walking a nearby villages and gunning down 16 victims. more on the story later on in the program. first up, keeping them honest. whether you agree with the verdict or not, justice was served in a new jersey courtroom where a jury convicted dharun ravi. ravi, a former rutgers university student used a web cam to spy on his gay roommate while he was with a man. he then tweeted about what he saw. days later, he killed himself. he was just 18 years old. ravi now faces up to ten years in prison. keeping them honest, at the time of his arrest, there was no law on the books making cyberbullying a crime. it wasn't until a month after his suicide that new jersey passed the law. prosecutors were able to convict him under a bias intimidation law instead. only 11 states currently have laws on the books criminalizing cyberbullying. 11 states, that is despite the fact that it remains a huge problem. kids between 8 and 15 say bullying is a bigger problem for them than raism or pressure to have sex. here is what joe clementi said today. >> the trial was painful for us, as it would be for any parent who must sit and listen to people dock about bad and inappropriate things that were done to their child. we were here every day because we wanted to be here for our son and because we believed the trial was important because it dealt with important issues for our society and for our young people today. >> i can only imagine how hard it nus have been to sit through the trial. they, of course, are still grieving. if tyler clementi were alive, he would be a sophomore returnling to campus about now from spring break. in just a few weeks, he would be studying for spring exams. ravi's attorneys tried to convince the jury that he was a young student with bad judgment. they didn't buy it. his lawyers said they will appeal. the trial lasts three weeks. the jury deliberated over two days. miguel marquez looks back. >> guilty or not guilty? >> guilty. >> a clean sweep for the prosecution. guilty on all counts. he never took the stand on his own behalf instead, his defense used the police interrogation video to prove he never meant any harm. he never put the encounter online. >> at the corner of the screen, we see -- we see someone's back. it was obvious they were being intimate or whatever. and it's like so we just cloeed it immediately, and i just felt -- >> ravi's defense said he only turned on the camera because he didn't trust his visitor and was worried about theft. >> the reason i was weirded out was because he came in, i said hey, he didn't acknowledge me at all, just sat on the bed, on tyler's bed, and didn't say anything. i left the room, and i was kind of getting a little creeped out and worried about what was happening. because i had other valuables in there. >> prosecutors painted a different picture, arguing that he targeted his room malt because of his sexual orientation, setting up the camera to spy on him and telling his friends what he saw taped it when he asked the use the room again. >> his friend, who cut a deal with prosecutors, testified he was uncomfortable with clementi's sexuality. >> was was the defendant's reaction, how was he reacting? >> shocked, surprised at what he saw. freaking out a little. >> as evidence of intimidation, prosecutors hammered the jury with a tweet he send. roommate asked for the room till midnight. i went into molly's room and turned on my web cam, i saw him making out with a dude. yay. clementa quickly asked for a room change and checked the tweet dozens of times. days later, he jumped off the george washington bridge. he said jumping off the gw bridge. sorry. >> ravi wasn't charged with the death and his defense argued he acted childishly, but he wasn't homophobic, writing, i have known you were gay and have no problem with it. in fact, one of my closest friends is gay and we have a very open relationship. i just suspect you were shy about it which is why i never brooched the topic. i don't want your freshman year to be ruined because of a petty misunderstanding. we don't know if tyler clementi ever saw that text. miguel marquez, cnn, new york. >> well, the jurors got the case on wednesday. they reached their verdict shortly before noon today. joining me are two members of the jury. thank you guys so much for being with us. bruno, are you satisfied by the verdict today? >> yeah, i'm very satisfied. i mean, it took a, four long, hard weeks, and when we were in the jury room for three days, i think we all pretty much were satisfied. >> the bias intimidation charge, you say it presented more difficulty than the others did. how so? >> there was just so many different levels. there was three different levels that you can actually see it being biased. >> uh-huh. >> then there was the whole thing where he did it one time the first day, and then we pretty much had to figure out whether or not he did it on purpose had to get inside his mind, to see if he actually did it intentionally with