's get straight to it. A hail of bullets, a single question. Should New York cops go to prison for the shooting death of unarmed man on his wedding day? Well, verdict is due any moment now.

Let's take you straight to CNN's Deborah Feyerick outside the newsroom and our legal bureau -- our bureau in New York, that is, legal analyst Sunny Hostin, she joins us as well.

Debra, let's have you set the stage since you are there outside the courtroom.

DEBORAH FEYERICK, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Well, absolutely. What I can tell you is this. The entire courthouse here is sort of barricaded off, just in case a lot of people come. In fact, there are so many people here. Thousands of people, both police officers, but also supporters of the family, of the victims.

The Reverend Al Sharpton has said it's going to be a calm day. But everybody is eagerly anticipating this verdict which is really just moments away. The judge had two weeks to consider all of the testimonies, all of the evidence to reach his decision. That expected to happen sometime soon. (BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

FEYERICK (voice over): Nicole Paultre Bell has waited more than a year and a half for this day, justice for Sean, she says. Killed by NYPD detectives the morning the two were going to marry.

NICOLE PAULTRE BELL, VICTIM'S FIANCEE: I think about my wedding day every day.

FEYERICK: Everything collided just before dawn that morning, November 25th, 2006. Sean Bell and friends were winding up his bachelor party at this strip club in Queens. They didn't know a team of undercover NYPD detectives was inside investigating complaints of drugs, guns and prostitution.

At closing time Bell and his friends left but not before witnesses say an argument broke out. Believing one of Bell's friends was going to get a gun from the car, one of the undercover officers followed the man.

What happened next is at the heart of this trial.

UNIDENTIFIED POLICE OFFICER: I'm an undercover police officer. There's a shot fired. Shots fired.

FEYERICK: Police opened fire 50 times. Detective Michael Oliver who reloaded his semi-automatic fired 31 shots. Detectives Gescard Isnora fired 11 times. Detective Marc Cooper, four times. Their lawyers say the detectives thought their lives were in danger when Bell at the wheel tried, they say, to run down one of the detectives.

But witnesses, including the two friends in the car, say they never heard undercover detectives identify themselves as police when they drew their weapons and that Bell, in a panic, was trying to get away from the armed men.

LESTER PAULTRE, FIANCEE'S FATHER: For those nay sayers that say that the police officer was just doing their jobs, they should imagine their child in that car being shot by the police for no reason.

FEYERICK: No gun was found around Bell or his friends. Prosecutors charged Detectives Oliver and Isnora with manslaughter, assault and reckless endangerment. Cooper was charged with reckless endangerment.

As for the bereaved bride, she legally changed her name to Bell and is now raising the couple's two small daughters alone.

BELL: I tell her that, you know, Daddy's in heaven, you know, he's watching over us. He's our guardian angel.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

FEYERICK: Now if the detectives are found guilty of the most serious charges, those carry a maximum of 25 years in prison. Earlier this morning, Nicole Bell, the victim's fiancee, arrived here along with the Reverend Al Sharpton. Two of the victims who were in the car that night who were also shot, they arrived at the court also. They have been holding prayer vigils throughout the last 48 hours praying for the outcome of this trial.

I spoke to one of the people in Nicole Bell's party and she said she was very nervous. This has been a long time coming, and it is exactly 17 months since Sean Bell was killed on his wedding day. So this is the day they will learn the verdict -- Betty?

NGUYEN: And Deborah, as we come back to you live, you can see there are people surrounding you. There's a lot of interest in this case. Talk to me about officers on the street because I understand that has been beefed up in light of the verdict that we should hear in a few minutes.

FEYERICK: Well, if definitely has. And the NYPD -- let me -- if we can go wide a little bit. You can see these officers in blue shirts. They are surrounding this courthouse. There are also uniformed officers as well. All of them are armed. You can see a lot of people both from the media, but also spectators who have come to see what the outcome of this is going to be.

The police commissioner is in a little bit of a difficult position here. Again, these are three of his detectives. If they're acquitted, first federal investigators would come in and examine all this evidence to see whether there should be any federal charges, specifically civil rights violations. Then after that, if the men are not found guilty, then the NYPD will step in and there will be an entire departmental review. So this is not over by a long shot -- Betty?

NGUYEN: Yes, it seems like it's just the beginning.

All right. Deborah Feyerick joining us live outside the courtroom.

