Apr. 29, 2010: The John Odgren verdict

>> Rooney: TONIGHT ON

GREATER BOSTON, GUILTY OF

FIRST-DEGREE MURDER.

THE VERDICT IN THE TRIAL OF

JOHN ODGREN.

PLUS THE IMMIGRANT DEBATE Y

IT'S BECOME A HOT ISSUE FROM

MASSACHUSETTS TO ARIZONA.

AND WHAT YOU DIDN'T KNOW

ABOUT THE PRESIDENT.

DAVID REMNICK'S NEW BOOK

"THE BRIDGE: THE LIFE AND

RISE OF (PAM"

Closed Captioning

brought to you by AFLAC:

Ask about it at work.

>> Rooney: GOOD EVENING,

AFTER 12 HOURS OF

DELIBERATIONS, A JURY OF

SEVEN WOMEN AN FIVE MEN HAVE

REACHED A VERDICT IN THE

TRIAL OF 19-YEAR-OLD JOHN

ODGREN FOR THE STABBING

DEATH OF A HIGH SCHOOL

CLASSMATE IN 2005.

>> THIS DEFENDANT JOHN

ODGREN WITH MURDER IN THE

FIRST DEGREE WHAT SAY, IS

THE DEFENDANT GUILTY OR TO

THE GUILTY.

>> GUILTY.

>> GUILTY AV WHAT, MA'AM.

>> GUILTY OF PREMEDITATED

MALICE A FORETHOUGHT AND

EXTREME ATROCITY AND

CRUELTY.

>> Rooney: JOHN ODGREN'S

ATTORNEY ARGUED THAT

ODGREN'S MENTAL DISORDER,

ASPERGERS AND DEPRESSION

RENDERED HIM INSANE AT THE

TIME OF THE CRIME.

BUT THE PROSECUTION ARGUED

THAT ODGREN HAD PLANNED THE

CRIME AND KNEW FULL WELL,

WHAT HE WAS DOING.

JOINING ME NOW WHERE

NORTHEASTERN UNIVERSITY

CRIMINOLOGIST JAMES ALAN FOX

WHO HAS BEEN AT THE TRIAL

FOR THE PAST FEW WEEKS AND

ATTORNEY WILLIAM KICKHAM WHO

WAS IN THE COURTROOM TODAY

FOR THE VERDICT.

WELCOME TO BOTH OF YOU.

JIM, YOU WEREN'T THERE FOR

THE ACTUAL VERDICT BUT YOU

HAVE BEEN THERE THE LAST

COUPLE OF WEEKS.

WERE YOU SURPRISED?

>> WELL, NOT SURPRISED BUT

SHOCKED.

VERY DISCOURAGED ABOUT THE

VERDICT.

I THINK IT'S THE WRONG

VERDICT.

IT APPEARS THAT BECAUSE THEY

DELIBERATED FOR SO LONG, 12

HOURS, THERE WERE TWO POINTS

OF VIEW ON THIS JURY.

GUILT OR INNOCENCE IS NOT AN

ISSUE.

BUT THERE WERE TWO POINTS OF

VIEW.

AND APPARENTLY CERTAIN

PEOPLE WERE A LITTLE MORE

FORCEFUL AND PERSUASIVE AND

GOT THE OTHERS TO SEE IT

THEIR WAY.

I THINK IT'S THE WRONG WAY.

I THINK IT'S NOT JUST.

>> Rooney: WILLIAM WHACK WAS

IT LIKE INSIDE THE

COURTROOM?

WAS JONATHAN SHAPIRO, DID HE

SEEM SURPRISED BY THE --

>> HE DIDN'T SEEM SURPRISED

TO ME, OKAY, AS A CRIMINAL

DEFENSE ATTORNEY.

I THINK AND I DON'T WANT TO

ASSUME THOUGHTS ON HIS PART.

BUT SOME PARTS OF ME

SUSPECTED HE KNEW THIS WAS

COMING.

THAT THE DEFENSE TEAM KNEW

THIS WAS COMING SIMPLY

BECAUSE THE PUBLIC AND THE

JURY DO NOT LIKE THIS

DEFENSE.

THEY HAVE NEVER LIKED THIS

DEFENSE.

AND IT TAKES AN ENORMOUS

AMOUNT OF EVIDENCE TO

OVERCOME.

PRESUPPOSITIONS THAT THIS

DEFENSE IS NOTHING MORE THAN

AN EXCUSE.

>> Rooney: WHAT ABOUT THE

KID HIMSELF.

