Return to Transcripts main page

CNN Talkback Live

Russell Yates to Testify in Wife's Behalf; Interview With Evander Holyfield; Who Is Going to Win at the Grammys?

Aired February 27, 2002 - 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.
ARTHEL NEVILLE, HOST: All right. Hello, everybody. Welcome to TALKBACK LIVE. I'm Arthel Neville.

Want to let you know at this hour, Russell Yates could take the stand defending his wife who drowned their five children in a bathtub. He is expected to testify that Andrea Yates has been mentally ill for years. Is this going to help or hurt her insanity defense? I am sure you will have a lot to say about this one, so give me a call 1-800- 310-4CNN, or you can e-mail me at talkback@cnn.com. And right now, let's take a look at what else we are talking about today.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

(voice-over): It's the real deal. Evander Holyfield develops a ear for music. What is the champ doing at the Grammys? We will talk to him live.

Also, looking for the real deal at the Grammys? When performers are prepackaged and post-produced, can you still call them original? Are they artists or actors?

And inside the courtroom, David Westerfield shakes in a bulletproof cage. Can the man accused of killing this little girl get a fair trial?

Ray Brent Marsh wears a bulletproof vest. Can an impartial jury be found for a man accused of dumping corpses around his home instead of cremating them.

And Russell Yates defends the woman who killed his five children.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

(on camera): Now we understand that Yates visited his wife yesterday, and afterwards, he said he was nervous about appearing in court. And here to talk about it is former Texas state judge Catherine Crier, who is also the host of "Catherine Crier Live" on Court TV; former federal prosecutor and CNN legal commentator Cynthia Alksne; and former prosecutor and criminal defense attorney John Burris. Welcome to all of you.

I want to throw this question out to you, Catherine, first. What do you think the defense or prosecution will be looking to use from Russell Yates' comments?

CATHERINE CRIER, COURT TV ANCHOR: Well, Russell Yates is a lucky man in that there are no charges that apply to him. I think what are you going to have from the defense point of view is a man who will assert that she had been involuntarily committed, that she had been treated repeatedly, that doctors said this could reoccur with a fifth child, that she was on this cocktail of drugs until she was pulled off about two weeks before the killings. And so he can substantiate all of this information from a lay person's point of view.

The prosecution can basically come back with, you are an intelligent man. You've been working at NASA. You left your five children with this woman. Surely if she was insane, you would not have done that.

NEVILLE: Mr. Burris, what do you have to say about that?

JOHN BURRIS, CRIMINAL DEFENSE ATTORNEY: Since we agree with the first portion of it, I do not think that he would -- has any reason to believe that we would have been prosecuted. But, you know, the prosecution here wants to be able to say that, look, she engaged in specific acts and steps to take care of this.

But on the other hand, if you have from the husband that there's this long history of mental illness and that is he himself had put her in environments where she was trying to get mental help, get treatment, I think that that goes to the effect that something may have happened at the end of the day that caused her to go one step further. So I think it helps the mental insanity defense much more so than it will help the prosecution.

NEVILLE: Cynthia, do you want to chime in right now?

CYNTHIA ALKSNE, FORMER FEDERAL PROSECUTOR: Well, I think they are both right, and that is that there is some pieces of information in his testimony for both sides.

Ultimately though, I think he will help the defense side because for those jurors who are sitting on the fence and are not really sure how they want to vote, and they have not seen him yet and they don't understand the rule that he is not allowed in the courtroom, they do not really know whether or not he and the rest of the family are supportive, seeing him come in and support his wife is very important in the jury room in that -- in those conversations that they have on whether or not it is right and fair to convict her. So I think in the end, he will help the defense, but there will be some prosecution points scored.

NEVILLE: Now, Arnita (ph) from California is on the line right now. Arnita, I would like to hear what you have to say about this case.

ARNITA: OK. Why is nobody questioning the sanity of the husband? Has he never heard of abstinence, condoms, birth control? And why would he ever have allowed his wife to be alone even one minute knowing her condition? Also, the doctor who advised that they should have no more children after their fourth one, should have his head examined too. They should have seen ahead that have no more after the first one. What a terrible tragedy, one that could and should have been and never have occurred. Shame on those who contributed to the death of these babies.