Debra, thank you. We'll be checking in shortly.

HARRIS: Boy, lots of legal questions to sort through in the death of Sean Bell. Did the officers identify themselves? And did they think their lives were in danger?

Legal analyst Sunny Hostin with us from New York to talk through this case.

Sunny, great to talk to you. And great to talk to you before we have an opportunity to go on the air this morning, because you helped me see some things a little more clearly in this case.

If anyone believes a conviction in this case is a slam dunk, they probably have not been watching the day to day proceedings of this trial. Would you agree with that?

SUNNY HOSTIN, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: I would absolutely agree. This is not a slam dunk. It's not a slam dunk for the prosecution, it's not a slam dunk for the defense either, quite frankly. I mean it's a really tough call and it's going to have -- I think as we discussed, Tony, boil down to what this judge believes and who this judge believes because there are vastly different accounts from the detectives and the police officers and also from the victims in this case.

So it really is going to be a credibility determination. None of us were there last night -- that night...

HARRIS: Yes.

HOSTIN: ...other than the officers and, of course, the folks in the car.

HARRIS: If there are acquittals in this case, Sunny, could the best decision made by the defense be the decision to wave a jury trial and have a judge decide this?

HOSTIN: I think no question. I mean it is unusual for a case like this to go in front of a judge instead of in front of a jury. But this was a very emotional case, has received a lot of media coverage, as we all know. And the defense decided and requested a judge trial, a bench trial. So the judge is now acting not only -- as a lawyer and acting as a judge but also as a juror in determining the facts of the case.

HARRIS: Lots of questions here. Does it really come down to which side of the argument the judge believes here to the question of did the officers identify themselves? Is that sort of at the heart of this?

HOSTIN: Well, I think that is a big question here, because what we think happened or at least what testimony has happened is that the officers were there, they were at the club. The victims or these men came outside and they alleged that someone said go get my gun. And that is what turned...

HARRIS: Yes.

HOSTIN: ...these events sort of into a spiral, a downward spiral. And so the judge is going to have to make a determination, did someone say, go get my gun?

HARRIS: Yes.

HOSTIN: When the police officers approached was that reasonable? Was this really just a horrible, horrible accident?

HARRIS: And we -- and Sunny, we can certainly see a scenario where Bell and his group felt as though, you know, they needed to fight back with a little bluster. We know now at the end of the day there was no gun.

HOSTIN: Exactly. And you know, it unfortunately sometimes is not uncommon for someone to sort of have this bravado and say, you know, I'm going to beat you up or I'm going to go get my gun. And unfortunately in this situation if that is what happened, what do you do as an officer when you're facing life or death? You have to make snap decisions to protect yourself, protect the community.

If the officers in this case truly believe that there was a gun, they approach these men and identified themselves as officers and the men drove towards the officers.

HARRIS: Yes.

HOSTIN: I think that a judge would determine, a jury would determine that the officers' actions were reasonable.

HARRIS: Boy, this is going to be close. This is going to be close.

Sunny, we're going to talk to you a little bit later and you're going to be with us as we watch events around this verdict come in. And when we come back and talk to you, I really want to ask you about the judge. Give us some background on the judge who is deciding the case today. That's probably going to be pretty important as we sort through all this.

Sunny, good to see you. Thank you.

HOSTIN: Good to see you.

HARRIS: You know, it is shaping up to be a very busy morning for us here in the NEWSROOM. As we await the verdict in this case, we are also expected to hear this morning from the Reverend Al Sharpton and Sean Bell's fiancee. Also this morning, Richard Brown, the district attorney in Queens has scheduled a news conference for 11:00 a.m. Eastern Time.

We will cover all of this for you live right here in the NEWSROOM.

NGUYEN: Well, we've also learned just within the past hour that President Bush will make a statement this morning on the economy.

And CNN's Ed Henry is at the White House. He joins us now live.

Ed, what can we expect to hear from the president?

ED HENRY, CNN WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: Well, Betty, the president is headed to Connecticut to mark World Malaria Day. But he is going to make a statement first here on the South Lawn of the White House before he boards Marine One. He's going to focus on the fact that those tax rebate checks that so many Americans have been waiting for will start going out on Monday, a little bit earlier than the government expected.

