|
|||||||
|
|
|
|||||
|
|
|||||||
|
|||||||
|
|
|
|||||
|
|
|||||||
|
>>> TODAY ON THE "BEST DEFENSE" -- THE VERDICT IS IN. NEIL ENTWISTLE GUILTY OF DOUBLE MURDER. SENTENCED TO LIFE IN PRISON. WE'RE LIVE IN MASSACHUSETTS. WE'LL TALK ONE-ON-ONE WITH DEFENSE ATTORNEY ELLIOTT WYNNE STEIN. >>> PLUS THE SUPREME COURT HANDS DOWN ITS RULING ON D.C.'S HANDGUN BAND. WE'RE LIVE IN WASHINGTON WITH ALL OF THE DETAILS. THE "BEST DEFENSE" STARTS RIGHT NOW. >>> I'M JAMIE FLOYD. THIS IS THE "BEST DEFENSE." WE HAVE A VERDICT. AS I'M SURE YOU KNOW BY NOW IN THE CASE OF NEIL ENTWISTLE. NEIL ENTWISTLE, OF COURSE, CHARGED WITH THE BRUTAL DOUBLE HOMICIDE OF HIS WIFE AND 9 MONTH OLD BABY DAUGHTER LILLIAN LATE YESTERDAY. THE VERDICT CAME IN AND NEIL ENTWISTLE WAS FOUND GUILTY. WE'RE TOLD, WE'RE GOING TO CHECK IN WITH JENNIFER LONDON IN JUST A MOMENT. WE'RE TOLD THERE A PRESS CONFERENCE BEGINNING RIGHT NOW. THERE YOU SEE ELLIOTT WINE STEIN. >> THE APPELLATE PROCESS COULD BE TWO, THREE YEARS, COULD BE LONGER. DURING THAT TIME, WE HAVE ENCOURAGED HIM TO BE OPTIMISTIC ABOUT THE RESULTS OF APPEAL. SO THAT HE CAN EXPECT TO HAVE HIS FREEDOM BACK BECAUSE OF LEGAL ERRORS THAT WE HAVE DISCUSSED YOU FOLKS EARLIER. >> WILL HE BE IN ISOLATION OR WILL HE BE IN THE GENERAL POPULATION? >> I CAN'T ANSWER THAT BECAUSE I DON'T KNOW. I HAVE NO IDEA WHAT THE WORKINGS OF THE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTION ARE. >> WHAT THOUGHTS IF ANY DO YOU HAVE ABOUT CURRENT SENTENCE VER? >> IT'S VERY SIMPLE. THE SENTENCE IS MANDATORY LIFE. I DON'T UNDERSTAND HOW ONE DOES ONE LIFE SENTENCE AND DOES A SECOND. TO ME, HAVE NOTHING MORE TO SAY THAN IT'S MANDATORY. >> ANY OBSERVATIONS ON WHAT THE JUDGE SAID ABOUT IT? >> I'M NOT EVEN SURE I LISTENED TO WHAT THE JUDGE SAID. I WALKED INTO THAT PROCEEDINGS WHAT THE SENTENCE WAS GOING TO BE. I ASSUME SHE HAD REASONING THAT YOU FOLKS HEARD. BUT, THE STATUTE IS VERY CLEAR, SENTENCE WAS GOING TO BE LIFE WITHOUT PAROLE. WE KNEW THAT. SO, THIS WAS JUST A MINISTERIAL MOMENT IN THE COURTROOM. >> ARE YOU FRUSTRATED WITH MRS. ENTWISTLE? >> SO MANY PEOPLE DON'T UNDERSTAND WHAT A TRIAL IS. I'M FRUSTRATED ABOUT IS THAT SO MANY PEOPLE HAVE REPEATED OVER AND OVER AGAIN THROUGH THE TRIAL AND REACTION TO THE VERDICT THAT THERE WAS NO DEFENSE. THAT THERE WAS NO EVIDENCE PRODUCED. WELL, LET'S TAKE A LOOK AT THAT THOEMT FOR A MOMENT. WE HAVE NO BURDEN OF PROOF THAT'S ON THE PROSECUTION. EVIDENCE, EVERY QUESTION THAT WE ASKED, DAY AFTER DAY, OF EVERY SINGLE WITNESS, PRODUCED EVIDENCE. EVERY TIME WE SHOWED A FAILURE TO CONDUCT QUESTIONING WHICH MIGHT HAVE PRODUCED EVIDENCE THAT WOULD BE SUPPORTIVE OF INNOCENCE, THAT WAS EVIDENCE. EVERY TIME THAT WE QUESTIONED WITNESSES ABOUT FAILURE TO INVESTIGATE AND RESULTS THAT DID NOT FIT THE PROSECUTION'S THEORY NOT ILL LIS ITTED BY THE PROSECUTION, WE PRODUCED EVIDENCE. WHEN WE DEMONSTRATED TO THE JURY THROUGH THE MEDICAL EXAMINER, NEVER INFORMED ON GUNSHOT RESIDUE ON RACHEL ENTWISTLE'S HAND, WE PRODUCED EVIDENCE. GUNSHOT RESIDUE COULD ONLY BE EXPLAINED IF RACHEL HANDLE OR SHOT THE FIREARM, WE PRODUCED EVIDENCE. AND TO ASK ANY MORE IN A SYSTEM OF LAW WHICH PRUMS INNOCENCE OF THE ACCUSED IS UNFAIR. IT'S UNFAIR TO NEIL. UNFAIR TO THE AMERICAN CITIZENRY TO PERSON WAIT THIS MYTH THAT DEFENDANTS HAVE ANYTHING TO DO -- IT'S WRONG IF YOU FOLKS THINK THAT WAY AND THE WRONG IF THE AMERICAN PUBLIC THINKS THAT WAY. WHAT WE KNOW, JURORS THINK THAT WAY. JURORS ARE PERMITTED TO SIT ON JURIES TO DECIDE GUILT OR INNOCENCE WITH THE EXPECTATION THAT DEFENDANTS WILL OF THE. WITH THE DESIRE AND PREFERENCE THAT DEFENDANTS TESTIFY. THAT'S WRONG. THAT'S NOT WHAT THE CONSTITUTION IS ABOUT. WHAT'S RIGHT, TO HOLD THE PROSECUTION TO THE HIGHEST LEVEL OF PROOF. . AND THAT'S WHAT'S REQUIRE. WHEN DEFENSE LAWYERS IN A TRIAL, WHEN WE IN THIS TRIAL, ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS, DAY AFTER DAY WITH WITNESS AFTER WITNESS, PEOPLE COME FORWARD AND SAY, THERE'S BEEN NO EVIDENCE. TO THE CONTRARY, EVERY DAY OF THE TRIAL WE PRODUCED EVIDENCE. IT DIDN'T PERSUADE THE JURY AND PERHAPS THAT'S BECAUSE THIS JURY WAS SEATED WITH THE PREDISPOSITION THAT WE HAD A BURDEN OF PROOF. THAT NEIL HAD A RESPONSIBILITY TO SATISFY THE CURIOSITY ABOUT WHAT WOULD HE SAY. THAT'S WRONG. >> DID YOUR CLIENT WANT TO TAKE THE STAND? >> IF YOU STEP BACK FOR A MOMENT, THE REAL TRAGEDY AND INJUSTICE IN THIS CASE HAS BEEN BECAUSE THE PROSECUTION DID NOT FULLY AND THOROUGHLY INVESTIGATE THEIR CASE. NEVER TOLD THE MEDICAL EXAMINER ABOUT THE PRESENCE OF GUNSHOT RESIDUE ON RACHEL ENTWISTLE'S HANDS. THAT INFORMATION WAS NEVER INVESTIGATED PROPERLY. IT HAD BEEN, NONE OF US WOULD HAVE BEEN STANDING HERE. [ INAUDIBLE QUESTION ] >> I THINK EVERYTHING WE DID IF THE JURY COULD HAVE JUST STEP BACK AND NOT HAD THE NEIL DID FILTER ON ONCE WE BROUGHT THAT BACK TO THE JURY. >> ANY COMMENT ON THE JUDGE'S -- >> THANK YOU VERY MUCH. THANK YOU >> THANK YOU. >> THERE YOU SAW THE DEFENSE TEAM OF ELLIOTT WEINSTEIN AND AMY PAGE. THAT PRESS CONFERENCE READ AS OUR MISSION STATEMENT HERE ON BEST DEFENSE. THIS CASE, OF COURSE, THE MOST CHALLENGING OF CASES FOR CONSTITUTIONAL AND CRIMINAL DEFENSE ATTORNEYS. NEIL ENTWISTLE AS YOU KNOWN, FOUND GUILTY AS CHARGED. AFTER THE JURY DELIBERATED FOR 11 HOURS. SIX MEN AND SIX WOMEN FOUND HIM GUILTY OF MURDERING HIS WIFE AND DAUGHTER. BACK IN 2006. >> IN THE CASE OF THE COMMON WEALTH VERSUS NEIL ENTWISTLE. INDICTMENT 387-001, CHARGING THE DEFENDANT WITH MURDER IN THE FIRST DEGREE. WHAT SAY YOU FOREPERSON? IS THE DEFENDANT GUILTY OR NOT GUILTY? >> GUILTY OF MURDER IN THE FIRST DEGREE OF RACHEL ENTWISTLE. >> 370-002, CHARGING THE DEFENDANT WITH MURDER IN 2006. >> GUILTY OF MURDER IN THE IF FIRST DEGREE OF LILLIAN. >> TODAY, NEIL ENTWISTLE BACK IN COURT TO FIND OUT HIS SENTENCE. JUST MOMENTS AGO, THE JUDGE HANDED DOWN THAT SENTENCE. >> 001, AFTER BEING FOUND GUILTY IN THE FIRST DEGREE, ORDER BD BY THE COURT TO BE SENTENCED AT THE MASSACHUSETTS CORRECTIONAL FOR LIFE AFTER BEING FOUND GUILTY OF MURDER IN THE FIRST DEGREE IT'S ORDER BY THE COURT THAT SENTENCED TO MASSACHUSETTS CORRECTIONAL SINS CONSTITUTION FOR THE TERM OF LIFE. THIS SENTENCE TO RUN CONCURRENT. >> OUR CORRESPONDENT JENNIFER LONDON JOINS US LIVE. SO MUCH TO TALK ABOUT. WE'RE GOING TO WORK AS NEWS PEOPLE DO, IN REVERSE ORDER. WITH THE NEWS OF TODAY. THE SENTENCING. OBVIOUSLY, NO SURPRISE AS TO WHAT THE SENTENCE WOULD BE. THE JUDGE MADE QUITE A STATEMENT ABOUT THE NATURE OF THE ACT CHARGED IN THIS CASE. AND HER REACTION TO THE FACTS AS THEY WERE PUT FORWARD TO THIS JURY. >> THE JUDGE HAD VERY LITTLE DISCRETION WITH WITHREGARD TO SENTENCING ON THE VERDICT OF MURDER IN THE FIRST DEGREE. THERE'S NO DEATH PENALTY HERE IN MASSACHUSETTS. THE MAXIMUM SENTENCE IS LIFE IN PRISON WITHOUT PAROLE. THE QUESTION WAS, WOULD HE SERVE THAT SENTENCE CONSECUTIVELY OR CONCURRENTLY. THE PARENTS OF RACHEL WANTED THOSE TERMS TO BE SENTENCED CONSECUTI CONSECUTIVELY. SENDING THE MESSAGE THAT TWO LIVES WERE LOST AND THAT EACH LIFE HAS VALUE. THE JUDGE UNDERSTOOD IT. ULTIMATELY, SHE DIDN'T WANT TO SEND THE MESSAGE IN MASSACHUSETTS A LIFE SENTENCE WITHOUT THE POSSIBILITY OF PAROLE IS WEAK. AND SHE WANTED TO SEND THE MESSAGE THAT HE WILL SERVE IT CONCURRENTLY. THAT THIS IS A TRUE LIFE SENTENCE. THAT NEIL ENTWISTLE WILL DIE IN PRISON. >> AND SHE MADE IT VERY CLEAR THAT THIS KIND OF A CRIME IS OFFENSIVE TO THE VERY SENSE OF WHO WE ARE AS PEOPLE, I'M PARAPHRASING HERE. NO DISCRETION, BUT REALLY A POINT SHE WANTED TO MAKE THIS THIS COURTROOM. WE HEARD JUST NOW, JENNIFER, FROM ELLIOTT WINESTEIN AND AMY PAGE. WHAT HAS THE FAMILY HAD TO SAY? >> THE FAMILY DIDN'T SPEAK FOLLOWING THE SENTENCE. THEY ASKED DURING THEIR VICTIMS' IMPACT STATEMENTS THAT THE SENTENCE SERVED CONSECUTIVELY. WE KNOW THAT DIDN'T HAPPEN. WHEN RACHEL'S FAMILY LEFT THE COURTROOM, HER MOTHER, PRICE SILL A LA WAS SEEN CRYING. WE HEARD FROM RACHEL'S MOTHER, AND WE ALSO HEARD FROM HER BROTHER. PRISCILLA, RACHEL'S MOTHER SPOKE FIRST. >>. >> FOR HIM TO TRY TO HIDE BEHIND AN ACCUSATION OF MURDER, SUICIDE OF THIS BEAUTIFUL WOMAN AND PERFECT MOTHER IS LOW AND DESPICABLE. JOE AND I, OUR FAMILIES, RACHEL'S FRIENDS, STUDENTS HERE IN NEW ENGLAND, WERE SENTENCE WITHOUT THE LUXURY OF A TRIAL BY JURY AND NOW MUST GO ON WITH THE SE TERNTY OF EMPTINESS. I HAVE LOST TWO GENERATIONS OF MY FAMILY. I WOULD ASK THE COURT TO IMPOSE TWO CONSECUTIVE LIFE SENTENCE IN THE UNITED STATES. ACKNOWLEDGING THE LIVES OF BOTH RACHEL AND LILLIAN. >> NEIL, YOU HAVE BEEN JUDGED TODAY BY A JURY OF YOUR PEERS ON EARTH. ONE DAY YOU'LL FACE THE ULTIMATE JUDGMENT OF YOUR HORRIFIC DEEDS AND BETRAYAL. >> THANK YOU, YOURN. >> THE JUDGE ALSO HEARD FROM RACHEL'S BROTHER JEROME. HE GAVE A VERY THOUGHTFUL IMPACT STATEMENT TALKING ABOUT THE FIRST DAY OF SCHOOL WITH RACHEL. HE WAS THE OLDER BROTHER, THAT HE FELT THAT HE HAD TO TAKE CARE OF HER. THEY'RE STILL MOURNING THE LOSS OF RACHEL AND BABY LILLIAN. THEY HAVE TO LIVE WITH THAT EVERY SINGLE DAY. >> TO POINT A CLARIFICATION, THAT WAS THE VICTIMS' IMPACT PRIOR TO SENTENCING. IF THERE'S ANY IMMEDIATE REACTION FROM RACHEL'S FAMILY, WE'LL BRING THAT TO YOU LIVE. WE EXPECT MOMENTARILY TO BE SPEAKING WITH ELLIOT WEINSTEIN. TODAY, I'M JOINED BY KURT FLANGER AND OUT IN MASSACHUSETTS, OUR FRIEND, CRIMINAL DEFENSE ATTORNEY, TOM McCAIN. TOM, YOU'RE OUT THERE. RIGHT IN THE HEART OF THINGS. WHAT'S YOUR REACTION TO YESTERDAY'S VERDICT AND TODAY, THE SENTENCING? >> I THINK BOTH THE VERDICT AND THE SENTENCING WERE WHAT WAS EXPECTED. THE DEFENSE AND THE AMOUNT OF TIME THAT IT TOOK FOR THEM WAS NOT UNEXPECTED, EITHER. I THINK THAT THE JURY DID A CAREFUL DELIBERATION. WENT THROUGH THE EVIDENCE AND THEN REACHED THE ONLY CONCLUSION THE EVIDENCE POINTED TOWARDS WHICH WAS GUILTY IN FIRST DEGREE. >> THIS IS A TOUGH CASE FOR DEFENSE ATTORNEYS AND THOSE OF US WHO WANT TO PUT FORWARD THE BEST DEFENSE. WE'LL TALK ABOUT IT WITH ELLIOTT SHORTLY. KURT, WHAT ABOUT IT. SAME REACTION. JURY WAS OUT. A COUPLE OF DAYS. TWO WEEKS OF TESTIMONY. 