Return to Transcripts main page

CNN Talkback Live

Legal Roundup: Today's High-Profile Cases

Aired June 20, 2001 - 15:00   ET

THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.

THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
BOBBIE BATTISTA, HOST: Convicted of animal cruelty for tossing a dog into traffic. Should Andrew Burnett do time?

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SARA MCBURNETT, LEO'S OWNER: What he did was cruel and unjust and uncalled for.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BATTISTA: Do Mayor Giuliani's kids need a legal guardian?

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

CECILE WEICH, ATTORNEY: We wouldn't have the sideshow, the circus that we are having if both care about their children. I don't think either one of them do.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BATTISTA: Where is Washington intern Chandra Levy?

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

CLINT VAN SANDT, FMR FBI AGENT: What we have to determine, is this homicide, suicide. Is it an accident? Has she been kidnapped? Has a stalker got her or was she involved in some emotional situation that was just too much for her to deal with?

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BATTISTA: And who killed May Greineder?

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: On October 31, 1999, Doctor, did you want to kill your wife?

DR. DIRK GREINEDER, DEFENDANT: I did not.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BATTISTA: The murder trial that has all of Massachusetts talking. Examine the cases and challenge the lawyer. It's law and order day on TALKBACK LIVE.

Good afternoon, everyone. Welcome to TALKBACK LIVE. We are looking at several high-profile cases today, starting with Chandra Levy, the missing Washington intern. Levy's parents are back in Washington today with a high-powered attorney.

CNN's Bob Franken brings us up to date -- Bob.

BOB FRANKEN, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Actually, the high-powered attorney is still out of town. He will be coming back later this afternoon or evening, and then we'll have the first face-to-face meeting with Chandra Levy's parents, Dr. Robert Levy and Susan Levy. Chandra Levy, of course, is the 24-year-old former intern. She interned, not for Congressman Gary Condit, but for the Bureau of Prisons.

But there have been persistent accusations that Condit had an improper or romantic relationship with Chandra Levy -- a relationship that Condit's office consistently, and today,1 says did not exist.

Now the newest developments: The Washington, D.C. Metropolitan Police are for a second time going to question Condit. Early after the disappearance was reported, in early May they had a conversation with Congressman Condit. Said that he was totally cooperative. They have continued to say that, and there are plans later in the day for them to talk once again with Condit, particularly because of those persistent rumors about the relationship.

Secondly, we are told that at some point today, the metropolitan police had a conversation, probably by phone, with the Levys, who are in Washington. They flew in late last night and have not been available to reporters, waiting for the attorney Billy Martin to return.

Now, the reason that Billy Martin was hired by them, according to him, is not necessarily because he gained a high profile when he represented Monica Lewinsky's mother during the grand jury proceedings in that famous case, but because earlier in his career he had been an investigator. He was the assistant U.S. attorney here in Washington and headed up the homicide unit. So they brought him in because they're not entirely satisfied with the progress that's been made so far. Chandra Levy has been missing for over seven weeks.

BATTISTA: All right, Bob, thanks very much for joining us. Now we bring in some of the nation's most successful and colorful lawyers: John Burris is a criminal defense attorney and former prosecutor; Nancy Grace, "Court TV" anchor and former assistant district attorney in Fulton County, Georgia; Robert Tanenbaum is with us, the former U.S. district attorney and former chief of the homicide bureau. He was written several books, including "Enemy Within," which comes out this summer -- loved the last one, Bob. Thanks.

ROBERT TANENBAUM, CRIMINAL DEFENSE ATTORNEY: Thank you, Bobbie.

BATTISTA: And Cecile Weich is with us, an attorney specializing in women's legal rights and matrimonial law. Welcome to all of you. John, let me start with you. Why would the Levys engage a high- powered attorney at this point, and you know Billy Martin?

JOHN BURRIS, CRIMINAL DEFENSE ATTORNEY: I know Billy Martin and I think that the fact that they're bringing him in in a manner which has been described actually makes a lot more sense. Initially I was concerned that there wouldn't really be any need other than to handle press conferences and to make sure their views are articulated.

But to the extent that it's really about whether or not he can evaluate and assist in the investigation as to the possible homicide, that make a lot of sense. He has good judgment. He understands how to follow up on cases, and I think he can be very helpful in communicating with the D.C. Police Department about what ought to be done and following up on some of the leads the to the extent that he will have access to it. But that becomes another matter as to how much the D.C. police will cooperate with him. But if he does, I think he can be very helpful.

NANCY GRACE, "COURT TV": John, you know what I think? I think the reason the Levys have gotten an attorney is because the Congressman has gotten an attorney, and there have been suggestions out there that libel or slander lawsuits are going to be filed, and the Levys immediately got a lawyer to protect themselves.