NEVILLE: Chilling remarks. Catherine Crier, do you have a response to that?

CRIER: Well, I think that she is right on the money. We had a history with this woman for years that she was having a very difficult time, and yet, she was basically locked away with those children. She was to homeschool them. The only outside interaction she seemed to have much of was taking care of a father with Alzheimer's until he passed the away, helping others who needed assistance. But no one was helping her.

And she would reach these extreme points where she ultimately was involuntarily committed. And as the caller said, a doctor said after child four, stop this, but the doctor also testified that with child five and additional mental problems, she went elsewhere to a facility closer to her home. So until the tragedy occurred, the doctor did not know about that. You're going to find this -- all this information most relevant in the civil action, which I assume will be coming because I bet Russell Yates will sue doctors, drug makers, hospitals, and we'll get a lot more information then.

NEVILLE: I am standing here now with Marie. And, Marie, you said you have experienced postpartum depression before?

MARIE: Yes. I personally can't understand how this husband could have not seen signs that his wife had suffered from this mental illness. I think personally she was overwhelmed with five babies. She's had a complete history after each pregnancy of mental problems, depression, psychosis, whatever. When you are in that state, you do not know what are you doing. I mean, and any good husband, how could you not see these signs? How could you ignore them, you know?

I personally feel he is just as much responsible because you knew this girl was sick. Why do you keep having children? That's No. 1. And get your wife some help. I mean, anyone just looking at this girl, when the murders were first committed, you could see this girl is not right. And he ignored those signs, so I feel if maybe if he had gotten her help early on, maybe those children would be alive today.

NEVILLE: Thanks, Marie.

BURRIS: Yes, I do not think he is responsible in a criminal sense in any way, but it is true that as a husband, you know, you cannot be in denial. And even though he knew that she was mentally ill, you know, in his heart of hearts, he thought that she and hoped that she was getting better. So, I mean, I think it is more a question of love, you know, than it is a question of criminal negligence or negligence on his part. I think he believed in his wife. He wanted his wife to get well. He wanted her to be the mother of his the children. And I think, in the end of the day, he put his head in the sand on it.

ALKSNE: I mean, I think he will say, whether I agree with it or not, but I think he will say...

NEVILLE: Cynthia, pardon me for a second. I have got to break right now. I want to hear your comments. Hold that thought. And later this hour, I want to remind you that we are going to be talking to Evander Holyfield, so get your questions and comments ready on that one as well. And we also want you to tell us your Grammy picks for best album.

So do not go anywhere. Remember, cnn.com/talkbacklive to vote for your favorites. We'll be back in a moment. Stay right there.

(APPLAUSE)

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

NEVILLE: And welcome back to TALKBACK LIVE. Before the break, we were discussing the trial of Andrea Yates in Houston, and Cynthia, you were about to comment. I would like to hear what you were going to say.

ALKSNE: I was just going to say that I predict that today he will get on the stand and say he did recognize she had a major problem, and that he was talking to doctors and trying to get more medication for her, and that he participated in her commitments, and brought his mother in to help him in the house, and they were doing the best they can. And then, he'll discuss his religious desire to have these children.

So he will have a defense to what the people are, in my opinion, properly outraged about. But he won't -- he's not going to say, you know, yes, I missed everything, and my head was in the sand, I'm sorry I missed everything. He's going to say he was trying.

NEVILLE: Because he wants to kind of maintain his own dignity and integrity someplace there, I'm sure?

CRIER: Also, you don't want a lot of sense of contributory negligence that might effect the civil suit.

NEVILLE: You know, another case in the news these days comes out of San Diego, and that is David Westerfield who is charged with kidnapping and killing 7-year-old Danielle van Dam, and with possession of child pornography. The little girl's body remains missing.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

BRENDA VAN DAM, DANIELLE'S MOTHER: We have been asked again and again how are we feeling. All we can answer is that we miss Danielle desperately, and that the pain of her absence is absolutely unbearable. STEVEN FELDMAN, DEFENSE ATTORNEY: As the presence of you all attest, we are very concerned that the adverse publicity will effect our client's ability to get a fair trial.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

NEVILLE: You saw Mr. Feldman there, and you probably know that yesterday Mr. Feldman requested a gag order, which the judge denied. Wondering if you guys think that this will prevent van Dam -- excuse me, David Westerfield, from having a fair trial?