>> HE DIDN'T REACT AT FIRST.

HE DIDN'T REACT AT FIRST AND

THEN AFTER ABOUT 3 TO 4

MINUTES, HE SLUMPED DOWN.

HE WAS STANDING AND HE

SLUMPED DOWN IN HIS CHAIR AS

THOUGH HIS LEGS HAD

COLLAPSED.

>> Rooney: I MEAN THIS IS

LIFE WITHOUT POSSIBILITY OF

PAROLE.

THIS, WE HAVE HAD THIS

DISCUSSION ON THE VIEW.

-- RADIO THIS KID IS CLEARLY

DISYOU WERE IT-- DISTURBED,

EVEN IF HE PREMEDITATED THIS,

HE ADMITTED TO THE MURDER.

THERE IS SOMETHING WRONG

WITH HIM.

>> WELL, MY-- WHAT I THOUGHT

WOULD HAPPEN WHAT BE

SECRETARY DEGREE MURDER.

IT'S CLEAR THAT JURIES DON'T

LIKE THE INSANE DEFENSE.

THEY DON'T UNDERSTAND IT.

AND THEY HESITATE.

I THOUGHT THAT YES, HE

PLANNED IT.

BUT THAT HIS SEVERE MENTAL

DISORDERS WOULD HAVE MADE IT

RATHER DIFFICULT FOR HIM TO

PLAN IN THE SAME WAY THAT

YOU OR I MIGHT HAVE.

AND THAT HIS MENTAL STATE

WOULD HAVE NEGATED TO SOME

EXTENT THE PREMEDITATION

PART.

ANYONE THAT RETURNS

SECOND-DEGREE MURDER WHICH

SU A LIFE SENTENCE BUT WITH

PAROLE ELIG ABLE.

AT THIS POINT, YOU KNOW, WE

COULD ONLY HOPE, FOR EXAMPLE,

THAT THE U.S. SUPREME COURT

WHICH IS NOW HEARING CASES

ABOUT WHETHER LIFE WITHOUT

PAROLE FOR JUVENILES IS

CONSTITUTIONAL THAT THEY

WILL, INDEED, FIND THAT IT

IS NOT.

STATES LIKE TEXAS HAVE

ABOLISHED LIFE WITHOUT

PAROLE FOR JUVENILES.

WE'RE BEHIND THE TIMES.

>> BUT THE QUESTION IS AS

YOU POINT OUT EMILY,

SOMETHING'S WRONG WITH THIS

KID.

AND THAT'S OBVIOUS.

BUT THE QUESTION IS WHAT IS

WRONG AND TO WHAT DEGREE.

NOW I'M A CRIMINAL DEFENSE

ATTORNEY.

AND I'M GOING TO OFFER A

VIEWPOINT HERE THAT IS A

LITTLE UNEXPECTED.

BUT I THINK THE PROSECUTION

DID A VERY GOOD JOB HERE.

YOU KNOW, YES, SOMETHING'S

WRONG WITH THIS KID.

BUT WHAT?

IS HE SO DISTURBED THAT HE

COULDN'T FORM THE NECESSARY

INTENT.

HE EXHIBITED CONSCIOUSNESS

OF GUILT IMMEDIATELY AFTER

THE CRIME.

HE EXHIBITED CONSCIOUSNESS

OF GUILT BEFORE THE CRIME IN

TERMS OF PLANNING IT OUT.

WHAT CAUSES SOMEONE TO DO

THIS?

IS IT MENTAL ILLNESS OR IS

IT EXPOSURE TO VIOLENT

VIDEOS THAT HE WAS

APPARENTLY ADDICTED TO.

I MEAN IT'S DIFFICULT TO

SAY.

BUT ONE INTERESTING CONTRAST

POINT IF WE CAN GO BACK A

FEW YEARS IS JOHN SAL VERY,

JOHN SAL VERY WAS FOUND SANE

AND GUILTY.

NOW THAT WAS A CASE WHERE

THAT DEFENDANT WHAT TO

DEPART FROM MI MEDICAL

LANGUAGE OR LEGAL LANGUAGE.

STARK, RAVING MAD.

HE WAS CLEARLY INSANE.

HE HAD TO BE DRAGGED OUT OF

THE COURTROOM KICKING AND

SCREAMING, LITERALLY ONCE HE

WAS FOUND RAVING ABOUT ST.

PAUL, ORDERING HIM TO KILL

PEOPLE LIKE THIS FOR YEARS

BEFOREHAND.

