the trial. here what do you see? look at that look on his face. it s flat. you know? it s bizarre. defense lawyer s perspective, he s now going on trial for a double homicide. it s possible this guy obviously related to gangs but possibly serial killing going on. at the same time how do you get to first-degree murder? could they win on appeal? four guys are in the car three guys get out. how do they say first-degree murder, it s you and not one of the other guys? paul and i have been debating this. if you look at the massachusetts jury instructions this jury convicted on a theory of extreme atrocity. in other words, they didn t find that premeditation required for one alternate form of first-degree murder but instead this was committed with extreme atrocity. when you look at the statute they can reach that conclusion even if they find an unintentional murder if he participated in some action that caused a substantial likelihood of death he doesn t have to be the one
people that had a hand in my son s murder. reporter: during the verdict, it was a side of aaron hernandez that we had not seen before. he appeared stunned, so unlike the confident young man that we saw in court. with a smile and a wink all the time before the jurors would come in. this time he was turning to his mother and fiancee, watching them weep. but it appeared his swagger came back a short time later. a source tells me that when jailers were leading him from the courthouse to prison he told them they got it wrong i didn t do it. the jury erin, apparently saw it differently. susan candiotti, thank you very much. joining me cnn legal analyst, former prosecutor paul kallen and criminal defense attorney danny savales. he d had swagger and aaron gans
paul kallen. the prosecutor in staten island did not actually ask the grand jury to consider a lesser charge of reckless endangerment. you re a former new york prosecutor. does it surprise you why a prosecutor would not recommend, give the kind of full options to a grand jury? well, there s a huge menu of charges that might be appropriate in this case, so the prosecutor s trying to pick the best ones that fit the evidence and frankly, i don t think that would be the best charge. the best charge, i think, would have been it s a charge of criminally negligent homicide by commission. here s the theory. when they knock him to the ground and he s incapacitated and he s saying, i can t breathe, i can t breathe, he s in the custody of police officers and new york courts have held that when you are in custody, the police have an obligation and a duty to protect you. very different than the arrest duty. and by not getting him the help he needed and by making the
walkie-talkies to communicate. we re at the back but at the front they re trying to communicate. split up at macy s but far more organized than in the beginning. i think that s helped them as well in terms of gathering numbers of people as well. usually it spreads word on social media. meet at this particular location or meet at that location. that s how these groups start to merge. my colleague, deborah feyerick, talked about this earlier. there are several different groups involved with this. those in peace organizations, those involved in occupy wall street. you ve got a merging of these different groups all rallying between this one particular point. jason carroll, we ll continue to check in with you. joining me now in the studio is daryl parks, and mark o mara who represented gz, criminal defense attorney and former prosecutor
he made a decision that he was out so much to get the cop who did the choke hold that the two other cops who are involved in the most active part of the arrest, he gave immunity to. he said to them, if you testify in the grand jury, i will not charge you ever with a crime and i m betting when i look at the autopsy report in this case the jurors probably said, you know something, all of the cops acting together caused his death. it s very hard to isolate the choke hold as opposed to the chest compression opposed to just abandoning him when he was calling for help. but if the jurors wanted to indict all three cops, they couldn t because the prosecutor had given immunity to his two key targets. darrell, paul was saying he was out to get officer pantaleo. you don t believe he was out to get him at all though? it s rather clear he let the