ALKSNE: I do not think it will prevent him from having a fair trial, and I think a gag order would have been a huge problem in this case, because right now the citizens of San Diego are being asked to help find her, and the police and the prosecutors need to be able to reach the citizens of San Diego to help do that. So when you have a case when you have a missing child, and whose body has not been found, and you need help from the public, it's a mistake to have a gag order, because you will never find the child.

CRIER: And additionally, you have a judge who very thoughtfully said I am not going to basically issue a prior restraint. If you abuse this, I can come back and issue a gag order, but until you demonstrate that you are not going to play according to the -- or play by the rules, then I will let you go.

Also, as to a fair trial, with our technology today so much information is dispensed so quickly that it's necessary to simply ask a jury, can you set aside what you knew or will this cause you to reach a decision before you hear the evidence in this case based upon something other than that evidence.

But we are confronting this now in more and more and more cases, and it's simply the way the voir dire is conducted that must protect the defendant.

BURRIS: Well, I do think that...

NEVILLE: If I can jump in. And John, I'd like to hear you comments as well, but Catherine that is exactly what I was thinking, that, you know, these are emotional facts that are attached to these cases, and how can somebody really be expected to delete the information, what they've heard or read, and to give the person a fair trial?

CRIER: But it's really not the notion that you are going to wipe your mind clean. We are all products of our experiences. But you do is take an oath that you will listen to the evidence in the courtroom, determine what the facts are based only upon that evidence, and render your decision based only upon those facts and that evidence. So you might have heard all kinds of things, but if you can swear to the judge that these will not be what you base your decision on, then you are qualified to sit on the jury.

NEVILLE: Mr. Burris, is that possible? BURRIS: Well, there are other factors involved here, and one of which is how soon is the trial going to take place when all this publicity is taking place. If the trial would occur within the next 60 days or so, which is not likely, then I think it would be difficult for him to get a fair trial.

On the other hand, if it's further away, a year or two away, the chances are that some of the hype would have gone down and very few would remember all the details that they hear in a particular time.

On the other hand, he may very well have to deal with a change of venue, in order to move to a more diverse community, where there isn't as intense, and a great and large segment of the population would not have heard the immediacy of all the details. And so that very well could happen at the end of the day.

I do want to speak to this question of a gag order, because I do think that that's a very serious issue. From the defendant's point of view, he is correct. He is going to be placed in a position where he cannot fight back. All this negative evidence is going to be coming out against him, it's going to hurt his client. I actually represented a client once who was suspected of child abuse here -- child kidnapping here in Northern California. And he, in fact, did not do it. I had to file a lawsuit against the city for the statements that they had made, but even to this day people still believe that he is the perpetrator and he got away with something he really had not done.

So the damage is going to be done. Whether or not he will ultimately be able to have a trial in that community, I tend to doubt it very seriously. But, you know, it amazes me seeing I think Catherine is right, there are things you can do to minimize it. But at the end of the day, most people have heard it, and you have got to work real hard to get people, and the judge got to give you some leeway so you can get jury selection, jury questioning in a broad- based way.

NEVILLE: Karen from North Carolina is on the line right now. Karen, what do you have to say?

KAREN: With or without a gag order, I do not think it's really going to matter, because the way mass media is now, people see the news. I don't care if you take it to another state. You know, unless you take it across the water to overseas, come on, please, everybody in the United States look at the news, local news, be it CNN. The only thing that this guy is going to be able to do to get off of this is if he has a good alibi, because if they have DNA, that is the fingerprint that is going to nail him, whether or not people in his community are talking or not. DNA.

BURRIS: Well, that's a different question.

ALKSNE: Well, that is an important question too that we can get to in a second. But you know, my experience in trying cases is that jurors really do take their oath seriously. It's not something they do flippantly. When they stand and rise their right hand in that courtroom and the judge has them swear that they'll be fair, I think they are fair. And I think he will get a fair trial, and the citizens of San Diego will give him one.