They've been working very hard behind the scenes to get these millions of checks out there. Remember that $150 billion economic stimulus plan Congress passed weeks ago, the president signed into the law. A lot of people out there waiting for that money. The White House, obviously, hoping that people will spend it, stimulate the economy. A lot of people, though, saying they're likely to pay off debt, pay those rising gas bills. So the president under a lot of political pressure right now. As you know, earlier this week, he insisted the country is not in a recession right now, just an economic slowdown, but he's very, very eager to show that he's doing something about this economy -- Betty.

NGUYEN: All right. We're waiting to hear from the president.

Ed Henry, thank you.

And of course, when he does speak, we will take that live right here on CNN.

In the meantime, though, let's talk about this, gas prices, while you were sleeping, they shot up another two cents over night. We're paying nearly 14 cents more than we were at the beginning of the week. AAA reporting a gallon of regular unleaded now averaging nearly $3.58. Premium goes for $3.93. And diesel, all right, are you sitting down? $4.23.

HARRIS: Oh boy.

NGUYEN: So do you think we have it bad?

Well, Europeans sometimes scoff when Americans complain about the high price of gasoline. Here's why.

Take a look at prices across the globe. In the United Kingdom and France they're paying more than $8 a gallon. And that hurts just to say, while Germans paying nearly that much. And in India, gasoline is just under $5 a gallon, while in China it's only $2.81. And in Japan they are paying $5.48.

Makes prices here at home seem like, hmm, a bargain, dare we say?

Keep watching CNN. Our money team has you covered. Whether it's jobs, debt, housing or savings, you can join us for a special report. It is called "ISSUE#1, THE ECONOMY" and it's all this week at noon Eastern only on CNN.

HARRIS: Senators Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton doing battle in two critical states, Indiana and North Carolina which hold primaries in less than two weeks. Senator Clinton's focus today, the struggling economy, she is speaking to voters in Jacksonville, North Carolina this morning, then jumping on a plane and heading to Indiana to attend the two events dubbed Solutions for the American Economy.

Senator Obama is in Indiana hoping to cut into Clinton's support among white blue-collar workers. He has scheduled to speak at a town hall meeting in Kokomo, Indiana. That's tonight.

And focusing only on the November race, the presumptive presidential nominee John McCain, today he is speaking to college students in Little Rock, Arkansas. McCain is also scheduled to meet up with a former rival, one-time presidential hopeful Mike Huckabee.

He's kept quiet for weeks, now Barack Obama's former preacher fires back at critics.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REV. JEREMIAH WRIGHT, TRINITY UNITED CHURCH OF CHRIST: And, by the way, guess who goes to his church? Hint, hint, hint.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

HARRIS: Will the PBS interview revive questions for Barack Obama?

NGUYEN: Well, we do have some questions for Rob Marciano today, because, Rob, I understand there are some severe weather across the Midwest, also into the plains?

(WEATHER REPORT)

NGUYEN: Rob, I'm going to have to interrupt right now because we are some information outside the courthouse where the Sean Bell case is. We're going to be getting a verdict very soon from the judge.

Let's take you straight to CNN's Deborah Feyerick. Deborah, what are you hearing?

FEYERICK: And as a matter of fact, Betty, that verdict just came down. Those three detectives not guilty on all counts. Not guilty of the manslaughter charges, not guilty of the assault charges, not guilty of the reckless endangerment charges. That verdict is going to rock this city, this community. The groom's fiancee, the one who was killed, they were convinced that prosecutors proved this case, that they put on witnesses.

But I want to show you. Let's just stand around. I want to show you some of what's going on here. This is what we're going to see today. There is going to be anger about this verdict. The question is -- that is Trent Benefield, apparently, that is one of the victims who was in the car.

There's got to be a serious sense of disappointment. Prosecutors put on some 15 witnesses to try to prove that the shooting was reckless. The judge said there was not enough evidence, that the evidence did not prove that case. And I'm with the producer who was in that courtroom. I'm going to take off my mike right now.

George, George, what did the judge say, George Lerner?

GEORGE LERNER, CNN PRODUCER: The judge found several problems with the prosecution case. He said that the prosecution witnesses had contradicted themselves. He cited prior convictions, prior incarceration and he also talked about the demeanor of witnesses on the witness stand. And he said all of this pointed to the fact that problems in the people's case in all these cases, in all of these counts, and found in the end that the -- the people had not proved their case against the three police detectives.