SHORTLY BEFORE THE THIS

HAPPENED HE WAS FOUND IN HIS

APARTMENT LOADED WITH

GARBAGE, INFESTED WITH

MAGGOTS.

HE WAS MENTALLY ILL BUT WAS

FOUND SANE.

>> Rooney: THIS IS A POINT

THAT HAS COME UP BEFORE.

12 OTHER STATES HAVE A

VERDICT THAT GUILTY BUT

INSANE.

MASSACHUSETTS HAS LOOKED

AT-- IS IT MORE THAN 12.

>> AT LEAST 20 NOW.

PEOPLE THINK THAT WILL SOLVE

ALL OUR PROBLEMS.

IT WON'T, BECAUSE IT IS

STILL A GUILTY VERDICT AND

IT MEANS THAT THE INDIVIDUAL

WILL GET TREATMENT BUT I'M

HOPING THAT JOHN ODGREN WILL,

INDEED, BE TRANSFERED TO

BRIDGEWATER.

>> Rooney: WHERE.

>> BRIDGEWATER.

SINCE HE IS GUILTY HE CAN BE

TRANSFERRED.

JUST LIKE SOMEONE IN ANOTHER

STATE FOUND GUILTY BUT

MENTALLY SYL UNDER THE

AUTHORITY OF THE

CORRECTIONAL SYSTEM.

AND THEN GETS TREATMENT

WITHIN THE CORRECTIONAL

SYSTEM.

SO IT'S NOT A HUGE

DIFFERENCE.

>> Rooney: I WANT TO ASK JIM

QUICKLY ABOUT A THING THAT

HAPPENED YESTERDAY IN COURT

WITH JONATHAN SHAPIRO WHO

TRIED TO EXPLAIN, WANTED THE

JUDGE TO ALLOW HIM TO

EXPLAIN TO THE JURY WHAT IT

MEANT TO BE FOUND NOT GUILTY

BY REASON OF INSANITY.

WHAT WOULD HAPPEN TO HIM.

AND THE JUDGE DIDN'T ALLOW

IT HE THOUGHT IF THEY

REALIZE NO, HE IS STILL

GOING TO BE PUT AWAY, THAT

THEY MIGHT HAVE --

>> MOST AMERICANS THINK THAT

PEOPLE JUST GET OFF ON

INSANITY PLEAS.

IN FACT, THE AVERAGE TIME

SERVED UNDER INSANITY PLEA,

SUCCESSFUL INSANITY PLEA IS

LONGER THAN THE AVERAGE TIME

SERVED FOR THE UNDERLYING

CRIME.

>> Rooney: EXCEPT YOU COME

UP FOR REVIEW EVERY SIX

YEARS.

>> SOMETHING INTERESTING

THAT HAPPENED ON THAT POINT.

WHAT HE ORIGINALLY WHAT HIS

DEFENSE LAWYER ORIGINALLY

WANTED THE JUDGE TO DO WAS

TO CHARGE THE JURY WITH THE

WORD AUTOMATICALLY IN THE

PHRASE.

HE WANTED HER TO TELL THE

JURY THAT IF THEY CAME BACK

WITH TO THE GUILTY BY REASON

OF INSANITY HE WOULD

AUTOMATICALLY SENTENCE TO

BRIDGEWATER.

SHE WOULDN'T DO THAT.

SHE USED THE MODEL CRIMINAL

JURY INSTRUCTIONS IN

MASSACHUSETTS WHICH PHRASE

IT IN A CAPACITY OF MAY.

THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY IN THE

COMMONWEALTH MAY REQUEST

COMMITMENT.

THE JUDGE MAY DO THIS.

AND IN HIS CLOSING, THERE

WERE SOME OBSERVERS THAT SAY

IN HIS CLOSING TO THE JURY

HE KIND OF PUSHED THE

ENVELOPE IN TERMS OF WHAT HE

INDICATED TO THEM MIGHT

HAPPEN.

>> HE SAID THE JUDGE WILL

TELL YOU.

AND SHE GOT BACK AT HIM

TODAY.

BECAUSE IMMEDIATELY AFTER

THE VERDICT CAME IN HE MADE

A MOTION TO POLL THE JURORS

AND SHE SHOT HIM DOWN

IMMEDIATELY.

>> Rooney: THEY DIDN'T ALLOW

THEM TO POLL THE JURORS.

>> NO, THAT IS WHAT IS

CALLED, IN MY OPINION,

PAYBACK.