BURRIS: I don't agree with that. I don't agree with that in entirety. I do think it's a question of the cross-sectionness (sic) of the community, how broad-based the judge will allow you to examine the question. And at the end of the day, most people who are very prejudice about a particular idea will maintain that degree of prejudice, and you have to work extraordinarily hard to get those people, de-select those people off of juries.

I do not believe in the inherent fairness of the people who are on juries. If they have a preconceived bias about a case, they maintain that bias.

(CROSSTALK)

NEVILLE: If you let me jump in for a second, because I want to switch gears here and talk about Ray Brent Marsh. Here's another man who's going to be facing a jury soon, and he is of course the man who is accused of dumping corpses in his backyard instead of cremating them.

And standing with me now is Mr. Irving (sic) who is from Tennessee. I'm sorry?

SANCHEZ: Sanchez (ph).

NEVILLE: Mr. Sanchez, who is -- you're a funeral director, is that right? And what do you have to say about this case?

SANCHEZ: Well, having been a funeral director for 20 years, and just thinking about all of the individuals that have been a part of my profession, I think it's the worst case of irresponsibility. It just makes our industry such -- gives us such a negative image, and just for the countless individuals who have been a part of our industry in my lifetime, it is just a bad example, and I think that for the countless individuals, we -- most of us are -- we take our job very personal, and I think more than the majority of us are feeling real bad for the families that we have served over the years.

NEVILLE: And suddenly, perhaps, other families are looking at people at you, going, well, can I trust you?

SANCHEZ: Exactly. And it's all about trust. I mean, when you're school, you realize we are custodians for hire, and it's our responsibility to see a family from the death, and sometimes if we need before the death, to actually help those individuals after death and after care. So to have this sort of situation -- I'd just like to speak out for all the funeral director and just say that we know that more than the majority of us are very -- are responsible and caring individuals, both in the community and for our families at large, and to have this one individual in this whole situation is just terrible.

NEVILLE: It is unfortunate. And of course, you certainly don't have the mind-set of this Marsh guy. How does somebody do something like that?

SANCHEZ: Well, I really don't have his mind-set. Someone was saying that it had started before his time, and he was covering up for his dad, but anybody that's responsible would just say, listen, you know, we have got to bring this to a halt and let's do the right thing. And for whatever has been, let's try to clean it up, it was not my issue. Let's do the right thing as a professional. There is no reason on the planet that this guy should not -- should get off for what's happened.

CRIER: You need to look at the facts, too, because Mr. Sanchez is quite right and I think the funeral home directors have been outraged.

But this Tri-State crematory really offered the service of going to funeral homes -- this was not a funeral home -- going to funeral homes, picking up the body, taking it back to the crematory. So even the funeral home directors wouldn't see the condition of that facility. Had it been in a funeral home, where families would be coming in and out on a regular basis, I don't see how this could have happened. But it was a very different kind of facility.

BURRIS: You know, there's one other issue...

NEVILLE: Mr. Burris, Burris, I have got to cut you off. I am sorry, because I think I have been cutting you off all afternoon, I do apologize for that. But we are out of time. I am going to have you back on for another topic.

We are out of time for this segment. Catherine Crier, thank you.

CRIER: Nice to see you.

NEVILLE: Nice to see you, Catherine.

Cynthia Alksne, and John Burris, who I will have back. Thank you so much for joining me today.

BURRIS: Thank you.

NEVILLE: And up next, we're going to meet four-time heavyweight champ.

We are talking about Evander Holyfield. As you can see, he's waiting to talk to you. We're back in a moment.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

NEVILLE: Welcome back, everybody. I'm Arthel Neville. Welcome back, everybody.

Hey, I think it's time for a little round of boxing, huh? No, with me now from Los Angeles is four-time heavyweight boxing champion Evander Holyfield. He's all set for a big night tonight. You know, looking all spiffy as usual. He's at the Grammys, Evander, and you're now the big president and CEO of Real Deal Records, and I want to go on record saying he is my friend. Hey, good to see you.

EVANDER HOLYFIELD, FOUR-TIME HEAVYWEIGHT CHAMPION: Good to see you.

NEVILLE: All right. So you are at the Grammys. You're making big music deals, or what is going on there?