FEYERICK: OK, now, Betty, and that is what's at the heart of this. And that was the gamble. When prosecutors took this case, when a grand jury indicted this, they decided they didn't want to go before a jury, that, in fact, they were going to let a judge decide this, because they felt it would be too volatile, too explosive in front of a jury, that the detectives would not get a fair trial.

And that's why the venue -- they wanted it out of New York City. It was kept in New York City. And instead it was a bench trial heard by the judge. The judge clearly considering all the evidence, not necessarily saying that these men didn't act recklessly, that there was simply not enough evidence to prove what the prosecution set out to prove.

Now George, I see you looking also at your notes, what else can you tell us?

LERNER: Justice Cooperman said that the affect of the witnesses, the problems with the witnesses had the affect of viscerating the credibility of the prosecution's case.

FEYERICK: So what you're talking about, basically, though, if I understand you correctly, the men who were in the car that night testified -- now this was 4:00 in the morning, they had clearly been out all night, they had clearly been drinking, were they the ones who -- were they credible witnesses? Are those the ones who the judge he had a problem with?

LERNER: He pointed to two problematic witnesses. One was a gentleman who was the first one in the altercation with Sean Bell and his friends Joseph Guzman and Trent Benefield. A man who said he was going to get his gun, a man who was driving an SUV. He pointed -- the judge pointed to problems with that man's testimony. And he pointed to problems with Joseph Guzman's testimony and said that these led to a certain problem of credibility for the witnesses, for the people's case.

FEYERICK: OK. CNN producer George Lerner.

So Betty, Doug, this is -- I'm sorry, Betty, Tony, this is really something here. We don't know how this is going to play out. Remember Reverend Al Sharpton saying that everybody should stay calm, should stay non-violent. But again, there's got to be disappointment on the part of Nicole Bell. This will not be over, mind you. Remember, federal authorities have said they will look and examine this case. They will examine all the evidence. They will see whether, in fact, civil rights violations should be brought against these three detectives.

After that there is going to be a departmental review by the NYPD. Those officers have already turned in their badges. And as we've seen in past cases, it's unlikely that they will probably ever carry a gun again, if history is any indication. So again, a lot going on. We expect the -- we expect Reverend Al Sharpton to come out. We expect others to come out and make a statement. But this clearly, the detectives here feeling vindicated and justified that they acted properly within the line of duty. The families on the other hand feeling very disappointed. But that was the judge's ruling. Prosecutors simply did not prove their case -- Betty?

NGUYEN: Well, disappointment no doubt, Deborah, I mean, we're looking at these live pictures right now outside the courtroom. You can see expressed anger there. You can also see tears. And what I'm understanding from our producer inside the courtroom when this verdict was read that it really came down to an issue of credibility on the part of the witnesses, on the part of Sean Bell's friends, the guys who were in the car that night when the gunfire rang out.

FEYERICK: Exactly. And Betty, George Lerner, who is a producer -- I do want to turn to him for a moment.

You must have seen the reaction of some of those people. What -- tell me about Nicole Bell, Trent Benefield and Joseph Guzman.

LERNER: You know, Deb, the moment the judge read the -- read his decision, Nicole Bell ran from the courtroom. "I've got to get out of here," is what she said. And then there was a pretty swift movement of the relatives and supporters and friends of Sean Bell out of the courtroom and out of the way.

On the other hand, the defendants, the police officers were ushered out through the front of the building. What's striking beforehand the demeanor of some of the defendants. Michael Oliver, one of the police officers.

FEYERICK: He's the one who fired 31 times. So he actually reloaded his pistol.

LERNER: He was much more calm, casual, almost relaxed whereas Detective Isnora, who is the first one who fired in the altercation, he was -- had his head in his hands. Very sullen. After all, he was facing very serious manslaughter in the first degree and manslaughter in the second degree charges. But the striking difference in their demeanor was really telling. Whereas prior to the reading, the -- you know, Sean Bell's family was cautiously waiting for the verdict.

FEYERICK: Well, they were very optimistic, as a matter of fact. They were nervous but they're optimistic. We happened upon them during -- they were in a diner initially with Reverend Al Sharpton. They linked hands prior and, you know, asked God to give them guidance in this. They had also had an all-night prayer vigil, the families of Sean Bell, in order to pray for the kind of outcome they had expected.