I THINK HE WENT A LITTLE TOO

FAR THAN SHE LIKED.

SHE DIDN'T DO ANYTHING ABOUT

IT AT THE TIME.

BUT IMMEDIATELY UPON HIS

MOTION FOR POLLING THE JURY

SHE REJECTED IT.

>> Rooney: IT WOULD BE

INTERESTING TO SEE IF THE

JURY SPEAKS AFTER THIS CASE.

THERE IS NO OBLIGATION THAT

THEY SHOULD.

MEDIA WILL TRACK THEM DOWN.

PEOPLE WILL FIND OUT WHO

THEY ARE.

>> THEY MADE A STATEMENT AT

THE END THAT THEY DO NOT

WISH TO SPEAK TODAY.

>> Rooney: NOBODY WILL.

>> SOMEBODY WILL.

WHAT HAPPENS IN THESE CASES,

YOU GET A COUPLE OF JURORS

WHO ARE MORE CHARISMATIC,

MORE PER VASE -- PERSUASIVE

AND THEIR POINT OF VIEW

TENDS TO RULE.

THAT IS UNFORTUNATE.

THEY ARE NOT 12 INDEPENDENT

MINDS HERE.

>> Rooney: BUT AS YOU

POINTED OUT EARLIER, THEY

ACCESS TO THE NEWSPAPERS.

OBVIOUSLY THEY'RE NOT

SUPPOSED TO, BUT THEY

WEREN'T SEQUESTERED.

THERE WAS A COURT OF PUBLIC

OPINION.

THEY JUST SAID YOU KNOW WHAT,

WE ARE TO THE GOING TO GO

WITH THIS --

>> THEY MAY NOT HAVE TALKED

ABOUT THE CASE.

BUT DOESN'T MEAN THAT OTHER

PEOPLE COULDN'T TALK TO

THEM.

THE NEIGHBOR MIGHT SAY OH,

ARE YOU IN THAT TRIAL.

I HOPE YOU GUYS DON'T DO X,

Y & Z.

SO THAT IS STILL WITHIN THE

REALM OF WHAT THEY CAN AND

CANNOT DO.

>> Rooney: HOW DID THE

PARENTS REACT, ALLENSON.

JAMES ALLENSON.

>> THEY WERE CLEARLY MOVED.

CLEARLY MOVED.

MANY TIMES DURING THIS TRIAL

THE MOTHER, MRS. ALLENSON

HAD TO LEAVE THE COURTROOM

BECAUSE SHE JUST COULDN'T

LISTEN IT AND THE FATHER HAD

TO REMAIN.

THEY WERE CLEARLY MOVED.

>> Rooney: DO YOU WONDER IF

THEY WERE REALLY HOPING FOR

THIS VERDICT.

>> I THINK THEY WANTED

JUSTICE DONE AND I THINK

THAT THEY PROBABLY DID WANT

THIS VERDICT IN MY OPINION.

>> IT'S HARD TO SAY BUT

GOING ONE WAY OR THE OTHER,

MY GUESS WOULD BE THAT THEY

WANTED A GUILTY.

>> INTERESTING ABOUT THE

ALLENSONS AND THE SEATING

ARRANGEMENT IN MASSACHUSETTS

COURTS.

THE ALLENSONS BEING BEHIND

THE PROSECUTION WERE VERY

CLOSE TO THE JURY BOX,

WITHIN ARM'S REACH WHEREAS

THE ODGRENS WERE ON THE

OTHER SIDE OF THE COURTROOM.

SO IN A CASE LIKE THIS, THE

JURY JUST SEES THE VICTIMS

AND THEY START CRYING OR IF

THEY GET UP AND THEY LEAVE,

IT'S VERY OBVIOUS TO THE

JURORS.

IN FACT, IN TEXAS NOW THERE

IS A CHALLENGE TO THE

TRADITIONAL LOCATION OF

PROSECUTOR CLOSE TO ITS JURY

JUST BECAUSE OF THIS KIND OF

ISSUE.

IT IS NOT A LEVEL PLAYING

FIELD.

>> Rooney: FASCINATING CASE.

THANKS FOR ALL YOUR-- YOU

MAKE A GREAT REPORTER.

WE LOVED HAVING YOU.

JAMES ALLEN FOX, WILLIAM

KICKHAM, THANKS SO MUCH FOR

HAVING ME.

>> WHEN WE CONTINUE A

RENEWED DEBATE OVER

IMMIGRATION.