HOLYFIELD: Well, I pretty much just checking it out. I know (UNINTELLIGIBLE) will be in a Grammy receiving award, so I want to be able to tell them, you know, what to expect.

NEVILLE: So what kind of artists are you looking to sign, Van (ph)?

HOLYFIELD: Well, we already have numerous signed. We have R&B, hip-hop, gospel.

NEVILLE: And you see now, those two categories there, hip-hop and gospel -- you love hip-hop music, the beats and everything, but you're saying that you did not necessarily want your kids to hear all the lyrics. So you plan to ahead and keep the funky beats, but add some fresh -- and I mean clean -- lyrics to it?

HOLYFIELD: I mean, it's all about positive. You know, and dancing, and having a good time. It's just things that you say, the words that you use allow to offend somebody or uplift somebody, so I choose to uplift.

NEVILLE: Absolutely. Now, I know you are all serious and stuff, because, you know, you are the CEO of Real Deal Records, but who have you seen out there at the Grammys? It's all about star-gazing.

HOLYFIELD: Well, you know, Alicia Keys.

NEVILLE: Who else? India.Arie? Did you see India.Arie yet?

HOLYFIELD: I sure did.

NEVILLE: Is my girl Pink there? Is Pink there?

HOLYFIELD: I did not see Pink. I did not see Pink, but (UNINTELLIGIBLE), you know, Jaru (ph), a lot of good people here.

NEVILLE: Oh yeah, those are some of my favorites you just mentioned there. Now, and I am standing here with Ricky from Georgia, and he has a question or a comment for you.

RICKY: Yeah, I just want to know, Evander, what made you get into the entertainment game?

HOLYFIELD: Well, you know, boxing is entertainment. So you're after boxing -- you know, I love music, and I realized that if I am going to make a change, I need to get into something that I love. And anything I love, I knew I would be successful in it.

NEVILLE: Evander, and you are a determined person, and I wish you luck in this as well.

Now, standing here is Agnes. By the way, Evander, Agnes is from Florida, and we were talking about hip-hop, Agnes had this to say.

AGNES: What is hip-hop?

NEVILLE: Well, there you go. Thank you, Agnes.

HOLYFIELD: Hip-hop is more of a, you know, a genre of music that young people call things that they like. I guess each generation come up with something that they like, and hip-hop is more of the young people music that they like to dance to, bounce around, jump and have a good time.

NEVILLE: Now speaking of dancing to and bouncing around and having a good time, what do you like to listen to? What is in your CD player right now?

HOLYFIELD: Well, you know, I like the love songs. I love love ballads. I'm kind of still stuck in the '70s.

NEVILLE: Hey, there is nothing wrong with the '70s. Don't cloud old school. I love the '70s music too. Now, you know, you are talking about love songs, you're big old boxer and everything, you're telling me you're a little sensitive there too, Evander?

HOLYFIELD: Well, you know, it's love that motivates you. You know, I'm driven by love.

NEVILLE: All right. Thanks, Van. Chris, you are standing by with someone who has a comment.

CHRIS: Go ahead.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Hi, Evander. I want to tell him I am a big fan. My question is, are you looking to scout out new artists, or are you trying to scout some of the older artists, maybe somebody who hasn't had a record out in a while?

HOLYFIELD: Right now, we have enough people on the roster now, and we are trying to make sure that they get an opportunity to be the very best they can be. Sometimes if you get too many, then you spread yourself so thin. Right now, we kind of -- we got enough right now, and we are going to make sure that the ones that we have hit the charts and sell a million records.

NEVILLE: Let's sell those records!

OK, you know what, right now we have to take a news update, but we're going to keep Evander right here for you. So if you have something to say to him, you'll get your chance after this break. We're back in a moment.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

NEVILLE: Welcome back to TALKBACK LIVE. I'm Arthel Neville. We are talking with four-time heavyweight champ Evander Holyfield. He is standing by with us in Los Angeles. He is going to be going to the Grammys tonight. So that is why he is out there and not in his home state of Georgia.

And, by the way, Evander, when you come back, you have to come on the show on the set. Is that a deal?

HOLYFIELD: That is a deal.

NEVILLE: All right.

Let's talk about boxing for a second here, because everybody is talking about Mike Tyson, whether he should be allowed to fight again. What are your thoughts on that?