But boy, a lot of people thought that -- Betty, a lot of people thought that this was going to be sort of a split decision, that maybe they would be found guilty of some of the charges. The fact that they have been found guilty of none of the charges, I think that's really going to come down as a big surprise to people in this city, but judge's ruling.

HARRIS: Deb, Tony Harris here with Betty. I just -- I'm just curious as to how this decision was announced in the court. I think our initial information was that the judge in this case would discuss the reasons why he came to the decision, and then announce the decision. Now I'm seeing activity around the courthouse and -- but I almost expected more of a kind of spontaneous reaction to this. But I'm wondering if the way in which the decision was discussed by the judge -- let me...

FEYERICK: Absolutely. You know...

HARRIS: OK.

FEYERICK: and as a matter of fact, let me...

HARRIS: Hey, Deb.

FEYERICK: George...

HARRIS: Deb, I have to stop you for just a moment. There's a news conference under way right now. We want to listen to the statements and we'll identify the person in just a moment.

LEROY GADSDEN, NAACP, NEW YORK STATE: We have not heard one testimony, not one testimony of any threat these young men pose to the police or anybody else. Yet still today we have a justice that says acquittal. We have not heard what these men did so that caused the police to act as though they were America's most wanted. Yet still we have a verdict of not guilty.

We haven't heard of any of these men having a gun or threatening anybody. Yet still we hear a verdict of not guilty. We hear the words of Thurgood Marshall saying, does the constitution apply to us? This case is not about justice. This case is about the police not having right to act above the law. If the law is in effect here, the judge had followed the law, truly these officers would have been found guilty.

If you look in the New York state penal laws, it lays out a justification, must be a threat to one's self or someone else. That threat was never proven in this court. We fail to understand how a judge could sit on the bench and come back with an acquittal verdict when none of the elements of justice case was met in this court.

We will go to the next level, whatever that might be, to seek justice but justice is not here today. This court, unfortunately, is bankrupt when it comes to justice for people of color.

Thank you. I'm Leroy Gadsden with New York state NAACP.

HARRIS: We were just wondering who it was someone just then. He's a member of the NAACP there, one of the branches in New York. Several branches obviously in New York. My guess would be -- one of the branches in Manhattan.

Boy, a verdict that we knew was coming this morning and we knew that there was an opportunity here, if anyone believed that there was a -- that there was going to be -- that this was a slam dunk in any way, shape, or form, I think some of the guys that we we received on the ground from our producer in the courtroom from our reporters like Deborah Feyerick covering the case, from New Yorkers there, was that the trial played out differently than what might have been expected, that the judge asked a number of very pointed questions of these witnesses, of these prosecution witnesses.

And remember, the prosecution carried the burden here and had to make the case.

NGUYEN: And there was a big issue with credibility. I want to bring in our legal analyst Sunny Hostin who joins us now.

Sunny, as we were talking about this, that was one of the big issues that you brought up a little bit earlier, even before this verdict was read that it's going to come down to a case of credibility, although we just heard from that member of the NAACP saying, you know what, there's a lot of evidence here and what was it that prompted these police officers to open fire, one of them 31 times.

HOSTIN: Well, you know, it was about credibility and the judge said it was about credibility. The judge said it was about prior convictions, it was about prior inconsistent statements. Again, as I said before, in a case like this, none of us were there. And the people that were there told their stories. And from the beginning the officers remained consistent. But the other witnesses, the men that were fired upon, their stories were inconsistent.

And typically when you are telling the truth, your story does not change. When your story changes, it leads someone to believe that you're not credible. And that is obviously what the judge found in this case.

NGUYEN: All right, Sunny. But what we know is this. OK? There may be some inconsistency with what the witnesses have said, I understand that. What we know to be factual is that there were 50 bullets that were fired. One of the officers, Michael Oliver, fired 31 times. He had time to unload and reload. So wasn't there a moment where you have to wonder as a police officer, hey, wait a second, is someone firing back at us? Because it was determined that no one in Sean Bell's company had a gun.

HOSTIN: Well, let me explain it this way. And as a prosecutor, I dealt with cases like this. And these things are happening very, very quickly. We're hearing 51 bullets. But I've got to tell you, this happened in under two minutes. And so the issue really is were they justified when they first fired? And what these officers have said from the very beginning, from the very beginning, is that they heard someone say, "Go get my gun." And when you have a gun in play, does that make it justified?