47 PROSECUTION WITNESSES. THERE WAS AS POINTED OUT SHORTLY, A LITTLE WHILE AGO, THERE WAS EVIDENCE FROM THE DEFENSE, NO AFFIRMATIVE CASE IN CHIEF. ARE WE SURPRISED BY THIS RESULT? >> NOT REALLY. THESE ARE THE CASES THAT TRY THE SOULS OF CRIMINAL DEFENSE ATTORNEYS. YOU'RE OBLIGATED TO PROTECT YOUR CLIENT. AND HE DID A FANTASTIC JOB OF THAT. THE FACTS ARE THE FACTS IN THIS CASE. AS HE SAID, THE DEFENSE DOESN'T HAVE A BURDEN. BUT, LET'S FACE IT, MANY CASES THEY DO. IN PRETRIAL PUBLICITY, MAKES IT DIFFICULT. >> WE'RE GOING TO TALK ABOUT THAT AS WELL. WE WANT TO KNOW WHAT YOU THINK ABOUT THE GUILTY VERDICT IN THIS CASE. GIVE US ANY REACTION YOU MAY BE HAVING. SEND US YOUR REACTION. E-MAIL US DIRECTLY AT BEST DEFENSE AT CNN.COM. THIS "BEST DEFENSE." CONTINUING SPECIAL COVERAGE OF THE VERDICT AND SENTENCING IN THE NEIL ENTWISTLE CASE. THE VERDICT, GUILTY ON BOTH COUNTS OF FIRST DEGREE MURDER AS TO RACHEL ENTWISTLE, NEIL ENTWISTLE'S WIFE AND 9 MONTH OLD BABY DAUGHTER, LILLIAN. BACK OUT TO JENNIFER LONDON, OUR CORRESPONDENT THERE IN WOBURN, MASSACHUSETTS. WE TALKED ABOUT THE SENTENCING LIFE IN PRISON. THAT'S WHERE NEIL ENTWISTLE FAILING ANY SUCCESSFUL APPEALS WILL SPEND THE REST OF HIS DAYS. LET'S TALK NOW ABOUT THE VERDICT THAT CAME DOWN LATE YESTERDAY. YOU WERE IN THE COURTROOM. DESCRIBE THE SCENE FOR US. THIS CASE HAS BEEN FRAUGHT WITH EMOTIONS ON BOTH SIDES. TWO YEARS IN THE MAKING. THE HORRIFIC FACT PATTERN. WHAT WAS IT LIKE IN THAT COURTROOM? >> JAMIE, IT WAS STANDING-ROOM ONLY WHEN IT ANNOUNCED AS A VERDICT HAD BEEN ANNOUNCE. BEFORE THE VERDICT WAS READ, THEY HAD TO TURN PEOPLE AWAY SIMPLY SAYING THERE WAS NO ROOM INSIDE THE GALLERY. IT WAS VERY TENSE. AND WE SAW FAMILY AND FRIENDS OF RACHEL, THEY WERE SEATED IN ABOUT THE FIRST THREE ROWS DIRECTLY BEHIND THE PROSECUTION'S TABLE. BEHIND THE DEFENDANT'S TABLE. WE SAW NEIL ENTWISTLES' MOTHER, FATHER AND BROTHER PL ALL WAITING FOR GREAT ANTICIPATION FOR THIS VERDICT WAS READ. WHEN THE VERDICT WAS READ, WHEN THE FIRST COUNT CAME DOWN GUILTY OF MURDER IN THE FIRST DEGREE, WE SAW VERY LITTLE EMOTIONAL REACTION FROM NEIL ENTWISTLE. HE CLOSED HIS EYES BRIEFLY. SHOOK HIS HEAD EVER SO SLIGHTLY. HE GLANCED BACK AT HIS PARENTS. WE DIDN'T SEE ANY VISIBLE SIGN OF EMOTION FROM HIM WHEN THE VERDICT WAS READ. >> I WANT TO TALK A BIT MORE ABOUT HIS FAMILY, JENNIFER. THEY HAVE BEEN LARGELY SILENT THROUGHOUT. WE HAVEN'T HEARD FROM THEM AS WITNESSES. AS WE DID FROM RACHEL'S FAMILY. REACTION YESTERDAY AFTER THE VERDICT. WASN'T THERE? >> THERE WAS. IMMEDIATELY FOLLOWING THE VERDICT, THEY DID GO OUTSIDE AND SPEAK WITH THE WAITING MEDIA. AND WE HEARD FROM BOTH OF NEIL ENTWISTLE'S PARNTS. HIS MOTHER SURPRISING MANY WITH HER COMMENTS ABOUT RACHEL. HERE'S WHAT SHE SAID. >> WE KNEW NEIL WOULD NOT RECEIVE A FAIR TRIAL. WE'LL CONTINUE TO FIGHT FOR OUR INNOCENT SON WITH THE HOPE THAT ONE DAY, JUSTICE WILL PREVAIL. AND OUR LITTLE GRANDDAUGHTER, LILY, MAY REST IN PEACE. >> THAT WAS OF COURSE, NEIL ENTWISTLE'S FATHER. HIS MOTHER YVONNE SPOKE JUST BEFORE HIM AND SHE SAID THAT THEY ARE VERY DISAPPOINTED. THEY BELIEVE THEIR SON IS NOT. DISAPPOINTED THAT THE FACTS OF THIS CASE PROVE THAT RACHEL, HER WORDS, MURDERED THEIR GRANDDAUGHTER LILY BEFORE TURNING THE GUN ON HERSELF. THAT SURPRISED MANY PEOPLE. THE DEFENSE THEORY PUT FORTH WAS THAT THIS WAS A SUICIDE. BUT TO HEAR NEIL'S PARENTS, TO HEAR HIS MOTHER SAID THAT RACHEL MURDERED THEIR GRANDDAUGHTER AND THEN TURNED THE GUN ON HERSELF, VERY SURPRISING FOR MANY PEOPLE YESTERDAY. >> YES, WE'RE GOING TO TALK A LOT MORE ABOUT THE FAMILY REACTION ON BOTH SIDES. I WANT TO TURN BACK YESTERDAY, JENNIFER, TO THE ATTORNEYS. WE DEFENSE ATTORNEYS, WE'RE ALWAYS THINKING ABOUT THE APPEAL. EVEN WHEN WE HAVE A STRONG CASE AND EXPECT TO WIN IT. YOU'RE ALWAYS THINKING ABOUT THE APPEAL. THIS CASE IS NO DIFFERENT. OF COURSE AFTER THE VERDICT CAME DOWN, THE DEFENSE WAS THINKING THE SAME, RIGHT? >> CERTAINLY THE DEFENSE CAMING OUT SAYING THEY WERE DISAPPOINTED. THEY'RE NOT DEFEATED. THEY'LL APPEAL. HERE'S WHAT PART OF WHAT ELLIOT WEINSTEIN HAD TO SAY. >> WE KNOW THAT THERE ARE VERY SIGNIFICANT ISSUES OF CONSTITUTIONAL LAW THAT WILL BE PRESENTED ON APPEAL. BECAUSE OF THAT AND BECAUSE OF OUR COCONFIDENCE IN THE CORRECT LEGAL POSITION WE TOOK AT THE BEGINNING OF THIS CASE, WITH RESPECT TO THE UNLAWFUL ENTRY OF THAT HOME BY THE POLICE IN HOPKINTON, BUT NOT ONCE BUT TWICE, THAT THIS CASE WILL MEET A SUCCESSFUL REVIEW IN THE SUPREME COURT. >> JAMIE, YOU MIGHT RECALL DURING SOME OF THE PRETRIAL MOTIONS BEFORE THE TRIAL STARTED, THE DEFENSE TRIED VERY HARD TO HAVE ALL OF THE EVIDENCE COLLECTED DURING THE SEARCHES OF THE ENTWISTLE'S HOME, THROWN OUT. SAYING IT WAS AN ILLEGAL SEARCH. WE HEARD ELLIOT WEINSTEIN SAYING THAT WILL BE A APELL LATE ISSUE MOVING FORWARD. >> THE STANDARDS ARE ENTIRELY DIFFERENT. LET'S TALK A ABOUT PROSECUTION REACTION TO THE VERDICT. >> WE HEARD FROM THE PROSECUTION AS WELL, YESTERDAY. THEIR REACTION, NOT SURPRISING. THEY SAID THIS WAS THE VERDICT THEY EXPECTED. THAT THE VERDICT WAS FAIR AND JUST. THAT JUSTICE HAS BEEN SERVED. THE LEAD PROSECUTOR WAS ASKED WHAT HE THOUGHT THE MOST CRITICAL PIECE OF EVIDENCE WAS FOR THEIR CASE? HERE'S WHAT HE HAD TO SAY. >> I THINK NEIL ENTWISTLE HIMSELF, WAS ONE OF THE MOST CRITICAL PIECES OF EVIDENCE WE HAD. THESE CASES ARE BUILT PIECE BY PIECE. WITNESS BY WITNESS. IN THE END, NEIL ENTWISTLE WAS PROBABLY THE BEST EVIDENCE WE HAD IN THIS CASE. >> OF COURSE, WE DIDN'T HEAR NEIL ENTWISTLE TESTIFY FOR HIMSELF DURING THE TRIAL. BUT THE JURORS STILL HEARD FROM HIM, THE PROSECUTION DID PLAY A TWO-HOUR AUDIO RECORDING OF A CONVERSATION THAT NEIL HAD WHILE HE WAS IN ENGLAND ENGLAND THAT HE HAD WITH THE MASSACHUSETTS STATE POLICE DEPARTMENT. MANY CONTRADICTORY STATEMENTS SAID IN THAT STATEMENT. YOU HEARD THE PROSECUTION SAYING THAT NEIL ENTWISTLE WAS THEIR STRONGEST PIECE OF EVIDENCE. >> FASCINATING. IT'S CERTAINLY A WIDE CONCLUSION THAT NEIL ENTWISTLE'S OWN WORDS HURT HIM. ALTHOUGH HE NEVER WAIVERED FROM MAINTAINING HIS INNOCENCE IN THIS CASE. LET'S BRING OUR GUESTS BACK INTO THIS. I'LL ASK YOU BOTH THE SAME QUESTION. WE HEARD A WHOLE LOT FROM NEIL ENTWISTLE THROUGH THE PROSECUTION CASE, TWO HOURS OF AUDIO TAPE, PLUS MYRIAD OF WITNESSES WHO TESTIFIED ABOUT WHAT THEY SAY NEIL ENTWISTLE SAID. SHOULD WE HAVE HEARD FROM NEIL ENTWISTLE IN A DEFENSE CASE IN CHIEF? KURT, FIRST TO YOU. >> NO. WE ALWAYS ADMONISH OUR CLIENTS, DON'T TALK. THE WORST THING THAT HAPPENS TO EVERY CRIMINAL DEFENDANT IS THE CONTRADICTORY STATEMENTS THAT THEY MAKE. IT'S NATURAL HUMAN NATURE TO SAY THINGS THAT ARE CONTRADICTORY. YOU CAN'T HELP >> IT IF YOU'RE INNOCENT YOU SHOULD TALK? >> NO, DON'T TALK. IT KILS EVERYBODY. BY THE TIME YOU GET TO A POINT THAT YOU MAKING A STATEMENT WITH A ATTORNEY, YOU ALREADY SAID A HALF A DOZEN THINGS. WHETHER YOU TESTIFY OR NOT. >> TOM McKEAN, DO WE NEED TO HEAR FROM NEIL ENTWISTLE. ANYONE WHO'S SUSPECTED OF ANYTHING SHOULD STAY QUIET, RIGHT? >> WELL, THERE'S THE OLD SAYING THAT THE FELLOW GOES INTO THE DEFENSE ATTORNEY AND THE DEFENSE ATTORNEY HAS A FISH IN THE BACKGROUND. UNDERNEATH IT SAYS, I WOULDN'T BE HERE EITHER IF I KEEP MY MOUTH SHUT. WHAT HURT NEIL ENTWISTLE, DURING ANY OF HIS CONVERSATION, HE NEVER SAID, I CAME AND SHE KILL HERSELF. SHE WAS DEPRESSED. IT DIDN'T FIT WITH THE DEFENSE. >> DO WE NEED TO HEAR FROM HIM? >> I THINK THE PROBLEM WAS, IT WOULD HAVE BEEN TOO LATE. AND I THINK HE ONLY WOULD HAVE DONE HIMSELF DAMAGE. I THINK IT'S GENERALLY A BETTER IDEA TO GO WITH THE COMMONWEALTH IS NOT PROVEN THEIR CASE. AND DON'T GIVE ANYTHING FURTHER TO ASSIST THEM. >> WE'RE GOING TO TALK WITH THE DEFENSE ABOUT THAT