HOLYFIELD: Well, I think he should.

I am the one that got bit. And I forgave him. And I think everyone should have a right to work.

(APPLAUSE)

NEVILLE: Kimberly, what do you have to ask Evander?

KIMBERLY: Hi, Evander. How are you?

Evander, my question was, why are you so supportive of him? I know you just answered it, but I was just curious, personally, why are you so supportive of him?

HOLYFIELD: Well, it is not so much I am supporting him personally, that I just support what is right.

When you are in a point of forgiving somebody, you do not hold nothing against them. You just hope that they would learn from that and not do the same thing again. But I just know it is important for a person to be forgiven so they can go on and make a change in life to be better.

NEVILLE: Now, 'Van, do you think that Tyson's behavior gives boxing overall a black eye?

HOLYFIELD: No, I don't. I think it hurt him the most. I think not just boxing, any other profession, you always have people that misbehave.

NEVILLE: Joe from Texas, what do you say?

JOE: Mr. Holyfield, I agree that you personally ought to be for giving of Tyson. But, as a country, what we are about is being held accountable and being responsible for our actions.

And today, we have looked at Yates. We have looked at the mortician. And now we are talking about Tyson. And if you want to be mentally unfit, then you should just make excuses and not be held accountable and blame other people. And that is what is wrong with our country.

Now, what I like about you is that you are full of integrity. But I think it is a lowering of our country's standards if we do not hold athletes and movie stars, everybody, accountable for their actions.

(APPLAUSE)

HOLYFIELD: Well, I truly think that we should hold people responsible. Then we should have some bylaws that say that, for any individual, if you bite somebody, this is what will be happening. If you do something so wrong, then whatever your profession is, if it is just sweeping the street, you should not be allowed to sweep the street.

You just can't take athletes or movie stars and just pin something against people that are high profile.

NEVILLE: David from Georgia.

DAVID: How are you doing, Evander?

I just wanted to say thank you for really representing Atlanta to the fullest, like with the Braves, having the Olympic, and you being a four-time champion, like, also with the Falcons. I just want to say thank you for really representing the city to the fullest. And, also, I just want to let you know, if you are looking for a true artist...

NEVILLE: Uh-oh, look at you. Look at David. Do you rap, David? Can you rap?

DAVID: Right now, I am getting my lyrics together.

NEVILLE: I just said, can you rap?

DAVID: Yes.

NEVILLE: All right, now, I might have to hook you up with Evander when he gets back to Georgia.

Evander, I will do a little scouting work for you out here. How is that?

Now, Evander, if in fact the Tyson-Lennox Lewis fight does go down, would you be willing to fight the winner?

HOLYFIELD: Oh, yes, I would. My goal is still to be the undisputed heavyweight champion of the world and, hopefully, that one day that I can get the opportunity to be it.

NEVILLE: And, Don, what do you think about this, that Evander says that he would be willing to fight?

DON: Well, I think that the public wants to see Mike Tyson fight. You can't have good unless you have bad. But my question, Evander, is, since you are not holding one of the so-called major titles, why not fight for one of the other sanctioned bodies, like the IBU, the International Boxing Union, fight overseas, basically take up where Muhammad Ali left off by doing an ambassador defense of the titles in all the other countries, like South Africa, Finland, England, those type of situations, since you have got to work yourself back into a major shot again?

HOLYFIELD: Well, I don't mind getting back in the line.

But the titles that are recognized worldwide is the WBA, WBC and the IBF. So those are the belts that I really consider world championship. It's easy for me to go fight for another belt just to say, I did not have to get back in line. But, a lot of times, when things don't go your way, you just have to get back into line with patience.

NEVILLE: Jane from Florida, you are on the air here with us at TALKBACK LIVE. What is your comment?

CALLER: Hey, champ.

Don't you think the licensing boards have a responsibility for the safety of the opponents? Tyson has total disregard for all the rules and regulations. And look what happened to you.

NEVILLE: So, is there a question you have, Jane?

CALLER: Well, does he feel like the licensing board has a responsibility to protect people from -- with total disregard for the rules and regulations, like Tyson is?

