GUNMAN IN THE BUFFALO SUPERMARKET MASS SHOOTING PLEADING GUILTY TO ALL STATE CHARGES IN COURT TODAY. THOSE CHARGES, INCLUDING DOMESTIC TERRORISM MOTIVATED BY HATE, MURDER AND ATTEMPTED MURDER. ALL OF THIS COMING MORE THAN SIX MONTHS AFTER THE GUNMAN ALLEGEDLY KILLED 10 BLACK PEOPLE AND WOUNDED SEVERAL OTHERS DURING WHAT POLICE CALL A RACIALLY MOTIVATED ATTACK AT THAT SUPERMARKET IN NEW YORK . FOR MORE , ABC NEWS CONTRIBUTOR AND HOST OF LONG CRIME NETWORK, BRIAN BUCKMIRE JOINING ME TO TALK ABOUT IT. BRIAN , LET'S JUST BREAK DOWN WHAT THESE CHARGES MEAN AND WHAT THIS GUILTY PLEA MEANS. >> YEAH, SO FIRST AND FOREMOST, THE TOP CHARGE IS A VERY NEW ONE TO MANY OF US IN NEW YORK . IS A DOMESTIC TERRORISM CHARGE WHERE HE'S ACCUSED OF AT LEAST TARGETING FIVE PEOPLE THROUGH SOME SORT OF HATE AND KILLING AT LEAST ONE . WE KNOW THAT HE KILLED 10 PEOPLE, BUT THAT STILL SATISFIES THE CHARGE. AND , OF COURSE, WE HAVE THE 10 MURDER IN THE FIRST DEGREE CHARGES AS WELL AS ATTEMPTED MURDER CHARGES AND ONE GUN CHARGE THAT THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY DEFINITELY POINTED OUT TO BECAUSE THE GUN WAS BOUGHT LEGALLY, BUT ALTER IT TO MAKE IT AN ILLEGAL GUN. HE DEFINITELY WANTED TO TARGET THAT CHARGE AND IN THE SENTENCING OF THIS GUNMAN. BUT MOST PEOPLE'S EYES ARE ON THAT TOP CHARGE BECAUSE IT CARRIES THE HEAVIEST PENALTY, BUT ALSO IS A VERY NEW CHARGE TO US IN NEW YORK . >> SO THE SUSPECT ORIGINALLY PLED NOT GUILTY TO ALL THE CHARGES, AS YOU KNOW. BUT TODAY HE PLED GUILTY TO ALL OF THEM, WAIVED HIS RIGHT FOR AN APPEAL. >> WHAT DO YOU THINK ABOUT THE STRATEGY HERE? SO IT'S TWO THINGS. FIRST AND FOREMOST, YOU ALWAYS PLEAD NOT GUILTY OF THE INITIAL CHARGING OF A CASE. BUT WITH NEW YORK DISCOVERY LAWS, WHEN ALL OF THAT DISCOVERY IS TURNED OVER AND DISCOVERY IS THE INFORMATION OF THE PROSECUTION IS USING TO ACCUSE OF A CRIME, I THINK THE DEFENSE ATTORNEY READ ALL THROUGH THE DISCOVERY, SAW THE VIDEO, SAW THE HEINOUSNESS OF THIS CRIME, BECAUSE DON'T FORGET, HE RECORDED HIMSELF COMMITTING THESE CRIMES. HE HAD LIKE A MANIFESTO, SO TO SPEAK, AS TO WHY HE WAS DOING THIS. I THINK THE WRITING IS ON THE WALL IN TERMS OF TAKING A PLEA. HOWEVER, I THINK THERE'S ALSO ANOTHER STRATEGY TO THIS AS WELL. WHEN WE LOOK AT THIS CRIME, LIKE I SAID, IT'S VERY NEW TO ALL OF US . IT CAME TO FACT IN NOVEMBER OF 2010. THE LAW SAYS, IN TERMS OF SENTENCING, NOTWITHSTANDING ANY OTHER LAWS, MEANING NO