DECISION. THAT STRATEGY AND THIS CASE. ELLIOT WEINSTEIN. YOU HAVE SEEN HIM ON THE COU COURTHOUSE STEPS. BUT NOT ON TV. WE'RE GOING TO HAVE HIM ON "BEST DEFENSE." ONE-ON-ONE CONVERSATION WITH ELLIOT WEINSTEIN COMING UP NEXT. STAY WITH US. >>> I'M JAMI FLOYD. THIS "BEST DEFENSE." WE'RE BRINGING SPECIAL COVERAGE IN THE TRIAL THAT WE BROUGHT YOU LIVE FOR THE LAST TWO WEEKS THE TRIAL OF NEIL ENTWISTLE, BRITISH MAN TRIED IN MASSACHUSETTS FOR WHAT WAS ALLEGED TO BE THE DOUBLE MURDER OF HIS WIFE AND INFANT DAUGHTER. YESTERDAY, THAT VERDICT CAME DOWN, GUILTY ON BOTH COUNTS. AND, WE HAVE BEEN VERY CAREFUL ON THIS PROGRAM TO PRESUME NEIL ENTWISTLE INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY. ANOTHER MAN WHO DID THE SAME, HIS CRIMINAL DEFENSE ATTORNEY, ELLIOT WEINSTEIN. ELLIOT JOINS US NOW. ONE OF THE MOST COURAGEOUS THINGS THAT YOU CAN DO TO DEFEND A CRIMINAL DEFENDANT IN A COURT OF LAW. THE NEXT MOST COURAGEOUS THINGS IS TO COME ON NATIONAL TELEVISION AND TALK ABOUT IT. I THANK YOU FOR JOINING US. YOU CAN'T WIN THEM ALL WHEN YOU'RE A CRIMINAL DEFENSE ATTORNEY, THAT GOES WITHOUT SAYING. I WANT TO ASK YOU YOURRY ACTION TO THE VERDICT OF YESTERDAY. >> FIRST, JAMI, I WANT TO SAY IT'S A PRIVILEGE TO REPRESENT ANY PERSON ACCUSED OF CRIME. WHAT WE DO AS CRIMINAL DRPS ATTORNEYS IS FOR THE RIGHTS OF ALL CITIZENS AT RISK LOSING THEIR LIBERTIES. I WANT TO THANK YOU FOR THE S R PERSPECTIVE THAT YOU BRING TO THE AMERICAN PEOPLE. >> THE CONSTITUTION FOR ALL OF US. WE'RE GOING TO TALK MORE ABOUT THAT. WE AGREE THAT WE'RE LOSING THAT MESSAGE ON THE AIRWAYS. GIVE ME THE REACTION TO THE VERDICT. NOW THAT YOU HAVE A NIGHT TO SLEEP ON IT. >> SURE. MY REACTION IS THE SAME TODAY AS IT WAS YESTERDAY. IT'S ONE OF DISAPPOINTMENT, CERTAINLY, NOT JUST FOR THE RESULT. BUT BECAUSE IN THE PROCESS, WE JUST WERE NEVER ABLE TO SHIFT THE FOCUS FROM NEIL DID IT, TO THE FOCUS OF HAS THE PROSECUTION ESTABLISHED PROOF OF GUILT BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT? AND REALLY, THAT'S THE DISAPPOINTMENT. ONE OF THE THINGS THAT WE HAVE BEEN HEARING OVER AND OVER AGAIN IN THIS TRIAL, IS THAT THERE WAS NO DEFENSE. WELL, TO THE CONTRARY. THERE WAS A DEFENSE EVERY SINGLE DAY. EVERY QUESTION THAT WE ASKED OF WITNESSES WAS PART OF THE DEFENSE. EVERY TIME WE ESTABLISHED THAT INVESTIGATORS APPROACHED THEIR WORK WITH THE FILTERS THAT NEIL DID IT, WAS PART OF THE DEFENSE. EVERY TIME WE DEVELOPED THE EVIDENCE THAT SHOULD HAVE BEEN PURSUED, ANALYZED, SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISCLOSED, THAT WAS THE DEFENSE. AND WHEN WE ESTABLISHED WITH CERTAIN CERTAINTY, THAT WAS THEIR THERE WAS GUNSHOT RESIDUE OF RACHEL ENTWISTLE'S HANDS. A FACT THAT THE PROSECUTION IGNORED. AND QUITE INCREDULOUSLY WITHHOLD FROM THE MEDICAL EXAMINER AT ALL TIMES DURING AUTOPSY, DURING PRETRIAL PREPARATIONS. WASN'T UNTIL STEPHANIE PAGE DISCLOSED THE FACT OF GUNSHOT RESIDUE DID ANYBODY KNOW THAT. THERE WAS A DEFENSE FROM THE VERY MINUTE WE STARTED THE PROCEEDINGS IN THE COURTROOM. >> FUNDAMENTAL MISUNDERSTANDING. THE WAY A CRIMINAL TRIAL IS SUPPOSED TO WORK IN MANY QUARTERS. I WANT TO LISTEN SOMETHING YOU SAID CLOSER IN TIME TO THE VERDICT. THIS WAS YESTERDAY. >> WE DISAGREE WITH THE RESULT THAT THE JURY REACHED. WE DISAGREE WITH THE VIEW OF THE EVIDENCE. AND WE BELIEVE THAT, UNDER A DIFFERENT ENVIRONMENT, PEOPLE SELECTED TO HEAR THIS EVIDENCE WOULD HAVE REACHED A DIFFERENT RESULT. >> ELLIOT, WHAT DID YOU MEAN, UNDER A DIFFERENT ENVIRONMENT? PEOPLE SELECTED TO HEAR THIS EVIDENCE WOULD HAVE REACHED A DIFFERENT RESULT? EXPAND ON THAT. >> SURE. THERE ARE TWO PARTS, AT LEAST TO WHAT I WAS ELUDING TO. THE FIRST ENVIRONMENT WAS THAT CREATED BY THE MEDIA FROM THE DAY ONE OF THIS CASE. THE PROCEEDINGS AND THE FRAMING OF THE DISTRICT COURT. BEFORE THAT, THE PUBLICITY WHICH ATTENDED THE INVESTIGATION. ALWAYS, WE WERE OPERATING IN AN ENVIRONMENT, AN ATMOSPHERE AND COLLECTIVE ATTITUDE THAT NEIL ENTWISTLE WAS GUILTY. NOT AN ENVIRONMENT OF OPEN MI MIND MINDEDNESS. THE REPORTING OF THIS EVENT WAS SO SENSATIONALIZE. THOSE EXPOSED TO IT AND THOSE WHO EXPOSED TO IT WAS MIDDLESEX COUNTY PROSPECTIVE JURORS. THE MASSACHUSETTS, THE UNITED STATES AND THE UNITED KINGDOM. THIS IS THE CASE OF THE MOST HORRIFIC, INTENSE PRETRIAL PUBLICITY THAT'S COME AROUND. THAT'S THE ENVIRONMENT. THEN IT GOT COMPOUNDED IN THE JURY SELECTION PROCEDURES. >> LET ME INTERRUPT YOU THERE. I WANT TO TALK ABOUT HOW IT GOT COMPOUNDED. THEY ARE TWO SEPARATE BUT RELATED ISSUES. LET'S REMIND OUR VIEWERS A LITTLE BIT ABOUT THAT JURY, OF COURSE, IT WAS SPLIT ON GENDER IN THAT BOX. SIX MEN AND SIX WOMEN. THE FOREPERSON SELECTED BY THE JUDGE. THE FOREPERSON WHOSE FATHER HAD BEEN A JUDGE. OF THE SAME STATUTE OF THE JUDGE IN THIS CASE. WELL-EDUCATED JURY. IN MASSACHUSETTS, JURORS ARE KNOWN TO BE OPEN TO THE PRESUMS OF INNOCENCE. OFTEN COMPARED TO SAN FRANCISCO AND SEATTLE. NOT SO IN THIS CASE. YOU'RE SAYING. >> THAT'S THE STARTING POINT. IT SHOWED UP IN THE QUESTIONING OF PROSPECTIVE JURORS. CONSULTANT ASSIST US IN DEVELOPING THE SUBTLE, OVERT BIASES AND ATTITUDES THAT JURORS HAVE COMING INTO THE COURTHOUSE FOR JURY SELECTION. THERE WAS A QUESTIONNAIRE WHICH CERTAINLY DISQUALIFIED 100, 150 OR MORE JURORS. THERE ARE QUESTIONS, WHICH, FOR EXAMPLE, ASKED IF JURORS BELIEVE THAT A DEFENDANT SHOULD TESTIFY TO PROVE HIS INNOCENCE. THE JURORS ANSWERED THAT QUESTION, YES. RIGHT AWAY, THAT SHOWS A JUROR, WHOSE ATTITUDE TOWARD THE PROCESS, NOT ONE FROM THE CONTEXT OF PRESUMS OF INNOCENCE, ONE THAT'S SEEKING TO HEAR TESTIMONY FROM A MAN WHO HAS AN ABSOLUTE RIGHT NOT TO TESTIFY. THOSE JURORS WERE NOT DISQUALIFIED. THOSE JURORS BECAUSE ALL OF THE QUESTIONING WAS CONDUCTED BY THE TRIAL JUDGE, GOT REHAB TATEED BY THE JUDGE NOT ALLOWED THAT TYPE OF RESPONSE TO STAND. THE QUESTION GOT REFRAMD AND REFASHIONED. IT RESULTED IN US HAVING A JURY, WE HAD A DIFFICULT CHANCE WITH FROM THE BEGIN ZMRG THE DEFENSE ATTORNEY IN ME SEES THE OUTLINE OF THE MOTION ON APPEAL. COMING TO THE FORE. I CAN SEE ROMAN NUMERAL, VENUE AND JURY SELECTION. >>> I WANT TO MOVE BEYOND JURY SELECTION. ALL OF THE WAY TO CLOSING ARGUMENT, WHERE YOU STOOD BEFORE THAT JURY AND FINALLY, CRYSTALLIZED FOR THE JURY AND ALL OF US WATCHING, ANOTHER POSSIBILITY OF WHAT THE DEFENSE MAY HAVE HAPPENED HERE. HELP US INTERPRET IT, ELLIOT. I THINK IT'S BEEN MISINTERPRETED. HERE'S ELLIOT WEINSTEIN. >> THERE WERE ONLY TWO GUNSHOTS. FIRST RACHEL PUT LILLIAN, WHERE SHE THOUGHT HER HEART WAS AND SHOT HER. THE BULLET TRAVELED THE BABY AND INTO RACHEL'S LEFT BREAST. THE BREAST IS JUST A MASS OF FATTY TISSUE. YOU KNOW THE BREAST WOUND WAS THE FIRST WOUND BECAUSE OF THE BRUISING. HER HEART WAS STILL BEATING WHEN SHE FIRED THAT NONFATAL SHOT. THEN SHE POINTED THE GUN TOWARD HER HEAD, STEADIED IT WITH BOTH HANDS, AND FIRED. >> ALL RIGHT. ELLIOT WEINSTEIN, YOU'RE SITTING RIGHT HERE. IT'S BEEN SO TALKED ABOUT. WHAT WAS YOUR POINT HERE? ARE YOU TRYING TO ESTABLISH FOR THE JURY, THE POSSIBILITIES THAT THE PROSECUTION AND THE INVESTIGATORS FAILED TO CONSIDER OR ARE YOU TRYING TO SULLY THE MEMORY OF THE ALENLED VICTIMS IN THE CASE? >> NEVER SEEKING TO SULLY THE MEMORY OF ANYBODY WHO'S BEEN SHOT IN THIS CASE. THE EVIDENCE SHOWED IN OUR VIEW THAT SHE SHOT HERSELF AFTER SHE SHOT HER CHILD. IT WAS A DEMONSTRATION FOR THE JURORS OF HOW IT COULD BE THAT OUR THEORY HAD LEGITIMACY, HAD LEGS, WAS VIABLE AND WAS CORRECT. IF YOU FOLLOW THE BUILD UP OF THE TESTIMONY, OF THE EVIDENCE, IT'S CLEAR FROM THE MEDICAL EXAMINER THAT IF THE HEART'S BEATING, THAT MEANT THAT SHE COULD NOT HAVE BEEN SHOT FIRST IN THE FOREHEAD. THEREFORE, THE FIRST SHOT WAS THE ONE, THE CONTACT WOUND THROUGH LILLIAN. >> ELLIOT THE OBVIOUS QUESTION, I'M ONLY ASKING IT, WHY NOT PUT ON SOME WITNESSES? I KNOW WE DON'T HAVE THE BURDEN. BUT, IF IT'S VIABLE, EVERYONE MAKES THE ANALOGY TO THE SPECTOR CASE, LOT OF TIME THERE SPENT TO ESTABLISH VIABILITY. WHY NOT GIVE THE JURY EVEN MORE TO HANG, SOME REASONABLE DOUBT? >> WE WORK WITH THE AVAILABLE EVIDENCE AND THE WITNESSES. WE'RE NOT ABLE TO GET INTO THE MEDICAL HISTORY. MOST SIGNIFICANTLY, HOWEVER, THE PROSECUTION DID NOT DEVELOP ANYTHING WITH RESPECT TO RACHEL'S MENTAL STATUS AND THAT'S FAILURE OF PROOF. AND, THE JURORS WERE OPEN TO CONSIDERING FAIRLY AND FULLY, THE POSSIBILITY OF THAT THIS WAS SUICIDE AND NOT MURDER, THEN THE JURORS WOULD HAVE SEEN THAT WHAT WE WERE SAYING TO THEM IN THAT CLOSING ARGUMENT, REALLY WAS THE FINAL PIECE OF THE FAILURE TO TELL THE MEDICAL EXAMINER ABOUT THE SIGNIFICANCE OF GUNSHOT RESIDUE. IF YOU START FROM THAT POINT, THAT IT WAS IN FACT ON RACHEL'S HANDS, AND HOW COULD IT GET THERE? GET THERE BECAUSE SHE HANDLED OR FIRED THE GUN. THE MEDICAL EXAMINER SHOULD HAVE BEEN BE TOLD THAT AND WAS NOT. THAT'S PURPOSEFUL BY THE PROSECUTION. >> I THINK WE HAVE SO MUCH MORE TO TALK ABOUT. ELLIOT