HOLYFIELD: Can you repeat the question? I could not hear her.

NEVILLE: Basically, Jane from Florida is asking if the licensing commission has any responsibility in allowing Tyson to continue fighting or not.

HOLYFIELD: Well, they do, at least in Vegas.

But I guess the most important thing is that Tyson made one infraction in the ring. And that's when he bit me. And they he charged him $3 million. And it seemed like that would be enough. And that was not even a rule that says, if you bite somebody, we are going to take $3 million.

NEVILLE: Well, of course there is no rule, 'Van, because nobody had done that before.

HOLYFIELD: No, it's not. A lot of people have bitten people. They just wasn't high profile. I have seen it happen a lot. So, Tyson just happened to one of these guys that was high profile that bit somebody.

NEVILLE: Well, Evander, thank you very much for taking time out of your busy Grammy schedule. I'm glad you could join us today. Enjoy the Grammys tonight. And I will see you when you get back to Georgia.

And, of course, we are going to get a preview of that event next with CNN correspondent Kendis Gibson. What do you think? Does U2 have it in the bag? We want to find out.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

NEVILLE: And welcome back to TALKBACK LIVE. I'm Arthel Neville.

Well, tonight is Grammy night. The recording industry parades and awards the best in the business tonight. That's right.

And joining us now: CNN entertainment correspondent Kendis Gibson.

Kendis, hello to you this afternoon.

Now, everybody is talking about the awards and all of this stuff, Kendis, but I want to get to some goodies. Let's talk about the gift baskets that these guys are getting. The presenters are getting these baskets, right?

KENDIS GIBSON, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Yes, the presenters and the performers. Can you believe this? You get to be a celebrity. You get fame. You get fortune. And then you get a $17,000 gift bag. Take a look down. This is just some of the items that are actually going to go to Stevie Wonder later on this evening for being a presenter.

Not only is he going to get an MP3 from Apple, he is also going to get -- I'm not sure what he is going to do with this -- some lingerie that I refuse to pull out of the bag, a George Foreman grill over here, and this -- you know, it is going to sound like a credit card commercial, because this is $250. This is $70. This is about $100. And this is priceless. It's a hangover relief kit. So, all of these things

(CROSSTALK)

NEVILLE: Kendis, did you say $1,700? How much is it, $17,000?

GIBSON: Seventeen thousand dollars.

This is just some of it.

NEVILLE: Kendis, I'm going to need a little favor from you. I'm going to need you to give me the hook-up. Just grab one. The one you have for the demonstration, they will not miss that. Bring that back. I will share the goodies with you, OK?

GIBSON: You see all these people out here? They are all security people.

NEVILLE: Oh, please, Kendis, you can work it out. Look at that smile of yours. You are a charmer. Work it out. Work it out, OK? Now, let's talk about the star-gazing factor. I love going to the Grammys and all those awards because it is always fun to see who is who in the house. Who have you seen so far today?

GIBSON: Well, so far, in the building, Patty Labelle was inside rehearsing with the ladies from Lady Marmalade. You know they're doing a song together tonight.

Also, a little bit earlier in the week, India.Arie was in the also was going through her rehearsals. No real major stars have made it on to the red carpet as yet. They are being fashionably late and taking their time. But there you see India. She is up for seven nominations later on this evening.

(CROSSTALK)

NEVILLE: Including album of the year and best new artist?

What do you think

(CROSSTALK)

GIBSON: Oh, she probably doesn't have much of a chance for album of the year. Everybody is banking on U2 pulling out with that award.

NEVILLE: Kendis, I just saw Patty Labelle rehearsing -- Patty Labelle, I can say it -- who is for rehearsing the Lady Marmalade spot tonight. And Patty can blow. So those girls better be ready to stand next to Patty.

GIBSON: That is the thing. She is really the ultimate diva.

It is going to be interesting to see whether or not you can even hear Maya, Pink, or Lil' Kim over Patty, because she was already blowing in the middle of rehearsals.

NEVILLE: You know, Pink is my girl. But Patty is Patty. That is all I have to say.

Kendis, thank you so much for joining us. And charm your way into that gift basket. I am going to need it.

GIBSON: I will work on it.

NEVILLE: Thank you very much.