(CROSSTALK)

BURRIS: That may be true. But when you really get down to it, bringing a guy with Billy's experience as an assistant U.S. attorney and an investigator makes a lot of sense. He can be helpful, he can be helpful to them to make them in making sure they understand what evidence is, and what evidence isn't.

I don't blame them a bit, John. I am on your side on this one, which is rare. But if I were afraid of a libel lawsuit I would get a lawyer too. But I don't think the police are going to share anything more with this lawyer for the family than they would share with the family anyway.

WEICH: I would like to put this point in. I think bringing in this kind of an attorney, he might be able to put pressure on the police department or use some of his influence in Washington to expand this investigation, possibly into a criminal one.

BATTISTA: Bob, let me ask you this: Obviously, as we know, the Congressman has gotten an attorney and he has been cooperating with the police on this matter. Should he be talking more about his relationship with Chandra to the press perhaps, being that he is a public official?

TANENBAUM: Well not only a public official, but to the extent that he is a Congressman. These guys can't keep their traps shut for 10 seconds, and these people are constituents of theirs. It's not as though these are some group in Michigan and he is a Congressman out of Modesto. But these people are Modesto residents and it's unconscionable to think for a moment that he is limiting and won't even discuss basically, without having a negotiation between his lawyer and the P.D. in Washington, this case. He should be over at the parent's house. He should be demanding that this case go forward.

(CROSSTALK)

GRACE: You are right. It stinks. It stinks.

TANENBAUM: The silence of this case is deafening.

WEICH: He is probably not talking about it because he probably had an affair with this young woman. He is a married man with grown children, and he certainly did not want to come out initially and say, well, I had an affair with this young woman. After all, he is married. He tried to keep it as silent as possible. There's a lot of pressure being put on him to talk. But I agree with him and whoever is advising him that he should not talk at this point.

BURRIS: I think that that's the correct position.

GRACE: Even if it's holding up a murder investigation? I disagree. BURRIS: I think that that's the correct position for him not to talk. He can easily say that I've cooperated with the police. I'm willing to answer any questions that the police have for me, which he has done. I do think...

(CROSSTALK)

BURRIS: There is life after the law. He has to think about his career as well.

GRACE: He's got to think about a missing girl, is what he has got to think about.

WEICH: He may have had nothing to do with the missing girl.

BURRIS: Saying whether he had an affair or not does not help the police determine whether or not he in fact was involved. Now, having an affair is a totally distant thing.

GRACE: No, because right now he is the focus because maybe he had an affair. If he comes clean, the police can then focus on who really got the girl.

BATTISTA: Clearly, the bottom line here is that he's doing what his attorney told him to do, is my guess on that one.

(CROSSTALK)

BURRIS: His lawyer, Joe (UNINTELLIGIBLE) is one of the top lawyers around Northern California, so he is a pretty smart man himself.

GRACE: I predict a press conference.

BATTISTA: Let me take a phone call quickly here from Robin in South Carolina -- go ahead, Robin.

ROBIN: Yes, I agree with Mr. Burris. He should not be saying anything right now. Yes, he is a Congressman, but you have got to look at a young lady is missing, the police have constantly said he's not a suspect. So therefore, I think that he would do more harm than what good he would do by coming up and blabbing himself all over the place. I think he's doing exactly what he should be doing.

BATTISTA: Do you think that there's -- do you think the media's being fair in this particular case, you guys?

WEICH: The media is never fair.

(LAUGHTER)

WEICH: Never. The media does what it wants to do, points a spotlight where it wants to point it, and...

BATTISTA: Oh, that's not true and you know it.

(CROSSTALK)

BURRIS: You have to keep in mind, though, he is a public figure. And you are a public figure are a public official ,you have got to expect people to want to talk about who you are and what do you. And to some extent he has to balance his interest as that of a congressman with those of his future rights as a Congressperson, as well as those in the occasion of libel and in defamation type issues.

GRACE: John Burris, you know if he wants to keep his job, he has got to have a press conference and come clean. You all can say whatever you want to say.

WEICH: No, he does not.

(CROSSTALK)

WEICH: And if he wants to keep his marriage, there should be no press conference.

(CROSSTALK)

BATTISTA: I've got to take a break here, and I have a question from the audience that I'll get to when we come back here in just a moment. We'll do a little bit more here on the Levy story when we come back.

And then: a California man tosses a dog into traffic. Does he deserve to do time in prison for that? How would you sentence him? That's our question today.

Take the TALKBACK LIVE on-line viewer vote. It's cnn.com/talkback. AOL keyword CNN. While there, check out my notes, send an e-mail or a comment using the AOL Instant Messenger. Those of you who have it, put us on your buddy list. Our name is TALKBACK LIVE. And those of you who don't, follow the link on our Web site. We'll be right back.

