Retrial Granted in 2011 Murder Conviction: Was it the Right?

Dan Abrams and Nancy Grace discuss an appeals court's decision to grant Brad Cooper a retrial.
4:51 | 09/04/13

Coming up in the next {{countdown}} {{countdownlbl}}

Coming up next:

{{nextVideo.title}}

{{nextVideo.description}}

Skip to this video now

Now Playing:

{{currentVideo.title}}

More information on this video
Enhanced full screen
Explore related content
Comments
Related Extras
Related Videos
Video Transcript
Transcript for Retrial Granted in 2011 Murder Conviction: Was it the Right?
We're going to bring back our abc chief legal affairs anchor, dan abrams with me. And nancy grace. We're going to start in the studio with dan. Was it the right decision here? I think it was. This is the most important piece of evidence in this case. Imagine a google search for the exact spot where her body was found the day before it happened. And the defense wanted to present evidence that said that there were invalid time stamps, there was no cookie found. Their experts believed it could have been planted or tampered with. That's crucial evidence the defense should have been able to present. And I think the appeals court made the right call. How about you, nancy? Do you think it was the right decision to call for a new trial? I do think it was the right decision. But I don't think it's going to make a difference. There's so much evidence that this guy killed his wife that he's going to have the same outcome on the retrial. He's going to get life without parole all over again. I don't think there is that much evidence. Comparatively to other cases that we've seen, there's a lot of suspicion out there about him. Of course, he is the husband in this case. But this was the key piece of evidence. When you talk -- when you go through all of the other evidence in the case, the defense had an argument against it. Except for this piece of evidence. I think it's going to be a much closer case than nancy suggests. Dan, they may have had an argument. But it didn't amount to a hill of beans. I mean, I assume you've seen "home alone 3," when kevin, the little boy, has his phone rerouted. This guy had his phone rerouted to make a call to himself to give himself an alibi while he's standing in front of a surveillance camera in front of a grocery store. Come on. It's so obvious. He fights with her at a neighborhood party the night before. She's leaving him. She's going home to canada with his children. He's having an affair. He's been copying all of her e-mails back and forth to her lawyer and sending them to his new website about himself. Come on. A big fight the night before. And the next morning she's gone and dead. It doesn't prove murder. All that has been brought up, you're right, nancy, in court. There was 36 days of testimony in the first trial. First of all, I believe it was "home alone 2" not "home alone 3." "Home alone 3" was when the phone was rerouted. Check your facts. That one I will recheck. The issue with the phone, let's be clear what nancy's talking about here. He allegedly got a phone call that morning from his wife. If he got that phone call from his morning, it means that his wife was alive. It likely means he didn't do it. Nancy is making the point that the prosecution was suggesting -- there wasn't an iota of evidence this actually happened. But the prosecution was suggesting that he could have effectively -- what do you do for a living? He is a telecommunications expert with cisco. Therefore, it means he could have done it, right? But that doesn't mean that he did do it. And just in case, surveillance didn't catch him squeezing the pineapple the first time in the grocery store, during the fake phone call. He did it again. And he had to come up with an idea, my wife said, not only do we need milk, we need detergent. Back in front of the surveillance camera, to take another phone call. So, the prosecution in this case, basically said, that he created a fake phone call in effect, to himself, to make it seem like she called him. The problem with that is there was a lot of suggestion, a lot of might have, a lot of could have, but there wasn't direct evidence that it actually happened. That's why this case is going to be harder the second time. Except she was dead in a drainpipe at the time the phone call was made. You would agree, nancy, if the phone call was made, that would be very helpful to the defense, right? If the call had been made. Yeah. If it had been made. But I happen to know she was dead at the time, facedown in the drainpipe. It wasn't made. He did it himself. One final question, nancy. Pending a new trial, do you believe he should be released on bail? Absolutely not. He should be on an appellate bond. He should have a new trial. Under our constitution, you have a right to counterwhat the state brings on with your own expert. And I disagree with the trial judge. But I don't really believe -- and I think you're going to see this in the end, dan, that another jury is going to agree with the first jury. And maybe this time around, the defendant will have the guts to take the stand. We'll see. I think this could lead to a hung jury, make it a much tougher case for prosecutors. Again, the first trial lasted more than a month. We'll see what happens. Nice to be back with you, nancy. Good to see you again, nancy. Likewise. Dan, thank you.

This transcript has been automatically generated and may not be 100% accurate.

{"id":20151525,"title":"Retrial Granted in 2011 Murder Conviction: Was it the Right?","duration":"4:51","description":"Dan Abrams and Nancy Grace discuss an appeals court's decision to grant Brad Cooper a retrial.","section":"GMA","mediaType":"Default"}