All right, let's welcome right now Alan Light, who is the editor in chief of "Spin" magazine.

Alan, thank you for joining us here today.

Let's talk about -- you've got India.Arie, Alicia Keys. These are artists who write their own lyrics, write their own music. Is that why they are so prominent this year at the Grammys?

ALAN LIGHT, "SPIN": Well, I think we certainly saw a return this year on the rock side and on the R&B side to artists that did offer up more creativity, more integrity. There was a shift away all from the bubblegum teen pop that dominated everything the last few years.

And that was something that started even in the first half of the year. A lot of people are going to go back and say, well, that all changed on September 11. But, really, that was something that had started to turn for all of this past year.

NEVILLE: Absolutely. You are right.

A year ago, a lot of the artists who topped the charts were manufactured. I don't want to make a blanket statement and say all of them, but a lot of them. And it is all about marketing. So I am happy to see that we're going to get back to some roots and grassroots of people who can actually perform. They are true artists.

LIGHT: And I think you are seeing -- I think there was that huge bubble of young teenagers, all of the kids who were there for 'N Sync and Britney and Christina.

But those acts have been around for a few years now. And those kids are all getting a little bit older. And when are you 13 or 14, what you want from your music is very different than when you are 16 or 17. And I think you really started see that change on the charts though this year and now on what the list of Grammy nominees looks like.

NEVILLE: Hey, Alan, a lot of the music, aside from India.Arie and Alicia Keys and those artists, a lot of the music -- stand by for me, Alan, because I have to got go to my colleague Fredricka Whitfield right now, who is standing by in CNN newsroom with an update.

(NEWS UPDATE)

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

NEVILLE: Welcome back to TALKBACK LIVE. I'm Arthel Neville.

We're going to continue now with Alan Light, who is the editor in chief of "Spin" magazine.

Alan, before we go, I just want to let you wrap up for us and your take on the music industry as a whole right now, the direction it is headed in.

LIGHT: Well it has been a really hard year. Sales are down. Technological challenges are coming from every direction. But I think that there are different sparks of creativity that are going to continue to blossom. And I think that the resurgence of rock last year was not a fluke. As we said, it had to do with the aging of some of those teens who got into the Britneys and 'N Syncs of the world.

And I think, and on the R&B side, on the hip-hop side, on the rock 'n' roll side, there's a lot people coming up that are going to point to some new directions. And it is time. We need some new directions. What we saw were a lot of established stars who kind of dropped the ball last year and didn't deliver the goods. So I think you are going to see a lot of turnover in the days to come and a lot of interesting things on the way.

NEVILLE: I just say get back to real music, to people who can sing, people who can write songs and things like that.

LIGHT: It sounds good, doesn't it?

NEVILLE: Let's work that out.

(APPLAUSE)

LIGHT: OK, Alan Light, thank you so much for being with me this afternoon.

Now I want to go to a segment now that we call "Ask Arthel," which is where you guys can e-mail me or instant message me or phone calls, whatever it takes. You can ask me a question or have a comment to me -- or make a comment.

So, right now, let's bring up an e-mail that came in yesterday from Jess in Reno. And she says: "Arthel brings the right energy and confidence to the program. This is my first time ever talking back. She was a good choice. Now just keep choosing interesting topics and let's enjoy the show."

Well, Jess in Reno, thank you very much for that comment.

And we do have another e-mail I want to read to you right now. This is from Bobby in New York, who says: "I feel that yesterday's TALKBACK strongly slants toward the U.S.. The host would happily cut off the Arab guest and let the American guest talk. There should be equal time for each side to comment."

Well, Bobby in New York, I would say to you that there was equal time. And I make sure that we give everybody equal time. This is definitely a place for conversation. And everybody gets a chance. So there you go. But, Bobby, you know what? You can keep watching. And any other comments, go ahead and send to me.

And everybody out there, you guys can send me a comment or a question as well.

And, right now, that's going to do it for us today. We are out of time. Thanks so much for all of you for joining us here on TALKBACK LIVE.

I'm Arthel Neville. I'll be back again tomorrow, 3:00 p.m. Eastern. And I would love to see you guys in person. So you guys can come right here. Call in for tickets: 1-800-410-4CNN.

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