OTHER POLICIES, RULES THAT WE HAVE IN NEW YORK STATE, THAT THE DEFENDANT SHALL RECEIVE LIFE WITHOUT THE POSSIBILITY OF PAROLE. NOW, FOR LAWYERS, WE KNOW THAT SHOW IS MUCH THE WAY I EXPLAIN IT TO MY CLIENTS. THINK OF THE TEN COMMANDMENTS THOU SHALL NOT KILL. >> WE KNOW IT MEANS MUST NOTWITHSTANDING MEANS THAT NOTHING ELSE IN NEW YORK LAW GIVES A JUDGE THE DISCRETION TO THINK OF A LOWER PENALTY. THAT, IN MY MIND, IS NOT NECESSARILY LEGAL. THE LEGISLATURE CANNOT MAKE LAWS TO RESTRICT THE JUDGE'S POWER TO CONSIDER PAROLE OR SOMETHING. I THINK THE DEFENSE ATTORNEY IS THINKING ABOUT MAKING A POTENTIAL ARGUMENT FOR LIFE WITH PAROLE AND ALSO GOING TO THE FEDS AND SAYING, HEY, MY CLIENT TOOK RESPONSIBILITY FOR HIS CRIMES. MAYBE WE COULD TAKE THE DEATH PENALTY OFF THE TABLE. >> I THINK THAT THE STRATEGY FOR PLEADING GUILTY HERE SO THE SUSPECT ALSO FACES MORE THAN TWO DOZEN FEDERAL CHARGES. AS YOU KNOW, HE'S THE FIRST PERSON IN THE HISTORY OF NEW YORK STATE TO BE CHARGED WITH DOMESTIC TERRORISM, MOTIVATED BY HATE. THAT CHARGE CARRIES THE POSSIBILITY OF THE DEATH PENALTY. RIGHT. SO WHEN ARE WE GOING TO LEARN MORE ABOUT THIS AND HOW IT'S GOING TO PLAY OUT, BRIAN ? >> SO IN FEBRUARY, IS FEBRUARY 15TH, WE'RE GOING TO HAVE THAT SENTENCING PHASE. AND THAT'S FOR THE STATE CHARGES ONLY . I THINK THE FEDERAL CHARGES ARE GOING TO BE ON THE BACKBURNER TO SOME DEGREE UNTIL NEW YORK FIGURE OUT WHAT THEY WANT TO DO NOW. THE DEFENSE ATTORNEY , THEY MAY HAVE A NOVEL ARGUMENT, AS I'VE KIND OF LAID OUT, THAT THEY ARE SAYING THIS LAW RESTRICTS THE JUDGE'S ABILITY TO CONSIDER LOWER SENTENCING, WHICH FOR THE MOST PART, NEW YORK STATE DOES ALLOW. I DON'T THINK THIS ANY JUDGE OR ANY PERSON THAT WOULD SAY THAT THIS INDIVIDUAL SHOULD GET LIFE WITHOUT THE POSSIBILITY OF PAROLE. BUT I DO SEE THERE BEING A LEGAL ARGUMENT TO PUSH BACK . BUT OF COURSE, WE'RE GOING TO HEAR THE VICTIM IMPACT STATEMENTS FROM COUNTLESS VICTIMS IN THIS CASE. >> AND I THINK REGARDLESS OF WHAT THE LAW DOES OR DOES NOT SAY, WHAT ARGUMENTS CAN BE MADE, I THINK ANY JUDGE IS GOING TO RULE THAT LIFE WITHOUT THE POSSIBILITY OF PAROLE IS THE ONLY ADEQUATE SENTENCE HERE. WHEN YOU HAVE A STATE OF NEW YORK THAT DOESN'T HAVE THE DEATH PENALTY. SO THAT CAN BE CONSIDERED. BUT THE FEDS DO HAVE THE DEATH PENALTY AND THE STRATEGY THERE IS TO MOVE ON THERE AND TRY TO EITHER REMOVE THE DEATH PENALTY OR HAVE HIM SENTENCED TO A FEDERAL PRISON RATHER THAN STATE