held in federal court, but in massachusetts, federal jurisdiction which has the death penalty, massachusetts state law would not have the death penalty, there s a sort of spotlight on whether or not the jury might have some resistance to the death penalty regardless of the crime. just to the death penalty as a punishment. do they screen for that when they chose this jury? yes. the jury is what we call death penalty qualified. they were extensively interrogated with respect to their views and whether they could apply it if the law demanded he be put to death. so they re already qualified. it is a difficult job for the government to get a jury in massachusetts to determine that the death penalty, most serious penalty we can impose on anyone, is in fact appropriate under the circumstances. but it s been said with respect to this case, if this case isn t the classic death penalty case, frankly, also with the classic death penalty jury at this point, a white middle class jury, then there
held in federal court, but in massachusetts, federal jurisdiction which has the death penalty, massachusetts state law would not have the death penalty, there s a sort of spotlight on whether or not the jury might have some resistance to the death penalty regardless of the crime. just to the death penalty as a punishment. did they screen for that when they chose this jury? yes. the jury is what we call death penalty qualified. they were extensively interrogated with respect to their views and whether they could apply it if the law demanded that he be put to death. so they re already qualified. and it is a difficult job for the government to get a jury in massachusetts to determine that the death penalty, the most serious penalty we can impose on anyone, is in fact appropriate under the circumstances. but it s been said with respect to this case, if this case isn t the classic death penalty case, frankly, also with the classic death penalty jury at this point, a white middle class jur
that he will introduce. the government will introduce what we call the aggravating factors, the ones that justify the death penalty because we have young victims, vulnerable victims, a police officer, and we have maiming as a result of a weapon of mass destruction. because the trial is being held in federal court, but in massachusetts, federal jurisdiction which has the death penalty, massachusetts state law would not have the death penalty, there s a sort of spotlight on whether or not the jury might have some resistance to the death penalty regardless of the crime. just to the death penalty as a punishment. do they screen for that when they chose this jury? yes. the jury is what we call death penalty qualified. they were extensively interrogated with respect to their views and whether they could apply it if the law demanded he be put to death. so they re already qualified. it is a difficult job for the government to get a jury in massachusetts to determine that the death penalty,
have the competing interests here. the reason these buffer zones were set up is that there have been histories, instances of violence. people sometimes do feel afraid and intimidated. how broad is this ruling? does it go beyond massachusetts? is this something that s applicable beyond their specific law? or is this something that could actually jeopardize the idea of buffer zones outside of massachusetts? reporter: by the reasoning of the court, itself, it certainly applies to massachusetts, and it probably dooms restrictions that are in five other cities. i ll see if i can remember them. san francisco, santa barbara, pittsburgh, burlington, vermont, and portland, maine. they all had city ordinances that were similar to the massachusetts state law. so while it doesn t directly strike them down, it certainly it probably dooms them and then you have to look at the other restrictions that cities, there are probably, you know, about a i don t know, a handful of other, a dozen or so o
we re picking up new information and he s also getting a nut ew endorse. . i m wolf blitzer. you re in the situation room. he s not just the new republican presidential front-runner, newt gingrich is leading the republican pack by double digits in several brand-new polls. a gallop national survey of registered republicans shows him 15 points ahead of mitt romney. 37% to 22%. less than a month away from the iowa caucuses. a new cbs new york times poll has gingrich 14 points ahead of romney. as former front-runners know, top status meepz extra scrutiny and he was grilled about some of his past positions by conservatives. this is happening as we re meeting right now. jim acosta is watching all of this for us. what s the very latest? he s getting tough questions. his poll numbers have been good but it has been said his own worst enemy is newt gingrich. the two may have come face to face. glenn beck turns up the tea party heat on newt gingrich rubbing his nose in his past su