The FBI maintains the NCIC, which serves as a database for local law enforcement for missing persons in other cases. Last year, more than 800,000 people were reported missing. Many of them were children who were found in a matter of hours.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BATTISTA: OK, an e-mail from Tom in New Mexico. It says: "Something very strange about this Levy incident. I can understand politicians getting romantically involved with their staff members, but to have one come up missing is a different story. This doesn't make any sense at all."

To the audience, Marilyn, you had a question or a comment.

MARILYN: Yes. Even with all the connections to the congressman, they've been unable to obtain a search order for his home, and I was just wondering why.

BURRIS: Well, you have to have evidence, some reason to believe that there's evidence in the house that related to a crime. Now, I would say, if I was his lawyer and my client was innocent, I would say, look, you want to search this house, you can do it, and I would be very cooperative in that way. But from a legal point of view, they need more evidence. They need something to connect.

No. 1, they don't even know if a crime has been committed.

WEICH: That's it. It's still a missing -- it's a missing person's case.

GRACE: And the other thing that's (UNINTELLIGIBLE) in a search warrant, it's also -- you've got to also point out what you hope to find. What did they say they wanted to find in the residence?

WEICH: And no, they're not -- this is not a criminal investigation. This is still a missing person's investigation.

GRACE: Well...

(CROSSTALK)

BURRIS: Well, I think it is a criminal investigation. No, I think that's a euphemism, (UNINTELLIGIBLE) investigation. This is really a criminal investigation. This girl's been gone a long time. If she had committed suicide, she would have been found by now. If she didn't want -- you know, you can't just be missing this long, and a popular young lady like she was who seemed to be very engaged with her family.

WEICH: Then why hasn't...

GRACE: Well, John, (UNINTELLIGIBLE) police are involved. They suspect a crime. That's the bottom line.

WEICH: Why haven't they called it a criminal investigation? Why are they insisting that it's a missing person's (UNINTELLIGIBLE)?

BURRIS: Well, you know, it's like misinformation, misdirection. Maybe you'll keep the killer off track and you might be able to -- maybe be able to find out more about what's going on if you don't say it's a criminal case.

WEICH: I'm not so sure -- I'm not so sure there's a killer. I mean, there's nothing that points to the fact that there's a killer...

BURRIS: Well, we're not certain about it.

WEICH: ... except that she's been missing for a long period of time.

(CROSSTALK)

BATTISTA: Let me just -- let me jump in here and take a call quickly from Barbara in Georgia. Go ahead, Barbara.

BARBARA: Yes. The comment that was made about the media, I agree the media can be a pest. They can go overboard. However, I feel like if it was not for the media, that these high-profile cases might get swept up under the carpet, like JonBenet Ramsey and Chandra Levy and just numerous cases.

BATTISTA: Well, and it is true, the parents are supposedly holding a news conference tomorrow with their attorneys. So there is a give-and-take with the media that is necessary in these kinds of cases.

Moving on here, the next case on the docket -- and boy, are we getting e-mails on this one. Already, they're just piling in. Justice for Leo is how the tiny little dog's owner sees it. Twenty- seven-year-old Andrew Burnett has been convicted of felony animal cruelty in California. Witnesses say he tossed Sara McBurnett's pet dog into traffic during what appeared to be a case of road rage. He faces up to three years in prison for the attack and will be sentenced July 13th.

Should he be going to jail for this, do you think, Bob?

GRACE: Oh, yeah.

BATTISTA: Nancy, let's ask you. You're a prosecutor.

GRACE: It's such a cruel thing to do to a helpless little creature. And you know what, Bobbie, some of the best witnesses I've ever had were dogs. And you can't screw them up on cross-examination. Juries love dogs, and I predict he's going to get the maximum. I hope he does get it.

WEICH: I don't think he's going to get three years.

BURRIS: Well, I don't know -- I don't think he ought to get the maximum.

GRACE: Why not?

WEICH: Absolutely, absolutely not.

GRACE: Why not?

WEICH: Because a dog is a dog and a human is a human. And he did something very cruel, and perhaps he should serve some jail time, but not three years. That's unconscionable.

(CROSSTALK)

BURRIS: I think he should get, you know -- No. 1, look at what his background is and see if there's some kind of history of animal cruelty...

BATTISTA: Well, I was just going to say that, John. There is a little history there.

BURRIS: Well, if it's a history of being cruel to animals and/or people...

BATTISTA: The reason they did not put him on the stand was that prosecutors had unearthed evidence that he allegedly beat a crippled and half-blind dog to death in the Navy six years ago.

GRACE: OK, John, what do you have to say to that?

BURRIS: Well, that's a different -- that's a different -- well, that's a different question. I mean, now we know that he has a history of that, and of course, he probably is going to get some jail time. How much it should be? It remains to be seen.

