Stay updated with breaking news from Janine pir. Get real-time updates on events, politics, business, and more. Visit us for reliable news and exclusive interviews.
money and he went to the russians. there's 34 examples of entanglements. the top three, certainly top two guys, nsa advisor and manafort have already been indicted and two or three of them have pled guilty already. there are two other fellows waiting. don trump, jr. and jared kushner. and whatever we know so far is so little of what's coming. and it's going up the ladder and it's going to stop with trump. and he knows it and mueller knows it. and if you have any instincts about the world, about business, about prosecutors, you know. it doesn't matter what he says at this point. it doesn't matter the dueling memos. it's where it's ending up. >> i can't wait to see supreme court justice janine pir owe. >> jeannine parine. >> judge judy.
i mean, that would to me stop testimony in it's tracks and that's what the judge did. i mean, again, it's speculation, but that's, that's big enough to do it. >> peter? >> that makes sense. a conduct issue, whether it's attorney conduct or misconduct. jury conduct, jury misconduct. you point out, get a dozen witnesses there, take one out of turn. we'll move ahead, brief that issue, and is there an issue in terms of the ability of one of the witnesses to testify and is the defense demanding that it go in this particular order? i suspect that what went on behind closed doors twice this morning will be sealed for the weekend. i don't think we will get any reports from the lawyers on the record as to what exactly happened. whatever happened, i don't believe this judge wants it leaking out. >> all right. greg? >> yeah. the last issue that came up yesterday was a demand by the defense about bill rodriguez, whom they said, the department
watch the courthouse. >> i think that's what i was-- is the jury coming out? are the lawyers coming out? is there some issue with regard to the conduct of a jury or some question the jury has and typically that would involve both sides, the prosecution, the defense, the judge, and the juror together at some point. so, if those lawyers are staying in this courthouse, then it is potential in chambers meeting that will be going on today to see what in fact happened. >> gregg: let's assume some juror that engaged in misconduct. there are alternate and jurors and they're all hearing the testimony, jonna, to say we're going to deal with this tonight after three o'clock in the afternoon. we'll go to midnight, but we're going to have all the jurors listening to the testimony today, never the less so that we don't waste any time. >> well, it could be bigger than that, who, if anyone in the jury was affected. how big is the infection, were
the jurors in the position that maybe they overheard something they weren't supposed to, because remember, jurors are only supposed to use what they hear in the courtroom when court is in session and so, if again, we're all speculating here, if they overheard something, if one or more was contacted which we hope that's not the case. that's the kind of thing it's big enough the judge is going to halt everything until it could get to the bottom, it could affect the entire proceedings. >> gregg: remember a case in which gone for a very long time and some very, apparently inexperienced and naive producer contacted a member of the jury and caused a mistrial in that case. and of course, and just didn't know any better and although that sort of journalism 101, but i suppose that sort of thing could happen. >> there's no one covered more trials, more involved with trials than you, but there are a lot of things that can
us there. "fox & friends".com, we will not be talking about the casey anthony trial. we assure you. >> clayton: you can join, phil keating there, we're awaiting and interesting to see as the folks come out of the courthouse, what information he is able to get, continuing here right on fox news channel and judge janine pir owe show tonight with full coverage here on the fox news channel. >> this is a fox news alert. i'm gregg jarrett. news of the casey anthony murder trial. there has been a major event, 20 minutes ago, the judge to the surprise of everyone, suddenly announcing there will be no testimony today and instead the judge has recessed until monday, saying a quote, legal issue has arisen that both sides need time to deal with. and everybody inside that
ready to go on the prosecutors have an issue with perhaps who the defense was planning on calling first, maybe that their testimony was going to be opposed to their deposition testimony and contradictory, well, you would think, well, we'll get to the other 11 witnesses and get things underway and resolve that one witness issue for perhaps on monday. but, none of them called, all on the hallway out of here now and this jury is now being gathered up and put back into the two vans with tinted windows and driven off to their undisclosed hotel where they remain sequestered now, at the end of nearly five weeks of that life style. but for a real quick recap after about 30, 35 minutes delay this morning, undisclosed delay and attorneys meeting behind closed doors with the judge, judge belvin perry finally came out to the courtroom and he had this to say.
happen. a newspaper can be in a jury room, just accidentally, incredibly. things happen, someone sees a cartoon, someone passes a note to the judge. then a full-blown investigation, it can't be a public investigation. >> but the potential for mistrial is the only thing big enough to have the judge decide no more testimony, we're not going to hear another word until we figure that out. that's the only thing large enough to stop this trial. >> gregg: we're going to have to wait and see. a moment ago we put up a screen a summary of the prosecution's case, it's arguably formidable, but it's circumstancesal, not that it's a bad word and people talk about circumstantial evidence as if it's inherently weak and a lot of prosecutors feel far more comfortable with circumstantial evidence rather than direct evidence, especially eyewitnesses. eyewitnesses are subject to
it's big, whether it's something like renegotiations with -- i find hard to believe because the witnesses are all lined up outside, that wouldn't be if they were really talking and just at this point, why would they go that way, there's too much the at stake, but it's something, it's not a witness issue with one of the 12 witnesses most likely, but possible something about a witness that's already testified or they have just found that must be so big that both sides say-- >> it would have to, john, impact today's planned witnesses, otherwise the judge would say, you know what, we can take this up with oral arguments and briefs on sunday if we have to, let's go ahead and move forward with the witnesses. it's got to be related. >> i think it's got to be bigger than big. you're right they could have gone forward today and figure it out tomorrow and do your research and come back on monday and argue it. let's take testimony and say what we have the witnesses lined up. maybe it's a jury issue, could it be that somehow even though they're sequestered, somebody got information they weren't supposed to get?
scalia based an opinion in part upon that national academy of sciences report a couple years ago which just two days was expanded. they had another decision two days ago, expanding the need for credible science to be introduced, that the judge is supposed to be the gate keeper. perry has not been the gate keeper and i think, i agree very much with peter johnson, also with judge napolitano whose he spoke been this, that what he's opened up is an appeal, a very credible appeal of in the future because of evidence that's not credible. >> gregg: now, you've got a look of skepticism on your face here. >> i am skeptical. there's controversy about the report and who deems it's authoritative. and now, i think that many people all sides of the table will agree with other parts that are controversy, you know, they start to question science that's been peer reviewed and in the court for years and who is preparing
homicide division of kings county office here in new york. and an attorney, former prosecutor and dr. michael bodden is a forensic pat ologist and peter johnson, jr. is also a fox news legal analyst. well, anna, let me start with you. given how sensitive the judge says he is to the needs of the jurors who have been sequestered and away from their families for weeks now, you would think that he would move mountains to make sure their time wasn't wasted and now we have this. what do you suspect is going on? >> it is something big. because as you said, i mean, this is a judge who has made sure that, as best he can, that court starts on time and he's the one that says let's do this in six days and keep it going, keep it moving and here for him absolutely no explanation, he usually likes to at least put on the record if he adjourns or takes a break he says nothing, but we're done until monday.