WEINSTEIN AND WHAT YOU JUST SAID, REALLY UNDERSCORES THE IMPORTANCE OF CROSS-EXAMINATION IN THESE CASES. I KNOW YOU'RE GOING TO STAY WITH US. WHICH WE GREATLY APPRECIATE. ELLIOT WEINSTEIN. DEFENSE ATTORNEY TO NEIL ENTWISTLE. HE'LL BE WITH US AFTER A QUICK BREAK. >>> SOME OF THE CRITICISM MADE OF THE DEFENSE STRATEGY AND EVEN TECHNIQUE IN THAT COURTROOM, STYLE AS WE CALL IT, WE'LL ASK ALL OF THAT TO OUR FRIEND, ELLIOT WEINSTEIN, AFTER THIS. >>> I'M JAMI FLOYD, THIS IS BEST DEFENSE. SPEAKING OF BEST DEFENDERS, WE GOT THE MAN ALONG WITH HIS COLLEAGUE, WHO DEFENDED NEIL ENTWISTLE IN COURT. ELLIOT WEINSTEIN. ELLIOT YOU HAVE BEEN ON THIS CASE FROM THE VERY START. TOLD HE EARLY ON, I'M NOT TRYING THIS CASE IN THE PRESS. WE TALKED ABOUT THE WAYS P PREJUDICIAL PRETRIAL PUBLICITY CAN IMPACT A CASE. NOW, YOU'RE BACK. THE VERDICT CAME DOWN YESTERDAY. GUILTY ON BOTH COUNTS AGAINST HER CLIENT NEIL ENTWISTLE. I WANT TO ASK YOU ABOUT SOMETHING THAT YOU SAID MOMENTS AGO ON THE COURTHOUSE STEPS THAT PEOPLE DON'T SEEM TO UNDERSTAND THE TRIAL PROCESS. SAY A LITTLE BIT MORE ABOUT WHAT YOU MEAN WHEN YOU SAY THAT AND WHY. >> WHAT I WAS REFRG TO, I HOPE I REFERRED A LITTLE BIT BEFORE THE BREAK, THERE'S A SENSE THAT I GOT FROM IN THIS CASE, PARTICULARLY FROM THIS CASE, THAT DEFENDANTS HAVE TO PUT ON AN AFFIRMATIVE CASE THAT PEOPLE ACCUSED OF CRIMES HAVE TO PROVE THEIR INNOCENCE. WHILE JURORS ANSWER THE QUESTION, DO YOU BELIEVE THERE'S A PRESUMPTION OF INNOCENCE, DO YOU UNDERSTAND IT AND NOD THEIR HEADS, YES, YES. IN ACTUALITY, WE UNDERSTAND TRIAL LAWYERS UNDERSTAND, WE USUALLY HAVE TO OVERCOME THIS ATTITUDE THAT WE HAVE TO PROVE INNOCENCE. >> WHAT WE CALL ON THIS PROGRAM THE PRESUMS OF GUILT. >> I SAY IT MANY TIMES. I HATE TO SPEAK IT OUT LOUD BECAUSE I DON'T WANT THE INSURANCE TO EMBRACE IT. I WANT THE INSURANCE TO EMBRACE THE BURDEN OF PROOF AND THE PRESUMPTION OF INNOCENCE. I WANT THE UNIVERSE, AMERICAN CITIZENS TO UNDERSTAND AND RESPECT THAT THE WORK THAT WE DO AND SOMETIMES IT'S BEEN REFERRED TO THE CHAMPIONS OF LIBERTY, THE WORKS OF A DEFENSE ATTORNEY. IT'S NOT A PHRASE. IT'S WHAT'S DRIVEN ME FOR 34 YEARS AS A DEFENSE ATTORNEY. WE WORK FOR OUR CLIENTS IN EACH INDIVIDUAL CASE. WE DO IT FOR OUR CLIENTS AND EVERYBODY. BECAUSE THE POWER OF GOVERNMENT TO TAKE AWAY LIBERTY IS SO STRONG THAT IT'S THE CRIMINAL DEFENSE LAWYER THAT'S THE FIRST LINE BETWEEN THAT OPPRESSIVE POWER OF THE GOVERNMENT AND THE INDIVIDUAL'S RIGHTS AND FREEDOMS. >> AND ALSO -- >> I WANT PEOPLE TO UNDERSTAND THIS. >> ALSO, THEREFORE THE FIRST LINE OF ATTACK I THINK, NOT A POPULAR PLACE TO BE AS A CRIMINAL DEFENSE ATTORNEY ESPECIALLY IN A CASE LIKE THIS ONE. I WANT TO GET YOUR REACTION. WE TALKED ABOUT IT IN THE FIRST SEGMENT. TALK A LITTLE BIT MORE ABOUT THIS SENTENCE. IT COMES UP IN SO MANY CASES. OF SULLYING THE VICTIM. DISRESPECTING THE VICTIM. LISTEN TO WHAT PROSECUTORS HAD TO SAY AFTER THE VERDICT AND GET YOUR REACTION TO IT. >> I CONDEMN NEIL ENTWISTLE FOR HIS UNSPEAKABLE, UNFORGIVABLE ACTS. BUT I CONDEMN NEIL ENTWISTLE FOR COMPOUNDING THE UNSPEAKABLE NATURE OF WHAT HE HAS DONE BY DISPARJING THE MEMORY OF HIS WIFE AND VILIFYING THE ENTIRE FAMILY DURING THE COURSE OF THIS TRIAL. MAKE NO MISTAKE ABOUT IT, HE'S NOW HELD ACCOUNTABLE AND RESPONSIBLE. >> ELLIOT, THE TRANSITIVE PROPERTY OF BLAME, LED A LOT OF COMMENTATORS TO EXTEND THAT ANGER IF YOU WILL, TO THE DEFENSE TEAM. THEY'RE OFFENDED, OUTRAGED. THIS WILL BACKFIRE. BUT THAT'S NOT WHAT IT'S ABOUT. IS IT? >> ABSOLUTELY NOT. AND GERRY LEONE KNOWS BETTER. AND SHOULD HAVE BEEN MORE RESPONSIBLE. HE KNOWS WHAT IT IS TO PROSECUTE BECAUSE THAT'S ALL HE'S EVER DONE. HE ALSO KNOWS THAT THIS IS AN ADVERSARY SYSTEM. AND THE ADVERSARY PUTS CERTAIN SIDES ON THE TABLE. HIS ROLE IS TO PROSECUTE BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT. DEFENSE ATTORNEY LAW IS TO DEFEND ANY COURSE IN THE ROAD IN THIS COURSE OF THE DEFENSE AND THE TRIAL. UNFORTUNATE THAT THIS CASE'S BEING USED TO VILIFY THE DEFENSE EFFORT. I WISH THAT HADN'T BEEN THE VIEW THAT SO MANY PEOPLE HAVE TAKEN TO THIS CASE. THE CRIME, ITSELF, THE DEATH OF A MOTHER AND A CHILD OFFENDS. IT HAS TO OFFEND. TO GO BEYOND THAT, YOU HAVE TO GO BEYOND THAT AND TAKE IT TO THE CHARGES OF MURDER AND WHO PROEFS WHAT. IT'S WRONG FOR THE PROSECUTION TO COME FORWARD AND DISPARAGE ABSOLUTE LEGITIMATE, PROPER, AGGRESSIVE AND EFFECTIVE DEFENSE WORK BY SAYING THAT THERE WAS SOMEHOW SEEKING TO SULLY THE VICTIMS. THAT'S WRONG FOR THE PROSECUTOR TO SAY. IT DISRESPECTS THE DEFENSE'S FUNCTION. IT DOESN'T UPT DO THE PROSECUTION EITHER. >> OF COURSE, THEN WE COMMENTATORS RAN WITH IT. APPLIED TO THE DEFENSE TEAM. THROUGHOUT THE COVERAGE OF THE CASE, CRITICISM ON THAT LEVEL IN LOCAL COVERAGE AND NATIONAL COVERAGE. LET'S TALK ABOUT A RELATED CRITICISM. I THINK RELATED. THOSE WHO UNDERSTAND THE DISTINCTION YOU'RE MAKING, STILL, WERE CRITICAL ELLIOT OF YOU. YOU HEARD THAT WORD AGGRESSIVE. WE TALKED ABOUT HOW IMPORTANT CROSS-EXAMINATION IS ESPECIALLY FOR DEFENSE ATTORNEYS. IT'S PART OF THE DEFENSE CASE TO EFFECTIVELY CROSS EXAMINE. BUT SOME SAID YOU WERE TOO AGGRESSIVE IN YOUR CROSS-EXAMINATIONS OF WITNESSES. ONE COLLEAGUE USED THE WORD, RUDE. WHAT DO YOU SAY TO THAT? >> WHAT I SAY TO YOUR COLLEAGUE WHO THOUGHT I WAS TOO AGGRESSIVE AND RUDE, YOU SHE SHOULD WATCH ME IN A CASE WHERE I'M TAKING DOWN A WITNESS, WHERE I'M DROIG RG LYING CREDIBILITY. DISMANTLING A POLICE WITNESS. THERE WAS NO AGGRESSIVE CROSS-EXAMINATION IN THIS CASE. NOT BY MY STANDARD AND COME ON, YOU DON'T THINK YOU WERE AGGRESSIVE AT SOME POINT IN THE CROSS EXAMINATION? >> I THOUGHT I WAS PURPOSEFUL. >> IF THOSE THOUGHT THE WORK I DID IN THIS CASE WAS AGGRESSIVE CROSS EXAMINATION. I TAKE IT AS A COMPLIMENT. >> YOU GO, ELLIOT. YOU DO A LOT OF CASES THAT INVOLVE SNITCHES, MOB TYPES, I WOULD LIKE TO SEE YOU GO AFTER ONE OF THOSE GUYS ON THE WITNESS STAND. I GOT TO END THIS, YOU GOT TO START PREPARING THE APPEAL. YOU HAVE A FULL CASE LOAD OF CLIENTS TO REPRESENT. I GOT TO END TODAY WITH SOMETHING YOU SAID TWO YEARS AGO, A LONG TIME AGO ON THE DAY OF THE ARRAIGNMENT, ON THE COURTHOUSE STEPS. TAKE A LISTEN TO THIS. >> I'M GOING TO VIGOROUSLY, AGGRESSIVELY AND SUCCESSFULLY DEFEND MR. ENTWISTLE. I'M GOING TO DO THAT IN THE ONLY ARENA THAT COUNTS AND THAT'S THE COURTROOM. >> ALL RIGHT. ELLIOT WEINSTEIN, DO YOU THINK YOU WERE ABLE TO DO THAT. >> WE'RE NOT DONE. WE DIDN'T PREVAIL AT TRIAL. WE'LL PREVAIL ON APPEAL BECAUSE THE ISSUES THAT BEGAN THIS CASE WERE UNLAWFUL POLICE ENTRY INTO A HOME. THE HOME OF NEIL ENTWISTLE. NOT ONCE BUT TWICE. NEITHER TIME WITH A SEARCH WARRANT. NEITHER TIME WITH ANY LEGAL JUSTIFICATION. WE WEREN'T SUCCESSFUL AT TRIAL. WE'RE NOT DONE. THIS DEFENSE IS NOT OVER. >> I WANT TO SAY A VERY SPECIAL THANK YOU. I'M FOR ONE, ELLIOT, WEINSTEIN, APPRECIATE GREATLY THE WORK THAT YOU DO. YOU'RE NOT ONLY DEFENDING NEIL ENTWISTLE BUT ALL OF OUR CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS. THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME. HOPE YOU CAN SEE YOU AGAIN. ALL RIGHT. >>> I'M GOING TO SAY MORE ABOUT NEIL ENTWISTLE IN MY LAST WORD. STAY TUNED FOR THE LAST WORD. ALL ABOUT WHAT DEFENSE ATTORNEY'S RULE IS. RIGHT NOW, IT'S TIME FOR A BREAK. STAY WITH US. NEIL ENTWISTLE HAS BEEN CONVICTED. SENTENCED TO LIFE IN PRISON. MORE REACTION FROM THE NEWS LIVE FROM MASSACHUSETTS. >>> UP NEXT ON "THE BEST DEFENSE" THE VERDICT IS IN NEIL ENTWISTLE GUILTY OF DOUBLE MURDER, SENTENCED TO LIFE IN PRISON. WE'LL TALK WITH DEFENSE ATTORNEY STEPHANIE PAGE. THE SUPREME COURT HANDS DOWN ITS HIGHLY-ANTICIPATED RULING ON D.C. HAND GUN BAN. WE ARE LIVE WITH ALL THE DETAILS. A NEW HOUR OF BEST DEFENSE STARTS RIGHT NOW. THIS IS "THE BEST DEFENSE" I'M JAMI FLOYD. WE'LL HAVE THE NEW RULING INCLUDING BREAKING NEWS OUT OF THE COURT TODAY. FIRST, AFTER TWO WEEKS OF TRIAL, 11 HOURS OF DELIBERATIONS, 12 JURORS CAME BACK WITH TWO GUILTY VERDICTS FOR NEIL ENTWISTLE. >> FOREPERSON IN THE JURY IN THE CASE OF THE COMMONWEALTH VERSUS NEIL ENTWISTLE, INDICTMENT NUMBER 2,6387001, CHARGING THE DEFENDANT WITH MURDER WITH THE FIRST DEGREE. WHAT SAY YOU, FOREPERSON? IS THE DEFENDANT GUILTY OR NOT GUILTY? >> GUILTY OF MURDER IN THE FIRST DEGREE OF RACHEL AENLT WHICH ISLE. >> ON INDICTMENT NUMBER 2,00600-2, WHAT SAY YOU IS THE DEFENDANT GUILTY OR NOT GUILTY? >> GUILTY OF MURDER IN FIRST DEGREE OF RACHEL ENTWISTLE. >> HE WILL NOW SPEND THE REST OF HIS LIFE IN PRISON FOR KILLING HIS WIFE RACHEL AND BABY DAUGHTER LILLIAN. OUR CORRESPONDENT JENNIFER LONDON JOINS US LIVE WITH THE LATEST OUTSIDE THAT MASSACHUSETTS COURTROOM. JENNIFER, OBVIOUSLY A LOT OF REACTION TO THE VERDICT. WE'LL GET TO THAT IN JUST A MOMENT. WHERE IS NEIL ENTWISTLE NOW? >> WELL, HE WAS REMOVED FROM COURT. THAT HAS BEEN THE QUESTION THIS MORNING AFTER SENTENCING WAS HANDED DOWN. WE DID HEAR THE COURT SAY THAT HE