GRACE: Look, I'm not saying...

BURRIS: But if he has a history -- if he has a history of showing this, then that to me would suggest that, yeah, he ought to be punished for it. Now, how much punishment that should be?

WEICH: But not three years.

BURRIS: Three years is a long time.

WEICH: Three years is too much, too much.

BURRIS: I think it's a county jail time.

GRACE: I think three years for him to sit there and contemplate what he did to that dog.

BURRIS: No, I think county jail time...

WEICH: I don't think that -- I don't think that any of us understands what it means to spend three years behind bars, because god willing none of us have ever done it. I think it's... BURRIS: I think it's a county jail sentence of up to one year maximum with some probation after that...

WEICH: Yeah.

BURRIS: ... anger management courses. I mean, there's obviously something going on with a person who is mean to an animal. And I think we ought to take a look at that before we try to...

GRACE: Mean? He wasn't mean. He killed the thing.

BATTISTA: Let me go to -- let me go to the...

BURRIS: Well, mean or not, I mean, that's a euphemism. Obviously, he was mean. He threw the dog out in front of cars. That's mean.

GRACE: That's a crime.

BATTISTA: OK, Marilyn, in the audience, go ahead.

MARILYN: If he's that out of control, if he did it to dog, why wouldn't he do it to a child or anyone else in the car?

BURRIS: But he hasn't -- but he hasn't done it to a child in 27 years. He hasn't done it...

GRACE: How do we know? How do we know what he's done?

WEICH: Oh, come on, Nancy!

(CROSSTALK)

WEICH: Nancy, there's -- I mean, his criminal history is probably open to the judge. And if god forbid he had hurt a human being, that's going to be before the judge, and indeed, he's going to get three years. But...

BATTISTA: Bob, let me ask you this. Let me ask you this -- do you think that she, you know, if she wanted to, could make a civil case out of this for emotional distress or something?

TANENBAUM: Well, he definitely...

BATTISTA: What if he doesn't get anything, you know?

BURRIS: I think so.

TANENBAUM: There's definitely a potential -- there's definitely a potential -- there's definitely potential for a civil case here. Also, you have this prior episode...

WEICH: In our society, she's certainly going to try it.

BURRIS: It's an intentional infliction of emotional distress or a negligent infliction of emotional distress. TANENBAUM: In this kind of case...

BURRIS: I think you could make an argument.

TANENBAUM: In this kind of case, it's probably appropriate given the outrageous conduct that was committed here by him. And he fled. So there's, you know -- the investigation went on for about a year before this case was brought to bar. So you're not dealing here with someone who is going -- is worthy of being toasted.

GRACE: I agree with Bob.

BURRIS: He may not have any money, though, on the other side of it.

GRACE: I agree with Bob, because what he did was aimed at the dog's owner -- to get back at the dog's owner, so she has a clear course of civil action. I don't know if he's got any money or not, but he certainly isn't going to earn any behind bars for the next three years.

WEICH: I think that she's got a very difficult case to prove, if indeed she brings it. But as I said before, because we live in a litigate society, I wouldn't be a bit surprised if indeed he goes to jail.

BURRIS: I don't think it's that's difficult of a case. It's an intentional infliction of emotional stress, or a negligent infliction. It was an outrageous act designed to...

(CROSSTALK)

WEICH: It's a difficult thing to prove.

BURRIS: From a plaintiff -- I don't think it's -- it's not that difficult to show it was an outrageous act.

(CROSSTALK)

BURRIS: It was intended to hurt the lady.

BATTISTA: Let me do a couple of e-mails here, and an audience comment.

Joshua in Ontario says: "I have a dog myself and animals deserve the same respect as humans. Don't go and blame your personal problems on your animals. Shame on Andrew Burnett."

Mark says "Burnett should not only get three years jail time. He should have to register with the local police and have signs placed in front of his home telling the word what he did."

Tracy?

TRACY: Hello, I am a fellow animal lover myself, I have two dogs, a cat and a chinchilla. But also, I'm a registered nurse, and the one thing I'm looking at not only is the physical attributes of what he did, but the psychological impact that this has on society, showing how extreme road rage can go these days. And there needs to be something, either anger management or things that are taught in drivers' ed for our teenagers -- and also, refresher courses for adults as well.

WEICH: How about keep taking his license away? That's a way to keep him off of the road.

BURRIS: Well, part of what this case...

TANENBAUM: It won't keep him off the road. He'll just drive illegally.

BURRIS: Part of what the case really reflects...

WEICH: Then he'll be picked up for driving illegally, and maybe then he'll serve some time in prison.