NGUYEN: So there you have probable cause?

HOSTIN: It's -- not really a probable cause determination, it's were they just when they fired, were they -- threatened, was someone else threatened, were they going to get injured, were they going to get hurt? And police training mandates that they have to make those types of decisions. HARRIS: OK. Sunny, let me ask a couple of questions. Here is the area that I want a little more clarification on.

George Lerner, our producer in the courtroom when the decision -- the verdict was announced, mentioned that the judge talked about the demeanor of the witnesses on the witness stand being a problem. I need to understand better what that means.

HOSTIN: Sure.

HARRIS: That's a little different than maybe inconsistent statements.

HOSTIN: Sure.

HARRIS: Talking about the difficult demeanor of the witnesses on the witness stand. Two parts to that. What does that mean? And the other question is did the prosecution prepare these witnesses?

HOSTIN: Tony, I think those are great questions. When you are trying a case as a prosecutor, as a defense attorney, of course, what you tell your witnesses always is tell the truth, tell the truth. Be as honest as possible. But what a jury needs to do and what a judge did in this case is determine credibility by looking also at demeanor, not only by what someone says but what they look like and how they say it.

And let's face it, that's something that we do in every day life. If someone tells you, I didn't do it, if your 5-year-old says, I didn't steal the cookie from the cookie jar, you're going to look, Is he or she, you know, sweating when they say it? Are their hands trembling?

HARRIS: But the other thing we take into account...

HOSTIN: Demeanor.

HARRIS: ...as parents is past behavior.

HOSTIN: Absolutely. And that's what this judge said.

HARRIS: Not what this judge said. Now is that...

HOSTIN: You're getting down to the crux of it here.

NGUYEN: That's fair, though.

HARRIS: That's what I'm trying to do here, get to the crux of this. Was -- is that fair? It's something that maybe a jury would not have had an opportunity to look at.

HOSTIN: They absolutely would have, actually. When you put yourself in the position of being a witness, the minute you sit down in a witness -- as a witness in the witness chair, your credibility is immediately at issue. And what also always comes in is your past.

HARRIS: Yes.

HOSTIN: Your past convictions. And so we know that Guzman, who, in my view, was the star witness. His testimony was riveting, he was combative, but he was also a convicted drug dealer. He had a violent past. And that sort of demeanor when he got on the witness stand he was combative, he was arrogant, he was nasty, arguably so, of course, because he had been shot several times. He's injured severely for life.

But that sort of demeanor and that past is something that this judge had to look at, had to look at in making this determination.

NGUYEN: Absolutely. And let me ask you one quick thing, Sunny. I mean we got the inconsistencies, we've got the past convictions, and all these other things that are stacking up against the witnesses here on behalf of Sean Bell's case. But at the same time does it really come down to this? The crux of the case being when that officer walked up to the car with a gun, did he say, hey, I'm an officer, let's talk?

Was that even something that was put out there in the public? Because then you saw Sean Bell take off. Any person in their right mind see a guy in plain clothes walking up to the car in the middle of the night with a gun is going to take off.

HOSTIN: I think that's an excellent question, Betty. And really, let me say this, New York Police Department policy requires that an officer identify himself or herself as an officer. The law does not. Now that was a bone of contention in this trial. The officers said that they did identify themselves. The men in the car said that they never heard that.

It is quite possible that they didn't hear that because, again, this is something that happened very quickly.

HARRIS: Which brings you back to the credibility test.

NGUYEN: Credibility. Exactly.

HOSTIN: Credibility. And again, when you're looking at three officers, who were law enforcement officers with good records, had never been in trouble before, and you're weighing in against two and other people that had, let's say, conviction, looking at their demeanor, they were combative. That is the sort of determination that the judge makes.

And let's face it, we all make in every day life. Are you going to befriend someone? Are you going to believe their story as an employer, or as a friend or as a spouse? You look at those things. And that's what this judge did.

NGUYEN: All right. Sunny Hostin, we're going to ask you to stand by just momentarily because we do want to take our viewers back out to the scene, outside the courthouse, as we're looking at a live picture. Many people who have left that courtroom.

We have our correspondent, Deborah Feyerick on the ground.

Deborah, do you have any additional information. I know that a lot of the people inside the court room have already made it outside and they are speaking with members of the media.