WILL BE REMANDED TO A CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTE AT PETER JUNCTION. IT WASN'T CLEAR IF THAT WOULD BE THE FINAL PLACE THAT NEIL ENTWISTLE WOULD SPEND THE REST OF HIS LIFE OR AN INTERMEDIATE PLACE HE WOULD GO TO? HIS DEFENSE TEAM SAYS PROCESSING HIM WILL TAKE SEVERAL DAYS. IT HAS NOT BEEN ULTIMATELY DECIDED WHERE HE WILL SERVE OUT THAT LIFE SENTENCE. >> OF COURSE, WE ALWAYS POINT OUT ON THIS PROGRAM SO MUCH FOCUS ON THE VICTIM'S FAMILIES AND RIGHTFULLY SO. THERE IS ALWAYS THE FAMILY OF NEIL ENTWISTLE TO THINK ABOUT. THEY NOW HAVE LOST A SON, ESSENTIALLY. AND THEY ARE BASED IN ENGLAND. HE WILL BE HERE, OF COURSE, IN THE UNITED STATES. WE JUST TALKED WITH ELLIOT WEINSTEIN, AS YOU SAW, THE ATTORNEY FOR NEIL ENTWISTLE. WE'LL TALK WITH STEPHANIE PAGE, HIS OTHER LAWYER IN JUST A MOMENT. I WANT TO GIVE ADEQUATE TIME TO THE OTHER SIDE, OF COURSE TO THE FAMILY OF RACHEL ENTWISTLE. AND WHATEVER YOU BELIEVE IN THIS CASE THEY ARE GRIEVING TERRIBLY. THEY LOST NOT ONLY A DAUGHTER, BUT A GRANDDAUGHTER. WHAT WAS THE REACTION ON THEIR PART? >> WELL, WE DID HEAR FROM THEM THIS MORNING DURING THE BRIEF VICTIM IMPACT STATEMENTS. YOU ARE RIGHT. YOU GET THE SENSE THAT THIS IS A VERY CLOSE FAMILY AND THEY ARE FEELING AN ENORMOUS AMOUNT OF PAIN OVER THE LOSS OF LILLIAN AND THE LOSS OF RACHEL. IT DOESN'T MATTER THIS HAPPENED 2 1/2 YEARS AGO. THEY STILL FEEL AND LIVE WITH THIS PAIN EVERY DAY. THAT WAS VERY APPARENT IN THEIR VICTIM IMPACT STATEMENTS TODAY. YESTERDAY AFTER THE VERDICT WAS READ, THE PROSECUTION DID HOLD A PRESS CONFERENCE WHERE WE DID HEAR BRIEFLY FROM THE FAMILY OF RACHEL. HERE IS WHAT THEY HAD TO SAY. >> I WANT TO THANK EVERYBODY FOR THEIR PRAYERS, CARDS AND SUPPORT. IT WAS A TREMENDOUS HELP OVER THE LAST 2 1/2 YEARS. JUST THANK YOU, EVERYONE. >> JAMI, THEY DID NOT COMMENT SPECIFICALLY ON WHAT THEIR REACTION TO THE VERDICT WAS. WE DID HEAR FROM THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY SAY THAT THEY ARE VERY PLEASED WITH THE GUILTY VERDICT. THEY FEEL IT WAS A JUST VERDICT AND A FAIR VERDICT. RACHEL'S FAMILY YESTERDAY DID NOT SPEAK DIRECTLY THEMSELVES AS TO A REACTION TO THE VERDICT. >> AND FOR BETTER OR WORSE IN OUR SYSTEM, JENNIFER, IT'S NEVER OVER TILL IT'S OVER. IT'S NOT OVER UNTIL THE APPEALS ARE OVER. THERE ARE APPEALS IN THIS CASE. WHAT HAPPENS NEXT IN THE CASE OF NEIL ENTWISTLE? >> WE DO KNOW FROM THE DEFENSE THEY DO PLAN TO APPEAL. THEY MENTIONED THAT YESTERDAY IMMEDIATELY FOLLOWING THE VERDICT. THEY SAID THERE ARE A NUMBER OF APPELLATE ISSUES. THEY PLAN TO RAISE. WE HEARD THAT AGAIN FROM ELLIOT WEINSTEIN TODAY WHEN HE SPOKE TO THE PRESS AFTER THE SENTENCING. SPECIFICALLY, THEY WERE TALKING ABOUT THE TWO SEARCHES OF THE ENTWISTLE HOME THAT WAS CONDUCTED THE DAY BACK IN JANUARY 2006, THE DAY IT WAS REPORTED THAT LILLIAN AND RACHEL COULD NOT BE FOUND. THE POLICE ENTERED THE HOME NOT ONCE, BUT TWICE. THE DEFENSE CLAIMS BOTH OF THOSE SEARCHES OF THE HOME WERE ILLEGAL. THEY DID TRY TO HAVE THEM THROWN OUT DURING PRETRIAL MOTIONS. THAT WAS DENIED. THEY DO SAY THAT WILL BE ONE OF THEIR APPELLATE ISSUES MOVING FORWARD. >> THEY CERTAINLY SOUND DETERMINED TO SUCCEED ON APPEAL. WE'LL TALK A LOT MORE ABOUT THOSE APPELLATE ISSUES RIGHT NOW WITH OUR GUEST. I WANT TO TURN FIRST TO CRIMINAL DEFENSE ATTORNEY. YOU KNOW NOW WHAT SOME OF THE ISSUES ON APPEAL WOULD BE. WHAT DO YOU THINK THE BEST ISSUES ON APPEAL ARE? ODDLY ENOUGH, I THINK, THAT PREJUDICIAL PRETRIAL PUBLICITY, THE AGE-OLD AMERICAN ISSUE, NOT THE EFFECT BUT THE VENUE QUESTION. >> I KNOW THAT IS YOUR FAVORITE ISSUE. I THINK THERE ARE ISSUES OF THE SEARCHES ARE PROBABLY THEIR BEST ISSUES. YOU MAY HAVE AN ARGUMENT TO GO IN THE FIRST TIME, BUT GOING IN REPEATEDLY AFTER THE CRIME SCENE HAS BEEN SECURED AND NOTHING IS GOING TO CHANGE RAISES REAL ISSUES. YOU GO IN MULTIPLE TIMES AND ALL YOU ARE DOING IS SEARCHING FOR EVIDENCE AT THAT POINT. YOU ARE NO LONGER TRYING TO PROTECT PEOPLE OR PROTECT THE SCENE BECAUSE YOU LOCKED THAT DOWN. I THINK THE PRETRIAL PUBLICITY, IT'S A TOUGH ONE. >> EXPLAIN WHY IT IS THAT POLICE AND INVESTIGATORS CAN'TRY PETEDLY GO INTO SOMEONE'S HOME? WHY IS THAT AN ISSUE? >> THAT'S THE CORE OF THE FOURTH AMENDMENT. THE FOURTH AMENDMENT PROTECTS YOUR HOME, PERSONAL PROPERTY AGAINST UNWARRANTED SEARCHES BY THE POLICE. THAT WAS WHAT LED TO THE ENTIRE PASSAGE OF THE CONSTITUTION. WE WERE TIRED AS PEOPLE OF HAVING BRITISH SOLDIERS BUST INTO OUR HOUSES IN THE COLUMN NICHLT. >> OKAY, JOHN ADAMS. LET ME TALK WITH TOM McCAIN, A CRADLE OF OUR DEMOCRACY RIGHT THERE, PHILADELPHIA, MASSACHUSETTS AND OTHER GREAT STATES THAT CONTRIBUTED, AS WELL. NEW JERSEY, I COULD GO ON. I CAN'T LEAVE VIRGINIA OUT. LET ME ASK YOU WHAT YOU THINK THE BEST ISSUE, WITHOUT INVOKING ANY OF THE FOUNDING FATHERS, IF YOU CAN, WHAT YOU THINK THE BEST ISSUES ON APPEAL MAY BE HERE FOR NEIL ENTWISTLE? >> I THINK THEY'VE GOT A VERY TOUGH ROAD TO HOE. I THINK THE ONLY ISSUE I SEE IS THE PRETRIAL PUBLICITY AND WHETHER THE JURY WAS TAINTED TO BEGIN WITH. THAT'S A VERY TOUGH BURDEN. I DON'T THINK WHAT THE COMMONWEALTH WILL CALL WELLNESS CHECK ARE GOING TO BE VIEWED AS ILLEGAL SEARCH AND SEIZURES. >> I HAVE TO INTERRUPT YOU. WELLNESS CHECK. IT'S A LITTLE ORWELLIAN. >> POLICE GET A PHONE CALL, WE AREN'T ABLE TO LOCATE SO AND SO. WE HAVEN'T HEARD FROM SO AND SO. POLICE GO INTO THE HOME TO CHECK TO SEE IF THE PERSON MAY HAVE HAD A STROKE OR SOME OTHER TYPE OF AN ILLNESS. THEY MAY BE STUCK. THEY MAY BE WELL, BUT THEY'VE GOT TO CHECK TO SEE WHAT THE SITUATION IS. AND THEY ARE CALLED IN. IN THIS CASE, THEY DIDN'T RANDOMLY GO. THEY WERE TOLD, IT WAS A PHONE CALL THAT SAID WE WERE SUPPOSED TO MEET WITH RACHEL. SHE DIDN'T SHOW UP. THEN THEY GO INTO CHECK AND THEY INITIALLY DIDN'T FIND, THEY WENT BACK. THAT'S WHEN THEY FOUND THE BODY THE SECOND TIME. THEY DIDN'T SEIZE EVIDENCE UNTIL AFTER THE BODY WAS FOUND. THEN IT BECAME A CRIME SCENE. >> DO YOU AGREE WITH ME MAYBE THE VENUE IS A GOOD ISSUE? IT RARELY WINS ON APPEAL, BUT IF THERE IS A CASE WHERE IT WILL BE SUCCESSFUL, THIS MUST BE IT. >> I THINK THAT'S CORRECT. I THINK WHAT WILL LIKELY HAPPEN IS THE JUDGE WAS QUITE CAREFUL ABOUT THE QUESTIONNAIRES THAT WERE DONE AND THE SELECTION PROCESS. AND THERE ARE GOING TO BE CASES. THE FACTS WITH OVERWHELMING. I THINK THE COURT IS NOT GOING TO OVERTURN IT BASED ON THAT. >> JENNIFER LONDON, I WANT TO COME OVER TO YOU. THERE HAVE BEEN A LITTLE BIT OF JURY REACTION IN THE PRINT MEDIA, BUT AS IS SO OFTEN THE CASE, JURORS DON'T LIKE TO BE ON CAMERA. WE RESPECT THAT TREMENDOUSLY THE SANKT OF THE JURY PROCESS THEY ARE. NOTHING SHURD OCCUR TO INVADE THEIR PRIVACY. WHAT DO WE KNOW ABOUT THE JURORS? I IMAGINE THEY RETURNED TO THEIR HOMES AND DAILY LIVES. A CASE LIKE THIS STAYS WITH YOU IF YOU SIT ON A JURY, FOR THE REST OF YOUR LIFE. >> WELL, CERTAINLY. WE DID HAVE ONE JUROR COMMENT, AS YOU MENTIONED, TO PRINT MEDIAS YESTERDAY. THEY WERE STOPPED IN THEIR CAR AND SAID WE WERE A VERY COHESIVE GROUP AND WE WILL NOT SPEAK AS INDIVIDUALS. WE WILL ONLY SPEAK AS ONE GROUP. IF EVERYONE TALKS, WE WILL TALK. SO FAR THAT HAS NOT HAPPENED. WE HAVE NOT HAD AN OPPORTUNITY TO INDIVIDUALLY SPEAK WITH THE JURORS AND FIND OUT WHAT THEY WERE THINKING. WE KNOW COLLECTIVELY AS A GROUP WHAT THEY DECIDED. IT WAS READ IN COURT YESTERDAY. GUILTY ON ALL FOUR COUNTS. WHAT WE DON'T KNOW INDIVIDUALLY IS HOW THE DELIBERATIONS WENT. THEY DID DELIBERATE FOR CLOSE TO 11 HOURS. THEY DID HAVE MORE THAN 100 PIECES OF EVIDENCE TO SIFT THROUGH. WE DID HEAR THE PROSECUTION SAY THEY BELIEVE THEIR STRONGEST PIECE OF EVIDENCE WAS NEIL ENTWISTLE HIMSELF. DID THE JURY AGREE WITH THAT? WE DON'T KNOW BECAUSE AGAIN THEY AREN'T SPEAKING WITH US. >> I KNOW YOU ARE GOING TO CONTINUE TO WORK THAT ANGLE ON THE STORY, JENNIFER, ABLY. I HAVE GREAT FAITH YOU WILL BE SUCCESSFUL. IN THE MEANTIME WE DO RESPECT THEIR DECISION. IF THEY WANT TO SPEAK AS A GROUP, THAT IS FINE WITH US. WE'LL HAVE ALL 12 ON RIGHT HERE ON "BEST DEFENSE." WE'LL TAKE A QUICK BREAK. YOU HEARD FROM ELLIOT WEINSTEIN MOMENTS AGO ONE-ON-ONE INTERVIEW. FIRST TIME INTERVIEW ON OUR AIR SINCE THE VERDICT CAME DOWN. NEXT UP, WE ARE GOING TO HAVE HIS COLLEAGUE STEPHANIE PAGE. THAT MOST ABLE OF CROSS-EXAMINERS. I'LL CROSS-EXAMINE HER A LITTLE BIT. NO, NOT REALLY. >>> WHAT I'M FRUSTRATED WITH IS THAT SO MANY PEOPLE DO NOT UNDERSTAND WHAT A TRIAL IS. WHAT I'M FRUSTRATED ABOUT IS THAT SO MANY PEOPLE HAVE REPEATED OVER AND OVER AGAIN THROUGH THE TRIAL AND IN REACTION TO THE VERDICT THAT THERE WAS NO DEFENSE, THAT THERE WAS NO EVIDENCE PRODUCED. WELL, LET'S TAKE A LOOK AT THAT FOR A MOMENT. WE HAVE NO BURDEN OF PROOF. THAT IS ON THE PROSECUTION. >> WE SAW ELLIOT WEINSTEIN. YOU HEARD HIM HERE MOMENTS AGO ON "BEST DEFENSE" WITH HIS REACTION TO THE VERDICT IN THE CASE OF NEIL ENTWISTLE, OF COURSE CONVICTED YESTERDAY LATE IN