purpose of bias towards his roommate. >> do you think it would have been easier or harder if ravi had actually taken the stand? >> i think it would have been a little easier because we would have had the state of mind he had on september 19th or during the month of september. >> right. is it hard to -- i mean, just the process of coming to this decision, what was the hardest part? >> i believe the hardest part was actually proving that he was guilty of a certain charge, and actually getting the evidence that would prove him guilty on that charge. >> uh-huh. how about for you? >> same thing. it's -- i know for the first -- the first part when we came across the bias, there was some things that -- there wasn't enough evidence or enough witness statements to actually prove on certain points that he was, in fact, guilty. that's why you have the 24 and the 11 not guilties, and the 24 guilties, because we couldn't really -- on certain parts we really couldn't establish that as far as being, having a guilty verdict. >> we've all seen jurors working on television shows and stuff. what was it like in the jury room and how did you guys work together? >> want to answer that or you want me to answer it? >> as i see it, as instructed by the jumg, not to bring anything from the media, it actually brought a different perspective on it because at the same time, i'm there. it's live testimony. i see the evidence, and not to hear any other media, what they feed me, is a way different story. and i thought just being there was actually more helpful to come to the decision because we were all on the same page when we got 92 the room. now it was time to dissect every charge and see where we stand. >> the majority of us were all brand up in it jury process. >> both had never been on a jury? >> both of us had never been. my first time. i enjoyed it. it was a lot of information. probably one of the highest things you can do for the country as far as serving on jury duty. once we got to know who the original 16 were, we pretty much began to bond on you know, when we were downstairs on our breaks. we would get to know each other a little better and the process was easier. once we got into the jury room, it was down to business and time to figure out whether or not he was guilty or not. >> i appreciate your service and i appreciate you guys coming on to talk about it. thank you so much. really interesting to hear from you. sentencing for ravi set for may 21st. he faces up to ten years in prison and could face deportation to india where he was born. former prosecutor sunny hostin. were you surprised? by the verdict? >> i was surprised. i've been following this case since day one. i actually was in the courtroom when the case first began, and i thought that it was going to be difficult to prove bias intimidation, because as these two jurors just said, the prosecution had to prove what his motivation was. what was in dharun ravi's mind, and that is a very difficult thing to do, and, also, you know, anderson, this is the first time, in my view that bias intimidation, hate crimes, have been prosecuted in this way. >> explain what biased intimidation is? >> sure. in new jersey, what they had to show was dharun ravi intended to intimidate tyler clementi by spying on him. he was motivated by his bias, and intended to intimidate him because of his sexual orientation. they also could have proven it a different way. could have prove than he intended to intimidate and was biased against m.b., the person tyler clementi was with. what they did convict on, he was biased against tyler clementi and tyler clementi felt intimidated by him. just by going over it, you see how difficult that really is, because tyler clementi wasn't here to testify. so the jury had to look at all the facts and they determined that tyler clementi felt intimidated because of his sexual orientation. this is the first time this type of statute has been used in this way. of course, now new jersey has this very, very robust cyber bullying law, but that wasn't what he was convicted of. he was convicting of a hate crime. and i think it really is a game changer in many respects, because this is a wake-up call to our young people, to anyone that uses social media, quite frankly, because now you will be held accountable for those words, those hateful words you use on the internet. >> do you think -- i mean, he could get up to ten years. do you think he will get that? >> in new jersey, when you get convicted of a second-degree crime, like bias intimidation, a felony, there's a presumption that you should be sentenced to jail time. five to ten years. and 99%, i'm told, of defendants facing this presumption typically get put in prison. now, this judge has asked for a sentencing memorandum from the defense. if the defense can show more mitigating factors meaning he shouldn't be put in jail because he doesn't have a criminal record, been an upstanding citizen. if they can prove this, in