BURRIS: Well, part of what the case really reflects is this total lack of civility. The fact that we call it road rage and give it names and titles doesn't in any way condone -- it may explain, but in any big city in America, you can't drive from A to B, so what else is new? To get out of a car and to take a dog out of someone's lap, or in the back, wherever -- serious act, should get some jail time here and should be brought to bar in a civil case.

GRACE: And another thing -- another thing is, as a human, if you're thrown into traffic, you can at least make a run for it. With a dog, a tiny little thing like this, can you imagine getting thrown onto a freeway, not being able to get away, and the impact of the first, second, and third car that hits you?

BATTISTA: All right. Last word. I have to take a break here. Coming up in a moment: a large dog, a knife, blood-stained gloves and a husband who insists a stranger cut his wife's throat. Sounds familiar, but it is a doctor on trial in Massachusetts. We'll be back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

GREINEDER: And I squatted down and I sat myself in that and I tried to pick her up. And her head flopped back and I thought that I was going to -- I -- and she was slipping and -- I...

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BATTISTA: Dr. Dirk Greineder is on trial in Massachusetts, accused of slashing his wife's throat while they were walking in a park. Prosecutors say Mabel Greineder was killed because she discovered her husband's secret life of prostitutes and Internet pornography. The doctor says a stranger did it when he left her alone briefly in the park. Items and evidence include a pair of gloves, a hammer and a knife. Nancy, if you could help us since this is kind of a regional story. I know "Court TV's" been covering it -- sort of bring us up to date a little bit on this one.

GRACE: Well, Bobbie, I've been watching Dr. Greineder on stand for two days nonstop, and I've got to say he's very convincing. He broke down and cried at the appropriate times. He withstood cross- examination very well. But, Bobbie, long story short, there was no explanation why his DNA, being nasal discharge, was found on the murder weapon; why fibers from the murder gloves were found under his fingernails, and why his DNA was under his wife's nails. He told police he hadn't had sex with her in years. Later, he said she gave him a back rub that morning.

BATTISTA: All right, we have some questions from the audience. Let me take those quickly. Ken, go ahead.

KEN: This has to do with the previous subject, having to do with the dog. Is that possible?

BATTISTA: No, this is a different case completely.

KEN: I can't talk about the dog? Even if I respectfully disagree?

BATTISTA: You want to talk about the dog, still?

KEN: No, I just want to say that the young lady made a statement about animal life and equating with human life, and there's no way you can do that. You can't equate animal life with human life, and I think all of us agree. Even in medical research, you can't equate doing research on animals versus human. And ethically, so I think that's something, at least that I feel needs to be corrected.

BATTISTA: Okay, Stan (sic), thank you. Questions on the Greineder case is what we're looking for here -- Millie.

MILLIE: They say she fell and hurt her back, or whatever. Why didn't he carry her? He could have carried her.

GRACE: Tell it. Yes, he left her. He said she threw a ball to the dog and hurt her back, and she did have a back problem. But he left her there. And isn't it a very unusual coincidence that in the 10 minutes he was gone she got murdered by an unknown assailant? I don't buy it.

BATTISTA: All right, defense attorneys in our panel here, would you have you put him on the stand? Is that usual?

BURRIS: I would say that -- no, I would not. And it's a very difficult challenge, question, because he's obviously a compelling person, he looks good. But on the other hand, because he can't explain some of the most obvious things that a jury will discredit him and all of the good benefits he received, he loses those.

And I think that ultimately, given what I see here, it could hurt him later on appeal, because it would neutralize any mistakes that have been made. Once he testifies and the jury makes a determination, that in point of fact, he committed this crime. So I don't think I would have put him on. I think it's better to let the lawyers argue from their state of the case, as opposed to having him testify.

WEICH: Boy, would I disagree. I think it was a good idea to put him on the stand because he is such a compelling witness. It was absolutely necessary for him to be able to tell his story to the jury. That may indeed, even irrespective of the DNA evidence, it may -- his testimony may convince the jury that he's not guilty.

BURRIS: I doubt it. I doubt it.

TANENBAUM: This case is overwhelming in the facts. It's really -- there are four prongs to it, and the defense really is sort of implausible fabrication here, to the extent that the four prongs of the prosecution are: the DNA on the gloves found nearby the scene; the two maps found at his house, one of which was a stick figure drawing of exactly where the murder took place, and the second map was where the murder weapon was found.

Thirdly, he's made statements which are devastating here, one of which was, when he was asked at arraignment by the prosecution: "Why is there no blood on your hands when there's blood all over you, when you allegedly administered to your wife?"

And he simply said, "I can't explain that."

In addition, he finally tells the police that he didn't have sex with his wife for a couple of years, but he goes so far audaciously to suggests to his wife's sister that they had sex that morning because he knew that his DNA was all over the place.

GRACE: That did happen.

TANENBAUM: The last prong in this case is that about a month before the murder, he went to a hardware store, purchased some nails. And within three minutes at the same store at the same register, there was a purchase of a hammer.