THE DAY ON TWO COUNTS OF MURDER. THERE WAS ANOTHER WOMAN IN THAT COURTROOM. IF YOU WERE WATCHING YOU KNOW, YOU KNOW HER WELL, YOU KNOW HER STYLE, YOU KNOW HER NAME. IT'S STEPHANIE PAGE. WE ARE SO PLEASED TO HAVE HER WITH US. I SAY ON THIS PROGRAM SO OFTEN CRIMINAL DEFENSE ATTORNEYS ARE THE MODERN DAY CIVIL RIGHTS LAWYERS. THEY ARE MY HEROES. BUT MORE THAN MOST, PUBLIC DEFENDERS BECAUSE I THINK THEY ARE UNDERVALUED AND NOT GIVEN PROPS, IF I CAN USE A MODERN-DAY EXPRESSION. I WANT TO COMMEND YOU FOR YOUR FINE JOB IN THAT COURTROOM, BUT ALSO YOUR WORK AS A PUBLIC DEFENDER WITH THE BOSTON OFFICE. I WANT TO GET YOUR REACTION TO THE VERDICT. WE HEARD ELLIOT'S. WE CAN'T ASSUME YOURS IS THE SAME. WHAT IS YOUR SENSE OF THIS NOW 2 1/2 YEARS LATER AFTER THE CRIME WAS CHARGED AND NOW THAT THE VERDICT HAS COME DOWN AND YOUR CLIENT NEIL ENTWISTLE HAS BEEN SENTENCED? >> WELL, UNDERSTANDABLY, YOU KNOW, WE ARE VERY UPSET. WE REALLY THOUGHT NEIL WOULD BE FOUND INNOCENT IF WE COULD HAVE HAD A GROUP OF JURORS THAT WOULD HAVE BEEN ABLE TO LISTEN TO THE EVIDENCE AND TO LISTEN TO THE DEFENSE WE PRESENTED WITH AN UNFILTERED AND OPENED MIND. THIS ISN'T JUST AN EXERCISE FOR US. WE BELIEVED IN EVERY SINGLE THING WE DID. AND BEFORE THAT COURTROOM. EVERYTHING WAS DONE FOR NEIL. IT'S VERY DISCONCERTING. >> THIS IS A VERY DIFFICULT ISSUE, I THINK, FOR ME ON THIS PROGRAM "BEST DEFENSE" BECAUSE WE ARE ALL ABOUT THE DEFENDANT, THE DEFENDANT'S POINT OF VIEW AND DEFENDANT'S PERSPECTIVE. BUT ALSO THE SYSTEM BECAUSE I BELIEVE IN THE SYSTEM. YOU MUST, TOO, OR ELSE YOU WOULDN'T BE A CRIMINAL DEFENSE ATTORNEY. WE TRY NOT TO UNDERMINE THE JURY, JIRT'S VERDICT OR CALL IT INTO QUESTION TOO MUCH. AT THE SAME TIME YOU HAVE TO CALL IT AS YOU SEE IT. IT SOUNDS AS THOUGH YOU HAVE SOME CONCERNS ABOUT WHETHER THIS JURY EVEN HAD THE ABILITY TO BE FAIR BASED ON ALL THAT WENT ON BEFORE THE JURY WAS SELECTED. >> WELL, AND I THINK WE'VE BEEN SAYING THIS FROM DAY ONE. I'M NOT SUGGESTING THAT THE JURY EVEN KNOWS HOW BIASED THEY ARE. IF YOU HAD BEEN A RESIDENT OF THIS COUNTY FROM THE TIME THESE DEATHS OCCURRED IN JANUARY 2006, AND BEEN INUNDATED DAY AFTER DAY AFTER DAY WITH THE PREJUDICIAL MEDIA, PUBLICITY, NOT JUST IN PRINT, BUT BOSTON HAS SOME INCREDIBLY POPULAR TALK SHOWS, WHETHER IT'S SPORTS RADIO OR SO-CALLED OPEN AND FAIR MINDED TALK SHOWS THAT TOOK A SLANT RIGHT FROM THE BEGINNING THAT NEIL ENTWISTLE WAS THE KILLER. THAT JURY, THE JURY THAT WE HAD, HAD BEEN INUNDATED WITH THAT ALMOST ON A DAILY BASIS. ESPECIALLY AT THE BEGINNING, THEN AS WE CAME UP CLOSER TO TRIAL. THE MEDIA WAS SO ATTENTIVE TO THIS CASE THAT EVEN FOR THE MOST MUNDANE HEARING THE MEDIA WOULD BE THERE. IT WOULD GENERATE WHATEVER KIND OF SALACIOUS, MOST OF THE TIME INCORRECT HEADLINES, AND IT WAS JUST A BOMBARDMENT OF THIS INFORMATION. >> IT'S NOT JUST THE PRESENCE OF MEDIA IN THE CASE, BUT THE NATURE OF COVERAGE. I THINK A CAMERA IN THE COURTROOM IS BENEFICIAL BECAUSE THEN AT LEAST VIEWERS GET A SENSE OF WHAT'S REALLY GOING ON THAN JUST THE INTERPRETATION OF A TABLOID JOURNALIST. HERE IS WHAT ONE JUROR SAID WHICH IS ENCOURAGING. WE TRIED TO LOOK AT EVERY ASPECT AND ANALYZE ALL THE EVIDENCE PUT BEFORE US BECAUSE WE WANTED IT TO BE A FAIR TRIAL." THIS WAS TOLD TO BOSTON.COM. THEN THE JUROR TELLS HER FURTHER, "NOBODY CAME INTO THIS THINKING AUTOMATICALLY HE WAS GUILTY." >> WELL, I DON'T DISBELIEVE THAT JURY. I THINK THEY PROBABLY ALL BELIEVE THAT'S WHAT THEY WERE DOING. THE BACK DROP OF THEM BEING SELECTED AS JURORS IN THE WAY THE SELECTION PROCESS WAS CONDUCTED, AND I BELIEVE ELLIOT SPOKE ABOUT THAT EARLIER. THEY DON'T EVEN KNOW HOW BIASED THEY WERE. IF THEY HAD BEEN ABLE TO LOOK BACK, ONCE WE WERE ABLE TO SHOW THEM THE POSITIVE GUN SHOT RESIDUE ON RACHEL ENTWISTLE'S HAND, IF THEY COULD HAVE REALLY LOOKED BACK AND STARTED TO REEXAMINE THE EVIDENCE THAT HAD ALREADY COME OUT, THEY WOULD HAVE SEEN THAT THERE WAS EVIDENCE THAT SUPPORT THE DEFENSE THAT THIS WAS AN UNFORTUNATE SUICIDE-HOMICIDE. >> I WANT TO HONE IN ON THAT RIGHT HERE. OF COURSE WE HAVE THAT MOMENT WHERE YOU BEGIN. MANY PEOPLE SAID TO FIRST INTRODUCE THE POSSIBILITY OF SOMETHING ELSE OTHER THAN WHAT THE PROSECUTION CHARGED HERE HAVING HAPPENED. OF COURSE, EVERYONE SHOULD COME INTO THE COURTROOM WITH THAT POSSIBILITY IN MIND, BUT IT IS FOR THE DEFENSE TO REMIND US OF THAT. LET'S TAKE A LOOK AT SOME OF YOUR CROSS-EXAMINATION. ANYTHING ELICITED ON CROSS IS EVIDENCE. THIS IS STEPHANIE PAGE CROSS-EXAMINING THE MEDICAL EXAMINER IN THIS CASE. >> BUT YOU DO KNOW, SIR, THAT THERE ARE INSTANCES WHERE PARENT AND CHILD END UP IN A MURDER-SUICIDE. WE'VE HAD THOSE KINDS OF CASES, RIGHT? YOU KNOW THAT? >> YES. >> WHAT HE DID NOT KNOW WERE ALL THE UNDERLYING FACTS WOE NEED TO FORM A POSSIBLE CONCLUSION THAT THIS MIGHT HAVE BEEN SOMETHING OTHER THAN A HOMICIDE. A THE LOT OF PEOPLE WERE STUNNED BY THIS LINE OF QUESTIONING. I DON'T KNOW IF YOU FOLLOWED THE COVERAGE BECAUSE OF COURSE YOU HAVE A JOB TO DO. YOU ARE TRYING A MURDER CASE, BUT THERE WAS A LOT OF DISCUSSION, LOCAL, NATIONAL, EVEN INTERNATIONAL CONVERSATION ABOUT THIS STUNNING NEW "THEORY" OF THE DEFENSE. WHAT IS YOUR REACTION TO THAT? >> WE WERE STUNNED EVERYONE WAS STUNNED. BECAUSE BEFORE THIS CAME OUT THROUGH THE MEDICAL EXAMINER, THERE HAD BEEN TESTIMONY THERE WAS POSITIVE GUN SHOT RESIDUE ON NOT JUST ONE BUT BOTH OF RACHEL ENTWISTLE'S HANDS. NOT JUST ON ONE SIDE BUT ON BOTH SIDES. ONCE WE HAD THAT FACT ELICITED, AND THE COMMONWEALTH KNEW ABOUT THAT AS OF JUNE 2006, AND ONCE WE ESTABLISHED THAT THEY NEVER IN ALL THE YEARS I AND MY COLLEAGUES HAVE BEEN DOING THIS, WE NEVER HEARD OF SUCH A THING, THAT THE COMMONWEALTH CHOSE NOT TO TELL THIS MEDICAL EXAMINER, THE ONE PERSON WHO WOULD KNOW WHAT TO DO WITH THAT INFORMATION, THEY CHOSE NOT TO TELL THIS MEDICAL EXAMINER UP THROUGH HIS DIRECT TESTIMONY THAT THERE WERE POSITIVE RESULTS FOR GUN SHOT RESIDUE. THAT, WE THOUGHT, WOULD HAVE SHOWN THE JURY HOW DEEP THIS FILTER WAS THAT NOBODY WANTED TO HEAR ANYTHING THAT DID NOT POINT TO NEIL'S GUILT. >> STEPHANIE, LET ME READ TO YOU ANOTHER COMMENT FROM A JUROR GIVEN TO BOSTON.COM ON THIS VERY POINT. WHY HADN'T THEY BEEN MORE BLATANT ABOUT THAT EARLIER, THE DEFENSE ATTORNEYS, IF IT WAS A REALISTIC ARGUMENT? WHY DIDN'T THEY CALL WITNESSES TO SUBSTANTIATE THAT CLAIM WHICH ITSELF SEEMS PRETTY UNREALISTIC." I HAVE MY ANSWER, BUT NOBODY WANTS TO HEAR MY ANSWER. WHAT IS YOUR ANSWER? >> WELL, YOU HAVE GOOD ANSWERS, BUT YOU KNOW, THAT WAS THE WHOLE POINT. BY THE TIME WE HAD THIS INFORMATION, AND WE DIDN'T GET IT UNTIL LATE 2007, IT WAS TOO LATE TO GO BACK AND TRY TO DO THE INVESTIGATION THAT IF THE MEDICAL EXAMINER HAD THE INFORMATION AND THEY OFTEN WILL REVISIT A CONCLUSION ABOUT MANNER OF DEATH IF INDEED THEY GET SOME INFORMATION THAT COULD BE CONTRARY TO WHAT THEY INITIALLY RULED, WE DIDN'T HAVE THE POWER AND THE AUTHORITY TO GO OUT AND GET PEOPLE TO TALK WITH US. IT WAS TOO LATE. THIS WAS NOT, AND I THINK SOME OF THE COMMENTATORS WERE SAYING WE PULLED THIS OUT OF THIN AIR, WE WERE JUST THROWING EVERYTHING IN WITH THE KITCHEN SINK. THAT WASN'T WHAT WE WERE DOING. IT WAS -- WE BELIEVED IN THE DEFENSE. WE BELIEVED THAT IF THIS JURY COULD HAVE LOOKED AT THIS EVIDENCE AND NOT HAVE BEEN SO INUNDATED WITH THE PREJUDICIAL PUBLICITY THAT NEIL AND ONLY NEIL COULD HAVE DONE THIS, COUPLED WITH THE HORROR OF THIS, THE TRAGEDY OF THIS EVENT, THAT WAS THE UNSPOKEN ELEPHANT IN THE ROOM. I MEAN, WHAT HAPPENED THAT CAUSED THE DEATH OF RACHEL AND LILLIAN, IT'S HARD TO FATHOM FOR ANYBODY. AS WE TRY TO SUGGEST, SUICIDE IS THAT BOO IN OUR SOCIETY. IT'S HARD TO TALK ABOUT. BY THE TIME WE GOT TO THE JURY IT WAS TOO LATE TO GO OUT TO TRY TO DO THE PROPER INFORMATION THE COMMONWEALTH SHOULD HAVE ALLOWED THE MEDICAL EXAMINER TO DO. >> TERRIFIC ANSWER. >> WE HAD THE INFORMATION FROM THE FORENSIC PATHOLOGIST. EVERYBODY I KNOW WHO DOES THIS, WE DO NOT KNOW WHY UNLESS THEY DIDN'T WANT TO HAVE TO DEAL WITH SOMETHING THAT POINTED AWAY FROM NEIL'S GUILT. >> IT'S A TERRIFIC ANSWER BECAUSE OF COURSE, WE FOCUSED ON THE LACK OF A BURDEN FOR THE DEFENSE. IN OTHER WORDS BURDEN BEING ON THE PROSECUTION. YOU DIDN'T HAVE TO, AS THE JURORS SUGGESTED, CALL WITNESSES, ET CETERA. THERE IS MORE TO IT THAN THAT. THERE IS THE PRACTICALITY, LOGISTICS AND A QUESTION AT LEAST AS YOU PUT FORWARD, THE INTEGRITY ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE CASE IN TERMS OF THE INVESTIGATION, IN TERMS OF PROSECUTION. I DON'T MEAN IN TERMS OF ETHNICS, BUT I MEAN IN TERMS OF THE QUALITY OF AN INVESTIGATION IN A CASE WHEN IT COMES TO A COURTROOM. I HAVE TO TAKE A SLIGHT TURN HERE BECAUSE I KNOW I'M GOING TO LOSE YOU AND I HAVE TO ASK YOU ABOUT THE FAMILY OF NEIL ENTWISTLE. SO OFTEN THE FAMILIES ON YOUR SIDE OF THE COURTROOM ARE FORGOTTEN. LET'S TAKE A LISTEN TO WHAT SOME OF NEIL'S MOTHER