the interests of justice, a judge should give him a non-custodial sentence, perhaps he won't go to prison. >> he could have accepted a plea deal, had no jail time. >> in retrospect, it's shocking that he didn't accept that plea deal. you're right. didn't include prison time and only included 600 hours of community service. i believe it is likely having seen this judge in action, he will likely spend some time in prison. >> all right. let us know what you think. follow me on twitter. coming up, newt gingrich again, today, promised if he's elected president he will bring gas prices down to $2.50. blamed president obama for rising prices. can any president really do anything to affect prices at the pump? keeping them honest. later, a family's outrage. a picture of an american soldier killed in iraq that two dating websites used to advertise their services. what the family is doing about it and what the websites are saying coming up. also, a bizarre public outburst by the filmmaker whose kony 2012 video went viral. this is caught on tape, jason russell naked in the streets of san diego. he's been taking in by police and getting medical treatment tonight. more on that ahead. president obama spent today attending fund-raisers for his re-election campaign raising $5 million. the men who want his job were also on the trail in illinois. one line of attack picking up considering steam for the candidates is the rising price of gas. have you believe that bringing down gas prices is as simple as casting a vote for president. our question is, can the president, any president, really do much to affect the prices, or is it all just -- well, politics? keeping them honest. no doubt an issue a lot of americans care about. gas prices rose again to a national average just over $3.83 a gallon up almost 56 cents since the beginning of the year. newt gingrich made it his mantra. if he's elected president he can bring the price down to $2.50 a gallon. >> i'm happy to say the gingrich plan moves you towards $2.50 or less. the obama plans moves you towards $9 or $10 or more. >> that was just today. when it comes to the $2.50 of gas, gingrich isn't just making campaign promise, he's plastering it all over the campaign trail. we showed you one poster. a gas pump with a $2.50 price tag appeared on his campaign logo. it's the first thing you see when you logon to the newt.org, and he's mentioned it a few times. >> i've developed a program for american energy. so no future president will ever bow to a saudi king again, and so every american will look forward to $2.50 a gallon gasoline. one of my goals this fall is to run as president drilling versus president algae and let people choose between $10 and $2.50. $10 with him. $2.50 with me. you decide the next four years. >> newt equals $2.50 a gallon gasoline. >> newt equals $2.50 gallon gasoline. >> $2.50 a gallon. >> $2.50 a gallon. >> yes. >> a plan against $2.50. >> $2.50 gallon. >> $2.50 gallon. >> $2.50 gallon. >> $2.50 gallon. >> $2.50 a gallon. $250 a gallon. >> newt equals $2.50 a gallon gasoline. >> gingrich is going so far as to guarantee an exact price. >> this is a president who doesn't like oil, coal, natural gas, nuclear. we're seeing the results of that as you look at gasoline prices today. >> when you see the gas pump when you're pumping gas the next time, and you see that number go from dollars with two columns to that third column, and you see that zero come up, think of zero for o for obama. >> the president says we have seen this movie before, politics as usual. >> every time prices start to go up, especially in an election year, politicians dust off their three-point plans for $2 gas. i guess this year they decide we're going to make it $2.50. i don't know where -- you know, why not $2.40? why not $2.10? >> well, it's true. it's a time-honored tradition. when gas prices are high especially in an election year the president is blamed. opponents whether republicans or democrats will promise to fix it and quickly. keeping them honest, the price of oil is set in the global market. vulnerable to middle east turmoil and threats from iran, and economists working at a cia analyst put it like this. "political rhetoric is all it is shorter price controls which were a disaster in the mixon administration, politicians can't do much to change the price of gasoline." this from a bipartisan policy scholar who worked on energy policy in washington for more than 20 years. "obviously, the price ever oil set on a global market in the immediate term there's almost nothing you can do." even if there was a silver bullet to bring down gas price, quick fix, magic wand, whatever you call it, no presidential candidate has that bag of tricks up his sleeve, or in his bag, i guess. still in these times of painful prices at the gas pumps the message seems to be getting through to people even if nothing more than a gimmick a tried and true piece of campaign myth. in a cbs news/"new york