GRACE: Just like this one.

TANENBAUM: Because of the receipt issue, they -- the notion is that he did buy the nails, and of course, he did buy the hammer, unless you believe this implausible defense in the case, that someone else was standing by, bought the hammer, and then while he left her for 10 minutes, allegedly, this person then came up and also murdered the deceased.

GRACE: Bobbie, another issue -- a lot of people are saying that it's irrelevant -- is his very active life with hookers, swingers online, he was sending naked photos of himself out to meet other people. A lot of people say that it has nothing to do with murder. I agree.

But the fact that he called a hooker within 24 hours that his wife was murdered tells me that he did not love her.

BATTISTA: Oh, boy.

(CROSSTALK)

GRACE: You men can say whatever you want to. But it speaks to me.

BATTISTA: ...relationship with that hooker?

(CROSSTALK)

BURRIS: He could have loved his wife and still had a relationship with the hooker.

GRACE: You go home and tell your wife that.

BURRIS: I am not married, but I wouldn't do that, either.

GRACE: Smart man.

BURRIS: ...what that means that he didn't love his wife, I think he has far greater issues to deal with, and I think if the prosecution goes down those roads then you have something for the defense to talk about. This is a situation where the defense has to lay back and see if the prosecution will over-try the case and make some mistakes that he can then rely upon.

GRACE: John, he told one of these hookers that he didn't like his wife because she was old and soft.

(CROSSTALK)

BATTISTA: He did admit that statement. We have to take a quick break here, and we will continue with this case. There's still a lot more questions from the audience. We'll be back in just a moment.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BATTISTA: The crowd is a little slow on the uptake today. Did you notice? Megan, you have a question or a comment.

MEGAN: Yes, my question is, if they are in a public place, obviously there's people walking through all the time, and my question is, if she sat down or she had problems A -- why did he go off and leave her? And B -- if something happened to her, somebody attacked, obviously you would hear her scream. So why didn't any...

BATTISTA: Was this a secluded pond, Nancy, or was there other traffic in the area?

GRACE: Not very much traffic. I have look at the photos, the aerial photos, and the photos of it by foot, and it is very heavily wooded. There are several paths going all through it, different routes. Apparently, he left her near a sand pit of sorts, near the pond in a wooded area. And I agree with your viewer. If it had been someone she didn't know, she would have screamed bloody murder, but instead she...

(CROSSTALK)

GRACE: ...sees her husband and had no warning.

WEICH: ...on what she might have done or what he did. We don't know.

GRACE: I wasn't there, I don't have a video, but I can put two and two together and get four.

WEICH: Yes, but you may get five, and the jury...

(LAUGHTER)

WEICH: And they may not convict this man if he puts himself out in the proper way during the examination.

BATTISTA: Let my ask you this, the fact that these three grown children steadfastly stayed by their father throughout this whole ordeal -- and I believe one of them did testify on his behalf -- how much does that weigh on the jury?

WEICH: I think that's very, very important. And if indeed, as Nancy said before, his testimony was very compelling and again, as she said, and I agree, if he can convince one juror that he didn't do it, then he will not be found guilty.

TANENBAUM: Not in this case.

BURRIS: I don't think the children's testimony in and of itself is compelling for them. You would expect children for the most part, if he's a good person, for the person to stand by him.

After all, they don't want to believe that their father killed their mother. So, they have to believe that. But you have to still look at the evidence of the case. If you are a defense lawyer, of course, you want as many family members. That's character evidence.

But on the other side of it...

GRACE: But they've been there every day, row one, John, supporting their father.

BURRIS: They don't want to be orphaned totally.

GRACE: You know, it would take more than a grand jury to convince me my father committed murder. I understand where they are coming from...

WEICH: I disagree with that, too. These children know their father. If they... TANENBAUM: They may not know their father.

(CROSSTALK)

WEICH: They know whether he has the capacity...

TANENBAUM: No, they don't know anything about that.

BATTISTA: I don't think they'd have know that, either.

BURRIS: You could have raised your children. No, no, your children...

WEICH: I think the family members know their people -- the wives know their husbands. Husbands know their wives. And the children certainly know their parents.

BURRIS: I don't think that's necessarily true.

BATTISTA: Let me go to the audience here. Tammy in the audience, a comment.

TAMMY: Yes, I would like to say that you can see what the relationship was if he left -- his wife had a previous existing back problem but he knew she was hurt. But he want on anyway.

So that lets you know what type of relationship they had, because he left -- he left her in pain. And I can't see a husband leaving his wife while she is in pain.

BATTISTA: Although, supposedly he did just go, continually walking the dog.

GRACE: He said he was going to go ahead and give the dog its walk, while she stayed behind.