HAD TO SAY. >> WE KNOW THAT OUR SON NEIL IS INNOCENT AND WE ARE DEVASTATED TO LEARN THAT THE EVIDENCE POINTS TO RACHEL MURDERING OUR GRANDCHILD. AND THEN COMMITTED SUICIDE. I KNEW RACHEL WAS DEPRESSED. OUR SON WILL NOW GO TO JAIL FOR LOVING, HONORING AND PROTECTING HIS WIFE'S MEMORY. >> I KNOW YOU KNOW THAT PEOPLE ARE QUITE STUNNED AT THIS NOTION THAT A MOTHER MIGHT HAVE COMMITTED SUICIDE AND TAKEN HER YOUNG BABY WITH HER. EVEN THOSE OF US WHO HAVE SEEN IT BEFORE HAVE A VERY HARD TIME GETTING OUR MIND AROUND EVEN THAT POSSIBILITY. I HAVE TO ALSO ASK YOU ABOUT CRITICISM LEVELLED AGAINST YOU, AGAINST YOUR COLLEAGUE AND AGAINST NEIL ENTWISTLE HIMSELF AND NOW HIS MOTHER MAKING A VERY BOLD AND AGGRESSIVE STATEMENT ABOUT MURDER. ALL THAT ABOUT THE MEMORY OF THE VICTIM. THIS COMES UP VERY OFTEN IN CRIMINAL CASES, BUT PERHAPS NOWHERE WITH THIS KIND OF EMOTIONAL CONTEXT. WHAT DO YOU SAY TO THAT? NOT JUST AS A CRIMINAL DEEBS ATTORNEY, BUT AS A HUMAN BEING? >> WELL, WE ARE HUMAN BEINGS, EVEN PUBLIC DEFENDERS. IN ORDER TO BE AN EFFECTIVE CRIMINAL DEFENSE LAWYER, YOU HAVE TO, WE HAVE TO DEAL WITH THE HUMAN EMOTION, THE HUMAN TRAGEDY. I MEAN THIS EVENT THAT RESULTED IN THE DEATHS OF RACHEL AND LILLIAN, AS I SAID BEFORE, IS, WAS, ALWAYS WILL BE HORRIFIC. IT'S AFFECTED NOT JUST THE MATTERAZZOS, THE ENTWISTLE FAMILY LOST AND NOW LOSING THEIR S SON, HALF OF THEIR FAMILY. THEY LOST THEIR DAUGHTER-IN-LAW. THEY LOST THEIR GRANDDAUGHTER. FOR ALL INTENTS AND PURPOSES, UNTIL AT LEAST ATE PEEL IS OVER AND HOPEFULLY WE'LL HAVE A CHANCE TO DO THIS AGAIN, THEY LOST THEIR SON. NOBODY WAS BLAMING -- YOU CAN'T WIN A CASE AND BLAME ANY VICTIM. IT JUST CAN'T BE DONE. WHAT WE DO KNOW AS A HUMAN BEING, LIFE IS COMPLICATED. LIFE IS NOT ALWAYS AS IT FIRST APPEARS TO BE, EVEN THOSE WHO ARE CLOSEST TO US. SOMETIMES IN A CRIMINAL CASE, FACTS ARE HARD TO HEAR. EVEN IF THEY HAVE BEEN PRESENTED, THEY ARE VERY DIFFICULT TO UNDERSTAND WHEN YOU ARE DEALING WITH SOMETHING THAT IS SO HARD TO UNDERSTAND. OF COURSE SUICIDE CAN'T BE UNDERSTOOD FOR THE MOST PART. THE ENTWISTLES, THEY ARE GRIEVING JUST LIKE NEIL IS GRIEVING. HE LOST HIS WIFE. HE LOST HIS DAUGHTER. THERE WAS NEVER ANY INDICATION THAT NEIL DID NOT LOVE EITHER OF THEM. THERE WAS NEVER ANY INDICATION THAT HE WAS NOT A GREAT FATHER AND A LOVING HUSBAND. HIS GRIEF IS JUST AS REAL AS THE MATTERAZZOS IS, AS IS THE GRIEF OF HIS FAMILY. >> HE IS MOST FORTUNATE TO HAVE YOU ON HIS SIDE AS HIS ADVOCATE. YOU MUST BE EXHAUSTED, BUT CONTINUING TODAY TO SPEAK OUT ON HIS BEHALF. FIRST OF ALL, I WANT ANYBODY OUT THERE WHO IS A LAWYER OR LAW STUDENT TO WATCH THE CROSS-EXAMINATION THIS WOMAN CONDUCTS. THIS IS HOW YOU LEARN. WATCH STEPHANIE PAGE CONDUCT A CROSS-EXAMINATION. OF DR. ZANE AND SOME OF THE OTHERS. FOR ME AS A TRIAL LAWYER, THAT WAS THE HARDEST PART OF OUR BUSINESS, BUT YOU WERE TERRIFIC. ALSO YOUR FINE WORK AS A PUBLIC DEFENDER. THANK YOU SO MUCH. >> YOU ARE VERY KIND, VERY KIND. >> I'M KIND, BUT I'M TRUTHFUL. >> THANK YOU. >> WE'LL TAKE A QUICK BREAK WITH A THANK YOU TO STEPHANIE PAGE. WE'LL BE BACK WITH MORE OF OUR LIVE COVERAGE, REACTION OUT OF MASSACHUSETTS TO THE DOUBLE MURDER CONVICTIONS IN THE NEIL ENTWISTLE CASE. >> TO BE FOUND GUILTY OF MURDER IN THE FIRST DEGREE THIS ORDER BY THE COURT SHOULD BE SENTENCED TO THE MASSACHUSETTS CORRECTIONAL FACILITY AT CEDAR JUNCTION FOR THE TERM OF LIFE. IN INDICTMENT 2006-002 AFTER BEING FOUND GUILTY OF MURDER IN THE FIRST DEGREE SHOULD BE SENT TO THE MASSACHUSETTS CORRECTIONAL FACILITY AT CEDAR JUNGS FOR THE TERM OF LIFE. THIS SENTENCE TO RUN CONCURRENT WITH 2006-387-001. >> THAT IS NEIL ENTWISTLE JUST ABOUT AN HOUR AGO, MAYBE TWO, BEING SENTENCED IN MASSACHUSETTS STATE COURT. HE WAS SENTENCED BY THE COMMONWEALTH TO LIFE IN PRISON. OF COURSE, YESTERDAY LATE IN THE DAY CONVICTED OF THE MURDERS OF HIS DAUGHTER AND WIFE. HIS INFANT DAUGHTER LILLIAN AND WIFE RACHEL. LET'S GO OUT TO OUR CORRESPONDENT JENNIFER LONDON. WE ALWAYS GET THIS QUESTION, BUT IT ALWAYS BEARS REPEATING. THIS IS NOT A DEATH PENALTY STATE. THERE IS NO DEATH PENALTY IN MASSACHUSETTS. WHAT DOES THIS SENTENCE MEAN IN REAL TIME? ASSUMING NO SUCCESSFUL APPEALS, WHAT IS NEIL ENTWISTLE LOOKING AT AS HE HEADS OFF TO PRISON? >> SIMPLY PUT, JAMI, HE IS LOOKING AT SPENDING THE REST OF HIS LIFE IN PRISON. NO PAROLE. HE WILL DIE IN PRISON. THAT IS A POINT THE JUDGE MADE DURING SENTENCING THIS MORNING. THE FAMILY OF RACHEL ENTWISTLE ASKED THAT THE TWO CONVICTIONS OF MURDER IN THE FIRST DEGREE FOR LILLIAN AND RACHEL BE SERVED CONSERVATIVELY. WE WANT EACH LIFE VALUED HERE. WE LOST TWO GENERATIONS WITH THEIR DEATHS. THE JUDGE SAID SHE ACKNOWLEDGED THAT AND SHE RESPECTED THAT, BUT SHE SAID ULTIMATELY WITH REGARD TO THE LAW IN THE STATE OF MASSACHUSETTS, A LIFE IN PRISON WITHOUT PAROLE SENTENCE IS A TRUE SENTENCE AND HE WILL NOT BE ELIGIBLE FOR PAROLE. HE WILL DIE IN PRISON. THEREFORE, SHE DID SENTENCE HIM TO CONCURRENT SENTENCES FOR THOSE TWO CONVICTIONS. >> THAT IS ALWAYS WHAT OUR VIEWERS WANT TO HEAR. THERE IS STILL THIS NOTION LIFE IN PRISON MEANS SOME POSSIBILITY OF PAROLE. WHEN IT'S WITHOUT THE POSSIBILITY OF PAROLE, THAT'S WHAT IT MEANS. NO PAROLE FOR NEIL ENTWISTLE, UNLESS OF COURSE SOME OF THOSE MANY APPEALS WE HAVE BEEN TALKING ABOUT ARE SUCCESSFUL. >>> I'VE GOT KURT HERE TODAY. HE IS NOT ONLY A CRIMINAL DEFENSE ATTORNEY, BUT HAPPENS TO BE MY HUSBAND. I FIGURE WE MIGHT AS WELL TAKE UP THE NEIL ENTWISTLE CASE. WE TALK ABOUT THIS AT HOME. I KNOW WE DISAGREE ON THIS ONE SO LET'S DO A LITTLE HE SAYS-SHE SAYS SINCE WE ARE BOTH DEFENSE ATTORNEYS. WE'LL TALK ABOUT THIS DEFENSE CASE OR LACK THEREOF. IN A TERRIFIC GAMBLE, ENTWISTLE'S TEAM AS WE ALL KNOW CHOSE NOT TO CALL ANY WITNESSES. NOW ALL THAT MONDAY MORNING QUARTERBACKING IS GOING ON TALKING ABOUT WHAT A MISTAKE THAT WAS. ELLIOT WEINSTEIN DEFENDED THAT DECISION YESTERDAY AFTER THE VERDICT CAME DOWN. >> STEPHANIE AND I DID EVERYTHING THAT WE KNEW TO DO TO PROVIDE NEIL ENTWISTLE WITH THE MOST VIGOROUS AND AGGRESSIVE DEFENSE THAT HE IS ENTITLED TO UNDER OUR LAWS AND UNDER OUR CONSTITUTION. WE ARE PROUD OF THE WORK THAT WE DID. WE ARE PROUD OF THE WORK WE DID FOR NEIL AND WE ARE PROUD OF THE FACT THAT THERE IS A CONSTITUTION IN THIS COUNTRY AND A CONSTITUTION IN THIS STATE WHICH PROVIDES THAT A PERSON HAVE COUNCIL AND PROVIDES THAT THE PROSECUTION MEET A BURDEN OF PROOF. >> WE ARGUED ABOUT THIS LAST NIGHT AT HOME. WE ARE GOING TO ARGUE ABOUT IT RIGHT HERE. I, NOT ONLY COMPLETELY AGREE WITH EVERYTHING YOU ARE SAYING ABOUT THE THEORY OF PRESUMPTION OF INNOCENCE, BUT I THINK THE DEFENSE TOOK A BOLD AND SMART MOVE WHEN THEY CHOSE -- LOOK WE SAY THEY DIDN'T PUT ON A CASE. THEY PUT ON A CASE IN THEIR CROSS-EXAMINATION. >> ABSOLUTELY. >> EVEN IN JURY SELECTION YOU PUT ON A CASE. I THINK THEY PUT ON A GOOD ONE, PERHAPS THE BEST ONE THEY COULD HAVE PUT ON FOR NEIL ENTWISTLE. IT'S EASY TO SIT BACK TODAY AND SAY I WOULD HAVE DONE IT DIFFERENTLY. WHAT A BIG MISTAKE THAT WAS, WE PEOPLE WHO SIT IN THESE ANCHOR CHAIRS AND GUEST SEAT CHAIRS AND AT HOME AT THE DINNER TABLE IN. THAT COURTROOM, I THINK IT WAS BOLD AND SMART STEP EVEN THOUGH IT DIDN'T WORK. >> LET ME ACKNOWLEDGE FIRST OF ALL, THE DEFENSE ATTORNEY HAS FIVE MINUTES TO MAKE THAT DECISION. PROSECUTION RESTS AND SAY DEFENSE, IT'S YOUR TURN. YOU HAVE TO MAKE A SNAP DECISION. THE ONE MISTAKE, THEY RAISED THE ISSUE OF GUN SHOT RESIDUE ON HER HANDS. THEY DIDN'T CALL A WITNESS TO EXPLAIN WHAT THAT MEANT TO THE JURORS. SO THE JURORS DON'T QUITE UNDERSTAND WHAT IT MEANS. I THINK THAT THEY ARE TRYING TO -- DEFENSE IS TRYING TO ARGUE IT RAISES DOUBT BUT WHAT DOES THAT DOUBT MEAN? BECAUSE IF THE JURORS ARE ALREADY PREDISPOSED TO BELIEVING HE'S GUILTY, AND I THINK THEY NEW YEAR THIS CASE AND THAT'S A PROBLEM, YOU STILL HAVE TO GO FAR ENOUGH TO GIVE THEM A THEORY TO HANG THE HAT ON FOR AT LEAST ONE OR TWO OF THOSE JURORS TO ACQUIT. >> I WANT TO GO OUT TO TOM McCAIN FOR FINAL THOUGHT IN THIS CASE. YOU ARE OUR MASSACHUSETTS GUY. WE WERE JOKING EARLIER. THIS IS SO TRUE THIS IS A CRADLE OF OUR COUNTRY. FROM THE BEGINNING THERE HAVE BEEN PROBLEMS IN CASES LIKE THIS WITH EXCESSIVE PRETRIAL PUBLICITY. I CAN GO BACK TO AARON BURR, THEN YOU START COMING FORWARD TO SAM SHEPARD, THEN O.J. NOW THIS. O.J. WAS ACQUITTED. IF YOU ARE A COMMON GUY AND A CASE GETS THIS ATTENTION, IT'S A PROBLEM. WHAT DO WE DO ABOUT IT? >> I DON'T KNOW THERE IS MUCH YOU CAN DO ABOUT IT. THE JURY IS GOING TO HAVE A PREPRESS DO THE PRETRIAL PUBLICITY. I DON'T THINK YOU CAN PREVENT THAT. THEN YOU SCREEN THEM AT THE TIME OF THE SELECTION OF THE JURY. >> I THINK THE ANSWER IS RESPONSIBLE PRESS THAT UNDERSTANDS THE LAW AND LEGAL ISSUES. AND A VERY SOLID JURY SELECTION PROCESS. WHICH I THINK FOR THE MOST PART WE HAVE IN THIS COUNTRY. THAT'S GOING TO BE A WRAP ON OUR COVERAGE. I WANT TO SAY A SPECIAL THANK