times" poll last week, 54% think the president can do something about gas prices. joining me with two different perspective. fareed zucar zakaria, and steven morris. is this rhetoric? >> pure political pandering. the world consumes about 80 million barrels of oil a day. the total u.s. increase in production, if you were do to everything that newt gingrich fantasizes about, would be less than, you know, half a percent of that. so the chance that it would have any impact on the price of oil, particularly in the short run, is pure fantasy. it's not just fantasy but newt surely knows better. the truth of the matter is we are in the middle of a great boom in domestic oil production. we are at the highest levels in 30 years. the united states for the first time is actually exporting oil rather than importing oil, and it has made no difference to our prices. in fact, as we can see, oil prices have gone up. why? because, a, china is growing, india is growing. all that growth we know about is taking place, and secondly, people are worried about a possible war with iran. geopolitical concerns. so these are not things that you can easily fix, you know. you're not going to get china to slow down or change the fact there are genuine concerns, and increasing american domestic production is such a marginal issue at this point that it's really totally irresponsible for newt gingrich to be saying this. >> stephen, you disagree? >> well, look, i agree in the short-term, fareed is right. not much that barack obama can do over the next months or so to reduce the high price of gasoline, and fareed is also right that the major reason we're seeing the spike right now is because of what's happening in the middle east. i agree with those two thing, but it's also true you know, this president has been completely hostile to domestic production of oil and gas. it is true we have a big increase, not because of barack obama. he's opposed the drilling, permitting we could do. you're right we've seen an increase, but i just got back from north dakota. what's going on there is a miracle. we have more oil right now in states like north dakota, oklahoma, colorado, california, than saudi arabia has oil, and i think the reason this is a political problem for the president is americans are connecting the dots. they're seeing the fact that we're not -- when we're not doing things that make so much common sense, like building the keystone pipeline, not doing the drilling, the permitting to exploit our own natural resources, americans understand. wait. that hits me in the pump. >> stephen is pointing out, all this oil is being drilled. in point of fact, whether or not the president is enthusiastic about what's happening over his grudging objections, we are in the midst of a huge oil boom, and prices are rising. and keystone is a total red herring. the keystone oil is going to be excavated, produced, it is going to be used. it is going to be used by china or us. it makes not a jot of difference to the price of oil, because that oil will reach the world market. when we talk about this, yeah, maybe hypothetically, if there were a president who would green light every single project that stephen would like, maybe you'd, as i said, you'd increase production marginally. we have actually increased production substantially and it's not led to any reduction in price. there are geopolitical fears. >> do you agree he can bring it to $2.50 a gallon? >> yes. i've seen presidents do this. one of the rise reasons this is such a hot button issue anderson, because of the fact one of the reasons jimmy carter lost the election was because of very high gasoline prices, a result of the very high inflation. >> let me ask you a question? >> let me finish my point. the reagan brought the inflation rate down and by the end of the reagan first term in office the price of gasoline fell in half. yes, i've seen it happen. >> because the economy went into a recession. oil prices are also collapsed when we had the global financial crisis. but, stephen, let me ask you this -- >> wait. by 1984, the economy was boon booming. we have prices half of what they were. i'm not disagreeing in the short term. i've been in washington 20 years. we've been debating whether we should drill in alaska for 20 years. if we'd done that 20 years ago we'd have the oil right now and i do believe that would affect the world oil price. >> you know, stephen, that the quantity of oil we're talking about is not going to make a difference. let me ask you, you agree the short-term increase is prices is because of geopolitical uncertainty. yes. >> i would love to hear some republican candidate say this. in the short term you wanted to bring the price of oil down, here's the way to do it. promise under no circumstances you will invade or attack iran. say that you will freely accept all iranian oil and that, in fact, encourage them to increase production. would that or would that not be the single thing that