BURRIS: This is why he should not have testified.

GRACE: With a mysterious serial killer.

BURRIS: He should not have testified. I disagree with anything he -- he should not have testified. Because he can't explain these things, they don't make any sense. You don't leave your wife and go walk a dog.

WEICH: You don't have to make sense to a jury. All you have to do is convince one of them, that you didn't do it...

BURRIS: One is not enough. One is not enough. If you want this case to go away in the end, it has to be a six-six, a four-seven -- a four-eight. Otherwise, it will get retried. If it's ten to two.

(CROSSTALK)

BURRIS: It will be retried and the case will be better for the prosecution the next time. So, you know... GRACE: That's true.

BURRIS: If you've been in this business, you know what happens on retrials. Tell them how it is, Nancy.

GRACE: It's true.

BATTISTA: All right, let me go to Eric in the audience.

ERIC: Yes, going back a little bit to how the children should know their father, I would expect that a wife would also be able to know her husband and be able to know if he had the capacity to do that, if that were the case. But I don't think that that's always the case. I don't think this guy can lie well enough to get out of this.

GRACE: I've got to tell you something else about the wife that happened today. She found bottles of viagra -- they hadn't had sex in years -- in the shaving kit, Bobbie. And then she went to him and apologized for looking in the shaving kit, OK? That gives you a little indication about how the relationship was going. Now, what would you do if you found viagra in your husband's shaving kit and you hadn't been having sex with him? I won't be apologizing.

(LAUGHTER)

BURRIS: Being an adulterer doesn't make him a killer. I mean, just because he's an adulterer, doesn't make him a killer.

GRACE: It means she doesn't know what's going on under her own roof. I can tell you that much.

WEICH: And even if she knew what was going on, that doesn't make enough of a reason for him to kill her, unless he was totally psychotic, and then the defense attorney should have had a plea of insanity, rather than put him on the stand.

BATTISTA: I have to take a break, you guys. We've got to move on here. In a moment when we come back, the Giuliani-Hanover uncivil divorce. The latest in New York's most talked-about soap opera, when we come back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BATTISTA: Well, it is a made-for-TV divorce and it's getting plenty of play. New York's Mayor Rudy Giuliani and wife Donna Hanover are certainly making a public spectacle of it, The latest developments include a ruling that keeps Giuliani's girlfriend out of Gracie Mansion while his children, and a law guardian has now been appointed to represent the two unfortunate children in this divorce.

Cecile, can these two just not talk to each other? From what I understand in court yesterday, they just absolutely could not agree on a single thing.

WEICH: That's generally the way. That's normal in a divorce situation. Let me tell you this... BATTISTA: It shouldn't be normal, but OK, go ahead.

WEICH: This -- divorce situations are exactly as is being portrayed in the press with these two people. The only difference between Giuliani and the rest of the men that get divorced is he's the mayor of the city of New York, and everybody is interested in what he's doing. My bottom line on this is: both of those people should be terribly ashamed of themselves. They are affluent, intelligent, articulate people that are tearing their children apart, and I think that's outrageous.

BATTISTA: It's not unusual, John, is it, to have a court- appointed legal -- if you can't agree on custody in matters like that, then you have to have a legal guardian for the children?

WEICH: Absolutely.

BURRIS: Well, certainly, you've got to have someone that's going to look out for the interests of the children. You know, this is kind of a surprising issue, because -- not surprising, but you have kids who are 11 and 15. The 15-year-old pretty much is going to be in a position and make some statement about where she wants to stay. The 11-year-old...

WEICH: But the judge doesn't have to listen to them.

BURRIS: Obviously, he does not have to listen to them. I think the more troubling question here is the court's order directing the mayor not to be able to bring his girlfriend to Gracie Mansion. I don't think the courts ought to be involved in those issues. Those are issues...

WEICH: Oh, absolutely! This is the home...

(CROSSTALK)

WEICH: This is the home of the Giulianis. Under no circumstances should man bring his paramour into the home with his wife and children.

BURRIS: But, you know, but it really isn't. It really isn't. She has a separate portion of the house, and he has a separate portion of the house.

WEICH: The kitchen is on the main floor. Have you ever been to Gracie Mansion?

BURRIS: Obviously not, but they could...

WEICH: The children come down to eat while a reception is taking place.

BURRIS: They can make some adjustments around this. I disagree with the court being able to legislate and get involved in people's personal lives.

WEICH: Courts do that all the time in divorces, sir.

BURRIS: Well, not when they stay in the same house. But they've got a divorce! They're divorcing. They're leading separate lives.

WEICH: But right now, their -- right now, their divorce is before the court. And its' the judge's obligation, and this is a very fine judge. It's the judge's obligation to get involved in their lives, and particularly to protect these children, which is what she doing by...