TO TOM McKEAN. KURT, WE'LL SEE HIM REAL SOON FOR MORE SHE SAID-HE SAID. AND JENNIFER LONDON. HOPE WE SEE YOU AGAIN REAL SOON. THAT IS OUR COVERAGE ON THE VERDICT AND SENTENCING IN NEIL ENTWISTLE'S DOUBLE MURDER TRIAL. JACK AND ASHLEIGH WILL TAKE YOU BACK TO MASSACHUSETTS 1:00 EASTERN TIME. WHEN WE COME BACK, WE GO TO WASHINGTON, D.C. THE U.S. SUPREME COURT HAS JUST HANDED DOWN A MAJOR RULING. >>> THE HIGHEST COURT TAKES A SUMMER BREAK BUT NOT BEFORE SOME MAJOR RULING. >>> THIS IS "BEST DEFENSE" I'M JAMI FLOYD. TIME TO TURN OUR ATTENTION TO ANOTHER BIG STORY MAKING HEADLINES A LANDMARK RULING ON GUNS AND THE SECOND AMENDMENT AND YOUR RIGHT TO HAVE ONE ALL HANDED DOWN TODAY BY THE U.S. SUPREME COURT. THIS MORNING THE NATION'S HIGHEST COURT STRUCK DOWN A WASHINGTON, D.C. HAND GUN BAN. IT'S ONE OF THE NATION'S STRICTEST GUN LAWS WHICH HAS BEEN IN EFFECT FOR MORE THAN THREE DECADES. THE WORDS AT THE CENTER OF THE SECOND AMENDMENT ARE A WELL REGULATED MILITIA BEING NECESSARY TO THE SECURITY OF A FREE STATE, THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED. BUT WHAT DOES THAT MEAN? JOINING US LIVE FROM WASHINGTON, D.C., IN FRONT OF THE U.S. SUPREME COURT TO HELP US UNDERSTAND IT YOU WILL IS OUR SENIOR EDITOR FRED GRAHAM. THEY ALWAYS SAVE THE BEST FOR LAST. THIS IS A BIG CASE. SOME SAY PERHAPS THE BIGGEST IN SECOND AMENDMENT HISTORY. TELL US WHAT THE COURT HAS DECIDED AND WHY. >> WELL, IT'S CLEARLY THE BIGGEST DECISION IN SECOND AMENDMENT HISTORY BECAUSE IT'S REALLY THE ONLY TIME -- THE SECOND AMENDMENT WAS ADOPTED IN 1791 THIS REALLY TODAY IS THE FIRST TIME THE SUPREME COURT HAS REALLY ANALYZED WHAT IT MEANS, WHAT RIGHTS IT GIVES. DOWN THROUGH THE YEARS, THE LOWER COURTS HAD DEVELOPED A INJURIES PRUDENCE WHICH SAID IT WAS NOT AN INDIVIDUAL RIGHT. INDIVIDUAL AMERICANS DIDN'T HAVE ANY RIGHTS TO BEAR ARMS, BUT FEELING WAS THAT ALL THE SECOND AMENDMENT DID WAS ENSURE THE STATE MILITIAS, THAT THEY COULD HAVE ARMS AS PART OF THEIR MILITIA PROGRAMS. WELL THE SUPREME COURT STAYED OUT OF THAT ARGUMENT AND TRIAL AFTER TRIAL, CASE AFTER CASE, COURT AFTER COURT, TOOK THAT SORT OF COLLECTIVE VIEW OF THE SECOND AMENDMENT. TODAY AFTER ALL THESE YEARS, THE SUPREME COURT COMES UP AND SAYS, GOT YOU. THIS IS OUR FIRST TIME WE ARE GOING TO TELL YOU WHAT IT MEANS. WHAT IT REALLY MEANS IS THAT THE INDIVIDUAL AMERICAN HAS A CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS, GUARANTEED BY THE SECOND AMENDMENT. IT'S A BIG ONE. NOBODY WILL WRITE A CONSTITUTIONAL LAW BOOK AFTER TODAY THAT DOES NOT INCLUDE THIS CASE. >> THAT'S RIGHT. EVERY FIRST YEAR LAW STUDENT WILL STUDY THIS ONE. LET'S GET REACTION FROM THREE OF THE PLAINTIFFS IN THE CASE. >> AS MAYOR, ALTHOUGH I AM DISAPPOINTED IN THE COURT'S RULING AND BELIEVE AS I SAID FOR THE PAST YEAR THAT MORE HAND GUNS IN THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA WILL ONLY LEAD TO MORE HAND GUN VIOLENCE, IT IS IMPORTANT TO BOTH RESPECT THE COURT'S AUTHORITY AND THEN TO ACT QUICKLY. AND TODAY I HAVE ALREADY DIRECTED THE METROPOLITAN POLICE DEPARTMENT TO IMPLEMENT AND ORDINARILY PROCESS FOR ALLOWING CITIZENS TO REGISTER HAND GUNS FOR LAWFUL POSSESSION IN THEIR HOMES. >> MY APOLOGIES. THAT IS MAJOR FENTY OF WASHINGTON, D.C. HE SUPPORTED THE HAND GUN BAN. NOW IS REACTION FROM THE PLAINTIFF WHO PREVAILED. >> I AM VERY PLEASED TO HAVE BEEN ABLE TO TAKE THIS CASE WITH HELP FROM MY ATTORNEYS ALL WHAT IT TO THE HIGHEST COURT IN THE LAND. I AM VERY HAPPY THAT NOW I AM ABLE TO DEFEND MYSELF AND MY HOUSEHOLD IN MY OWN HOME. >> I'M THRILLED THAT AFTER BEING INVOLVED IN THIS CASE FOR SIX YEARS I'M FINALLY GOING TO BE ABLE TO TAKE THE TRIGGER LOT OFF MY SHOT GUN AND LOAD IT IF I NEED TO DEFEND MYSELF IN MY OWN HOME. >> I'M GLAD AFTER 32 YEARS THE BAN HAS BEEN OVERTURNED. I FEEL SAFER IN MY HOME AND I AM PLEASED TO BE ABLE TO EXERCISE MY SECOND AMENDMENT RIGHTS. >> A HUGE DECISION. IT WAS A BIG TERM. THIS WAS THE LAST DAY OF THE TERM. LET'S TALK ABOUT ANOTHER DECISION WE ALL HAD BEEN WAITING FOR. THIS CAME DOWN LATE YESTERDAY. THE DEATH PENALTY FOR CHILD RAPIST CASE. TELL US ABOUT KENNEDY. >> WELL, THE SUPREME COURT PRETTY MUCH MADE IT CLEAR IN ITS DECISION YESTERDAY, IT WAS A VERY IMPORTANT DECISION, WHICH SAID THAT A PERSON WHO RAPES A CHILD CANNOT BE CONFRONTED WITH WITH WITH THE DEATH PENALTY. THE COURT DECLARED SOME YEARS BACK THAT YOU CAN'T BE PUT TO DEATH FOR RAPING AN ADULT. NOW IT JUST MAKES IT CLEAR THAT THE JURIS PRUDENCE OF THE SUPREME COURT FROM NOW ON IS YOU ARE ONLY LIABLE FOR THE DEATH PENALTY IF YOU KILL SOMEONE. AN EYE FOR AN EYE, TOOTH FOR A TOOTH. IF YOU ARE THE TRIGGER PERSON AND YOU KILL SOMEONE, YOU MAY BE PUT TO DEATH. ONE EXCEPTION IS CRIMES AGAINST THE STATE, TREASON, ESPIONAGE, TERRORISM, THAT SORT OF THING. THE COURT SAID SPECIFICALLY IT WILL DECIDE SOME LATER DATE WHETHER YOU CAN BE PUT TO DEATH UNDER THOSE CIRCUMSTANCES. >> THIS WAS NOT THE ONLY DEATH PENALTY CASE OF THE TERM. THERE WAS EARLIER IN THE TERM AND WE TALKED ABOUT THAT ONE AS WELL, THE DECISION BY THE COURT THAT LETHAL INJECTION IS NOT CRUEL AND UNUSUAL PUNISHMENT. I WANT TO ASK YOU ABOUT WHAT IS PERHAPS THE BIGGEST CASE OF THE TERM AND WONDER IF YOU AGREE WITH ME THOUGHT IS. LET'S TALK ABOUT GUANTANAMO BAY AND THE RIGHTS OF THE DETAINEES. THAT DECISION CAME DOWN A BIT EARLIER. REMIND US ABOUT THAT AND GIVE US YOUR SENSE OF ITS IMPORT IN CONSTITUTIONAL JURIS PRUDENCE. >> WELL, IT IS THE MOST IMPORTANT DECISION AND PART OF A CHAIN OF DECISIONS THAT ARE THE MOST IMPORTANT DEVELOPMENT IN CONSTITUTIONAL LAW IN YEARS AND YEARS. HERE IS WHAT THE SUPREME COURT SAID. IT SAID THAT DEAN'SES BEING HELD AS ENEMY COMBATANTS DOWN IN GUANTANAMO HAVE A CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT UNDER THE AMERICAN CONSTITUTION TO HABIUS CORPUS, THAT IS TO HAVE THEIR DETENTION RULED ON BY A FEDERAL JUDGE. WHY THIS IS SO IMPORTANT AND SO DIFFERENT IS, THE SUPREME COURT HAS TRADITIONALLY HAD A TRADITION THAT IN TIMES OF WAR, IT DOES NOT SECOND GUESS WHAT THE COMMANDER IN CHIEF DOES. LINCOLN SUSPEND ED HABIUS CORPU. THE THEORY WAS THE SUPREME COURT IN TIME OF WAR WOULD NOT SECOND GUESS THE PRESIDENT. WOULD WAIT FOR THE WAR TO BE OVER AND COME BACK AND FACE THESE ISSUES. WELL, THE WAR AGAINST TERROR IS NOT GOING TO END ANY TIME SOON. THAT IS CLEAR. THIS COURT BY A VOTE OF 5 TO 4, IT'S VERY CLOSE, HAS SAID WE ARE GOING TO BE THE LAST WORD IN CERTAIN ASPECTS OF HOW THIS WAR IS BEING CONDUCTED. IT COULD BE THAT OVER THE YEARS IF THERE ARE MORE TERRORIST STRIKES, IF THERE IS A SENSE THAT THE SUPREME COURT IS HAMSTRINGING THE MILITARY AND THE PRESIDENT, IT COULD BE THAT THERE WILL BE REAL SEEDS OF PROBLEMS IN THAT CHAIN OF DECISIONS. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE SUPREME COURT IS THE LAST WORD, IT SAYS, ON MATTERS INVOLVING CONSTITUTIONALALITY. THEY HAVE PLUNGED FORWARD. IT'S GOING TO BE IMPORTANT AND INTERESTING AS TO WHERE THIS IS GOING TO TAKE OUR SOCIETY. >> OF COURSE, THAT IS THE BEST WAY I THINK TO FINISH THE SUPREME COURT TERM COVERAGE. WE'LL SEE FRED AGAIN ON THE FIRST MONDAY OF OCTOBER. WITH THAT, "THE BEST DEFENSE" WILL REST TO A BIG THANK YOU FOR OUR SENIOR EDITOR FRED GRAHAM REPORTING FROM THE U.S. SUPREME COURT. LET'S CHECK IN WITH ASHLEIGH BANFIELD FOR A LOOK AT WHAT'S COMING UP NEXT ON "BANFIELD AND FORD: COURTSIDE." >> I LIKED THAT INTERVIEW WITH ELLIOT WEINSTEIN. >> THANK YOU. >> OKAY. I ONLY HAVE 30 SECONDS. I DO WANT TO SAY THIS. WE ALSO INVITED HIM ON AND HE POINTEDLY SAID BECAUSE OF OUR COVERAGE HE WOULDN'T COME ON. I THINK THAT IS TROUBLESOME. I THINK WE WERE FAIR IN OUR COVERAGE. WHEN YOU ARE RUDE TO A WITNESS, YOU ARE RUDE TO A WITNESS. WE THINK STEPHANIE PAGE WAS PHENOMENAL. LOTS MORE COMING UP. >> SINCE HE WON'T BE ON WITH YOU, HE CAN'T RESPOND. I BET HE'LL RESPOND IN WRITING. WE'LL SEE ASHLEIGH AND JACK FORD IN A FEW MOMENTS. RIGHT NOW I GET THE LAST WORD. >> THE DEFENDANT, THAT'S RIGHT. HE IS THE GUY THIS SHOW IS ALL ABOUT. IS THERE ANYONE IN AMERICA OR THE MOTHERLAND, FOR THAT MATTER, THAT DOESN'T THINK THIS GUY IS GUILTY? THESE ARE THE CASES THAT PUT US TO THE TEST. THE CASES WHERE COMMON SENSE AND THE CONSTITUTION SEEM TO CONFLICT. THE HARD CASES. THIS IS WHERE WE REALLY HAVE TO FIGHT FOR THE FUNDAMENTAL AMERICAN PREMISE. INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY. THAT'S WHY I, FOR ONE, WANT TO COMMEND THOSE WHO HAD THE COURAGE TO DEFEND NEIL ENTWISTLE. THAT WASN'T THEIR ONLY JOB. THERE JOB WAS ALSO TO DEFEND THE CONSTITUTION. THE SAME CONSTITUTION THAT PROTECTS US ALL. NOT JUST THE LIKES OF NEIL ENTWISTLE. I THINK WE CAN ALL AGREE IF OUR CONSTITUTIONAL SYSTEM OF JUSTICE WORKS IN HIS CASE, IT SHOULD WORK IN ANY CASE. ENTWISTLE ALLEGEDLY COMMITTED THE CRIME ON THIS SIDE OF THE POND. THEY DEFENDED THE CONSTITUTION WE THOUGHT HIS COUNTRY TO ESTABLISH. THAT IS THE LAST WORD. |