BURRIS: I don't know that that's protecting the childrens' lives at all. That's taking the side of one person over another.

GRACE: So, John, you think the children are being hurt because the judge refused to have a court order allowing the girlfriend in the home?

BURRIS: I think that Mr. Giuliani himself is being prejudiced in ability to lead his life, because the court is legislating how he ought to conduct his relationship with his children.

WEICH: He has no right to lead a separate life while he is still married. He has two children.

(CROSSTALK)

WEICH: He is legally married.

BATTISTA: They're not even separated.

BURRIS: That doesn't mean anything. I don't think the courts ought to be in a position of telling him he can't have relationship in the presence of his children with someone else.

WEICH: He can have all the relationships he wants, but he cannot bring that woman into his home where his wife and children are.

BURRIS: It's not "that woman." It's his girlfriend. She's not "that" woman.

WEICH: That woman. That's who she is.

BURRIS: That's not "that woman"!

WEICH: Not his girlfriend. She is no girl.

BURRIS: Please!

WEICH: That's a paramour.

BATTISTA: Hold on. Now we can see what happens in divorce court, can't we?

Let me bring -- I want to hear Bob's -- let me hear Bob's view on this. TANENBAUM: Well, this is an example of Rudy Giuliani using terrible judgment. And another example of getting the reptilian-type lawyers who exist, and letting them besmirch the reputation of his wife, who is involved in this. What Rudy should have done in this case was move out of Gracie Mansion, get his own place. If he wanted to have this private relationship with Judith Nathan, fine. File for divorce, try to keep this as private as possible. But his first obligation is to his family. And as mayor of the city, he has to set a standard.

And this is about reaffirmation of standards and doing what is honorable. And the honorable thing to do here would have been to protect his family first, leave them in Gracie Mansion, conduct official business there and have his own apartment and have his own private life, with respect to it. But be up front about that, and make sure in some fashion he would shield his children from this absolute circus and burlesque show that's now taking place.

BURRIS: I don't disagree with that. I agree with that.

WEICH: He took his lessons from the last president of the United States.

BATTISTA: Let me ask you about the lawyers. By getting these sort of high-powered, very vocal lawyers, shall we say, I mean, what -- you know, they keep holding these news conferences with all of these things that they're saying about each one of them. What purpose does that serve? Are they just trying to win over public opinion?

BURRIS: None, it's a terrible thing. It's a terrible strategy.

WEICH: It's publicity for the lawyers. Which, unfortunately, we live in a media society. And the lawyers are playing to the media. More so, his lawyer than her lawyer, although she has just come out with a doozy: her lawyer suggesting that Mayor Giuliani is using his campaign funds to woo his paramour. If that proves to be untrue, that lawyer certainly should face some disciplinary...

BURRIS: You know, it really speaks to the question though, if a person should decide the kind of lawyer they want -- if they want to resolve these things in an amicable way. Once they decide on the kind of lawyers they wanted, there was no way they could resolve this in a very public and a private way.

Mr. Giuliani made that decision with the lawyer he received. Clearly he is an aggressive guy, but I don't you ever gain anything by trashing your wife or ex-wife or your ex-wife to be, and making her look bad.

BATTISTA: Absolutely.

BURRIS: That doesn't make him look good.

BATTISTA: Absolutely. I have to get a quick...

WEICH: She is doing the same thing now, she's accusing him of a crime. I think this is outrageous.

BATTISTA: I have to take a quick break.

WEICH: She is saying he's using funds that he received as donations.

BATTISTA: Nancy, you are not escaping this. We will take a break and talk to the audience too when we come back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BATTISTA: OK, quick comment from Nancy. You want to comment on this, Nancy? Or is this just too much?

GRACE: I tell you, know you, it has been pretty nasty here in New York, it's in the paper every day. But I don't blame the lawyers too, too much, Bobbie, because the lawyers do what they are allowed to do, what they were advised to do.

Bobbie, when you start slinging mud, everybody gets dirty, and that includes these kids. They're 11 and 15. And everything that is said in the paper, they can find out about it, it will stick with them for the rest of their lives.

BURRIS: It is surprising they would be position where their kids could be hurt this way, most people would want to do whatever is necessary to protect the kids, because they have to grow up.

BATTISTA: We already decided -- they are not getting the parenting award, that's for sure. We have to let it go at that.

WEICH: In divorces, these people watch their bellybuttons throughout the entire thing. They're the least of their interests, are the children.

BATTISTA: All right. Cecile, John, Robert, Nancy, thank you all very much for joining us.

We're out of time, see you tomorrow.

TO ORDER A VIDEO OF THIS TRANSCRIPT, PLEASE CALL 800-CNN-NEWS OR USE OUR SECURE ONLINE ORDER FORM LOCATED AT www.fdch.com