Return to Transcripts main page

CNN The Point

Emotional Week Ends in Dog Mauling, Yates Trials

Aired March 01, 2002 - 20:30   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.
ANNOUNCER: THE POINT with Anderson Cooper.

At two of the country's most watched trials, a long emotional week draws to a close. At the dog mauling trial, a defense attorney gets creative for the jury, and rough with a key witness.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SHARON SMITH, DIANE WHIPPLE'S DOMESTIC PARTNER: I was shocked. I was shocked by her question and, frankly, deeply offended by it.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

ANNOUNCER: "Flashpoint": blaming the victim.

And at the Andrea Yates trial, another diagnosis for the defense.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: She was out of contact with reality, did not know right from wrong.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

ANNOUNCER: Tonight, the role of religion in a family headed toward disaster.

"Flashpoint": keeping faith.

THE POINT. Now, from New York, Anderson Cooper.

ANDERSON COOPER, HOST: Good evening. I'm Anderson Cooper.

Let's get right to THE POINT. We begin with a trial that's been marked by spectacle, sensationalism and trauma. This week alone saw the victim's mother leave the courtroom in tears, as prosecutors brought out some pretty gruesome autopsy photos. The defense has played rough as well. There was a collective gasp in the courtroom yesterday when an attorney implied the victim's partner could have actually prevented the killing.

"Flashpoint": blaming the victim.

We're talking about the so-called dog mauling trial in California. A husband and wife, Marjorie Knoller and Robert Noel, face a number of charges. She's accused of second degree murder, because their dogs attacked and killed Diane Whipple, a neighbor in their San Francisco apartment building.

To say the least, it has been an unusual trial from the outset. Now, at one point, Knoller's attorney, you may remember, got down on all fours actually recreating the dog attack. Now, this is the same attorney, Nedra Ruiz, who startled the courtroom yesterday with a question to Whipple's partner, Sharon Smith.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SMITH: I was shocked. I was shocked by her question and, frankly, deeply offended about it.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COOPER: Joining us from San Francisco tonight is Sharon Smith's attorney, Michael Cardoza. Now, he's representing her in a separate civil lawsuit against the dog's owners.

Thanks very much for being with us, Mr. Cardoza. I just want to read to you, just for the benefit of our audience, the exchange that took place between your client and Nedra Ruiz, the lawyer for the defense. Ruiz said, how did -- Ruiz asked, "you did nothing to remedy the situation where your life partner lived in fear?" Smith: "We took action. We stayed away from the dogs. I didn't make a complaint. Now I wish I had." Then Ruiz with the big question: "Do you consider that had you made a complaint, Diane Whipple might be alive today?"

I want to get your reaction to that statement, both on a personal level and from a strategic point of view.

MICHAEL CARDOZA, SHARON SMITH'S ATTORNEY: Well, on a personal level, I too, was deeply offended by it. Sharon has gone through a year of grief counseling, and Nedra knew that. To be asked that question in a courtroom on, as you say, a personal level, way over the top and very insensitive. What it did was savage Sharon.

I'm not sure how long it is going to take her to get over that, because it didn't imply blaming her, it directly blamed her. If you had done that, she would be alive today. You know, have you considered that? That was devastating.

COOPER: You're saying it crossed the line. How about from a strategic point of view?

CARDOZA: From a strategic point, and I've been a trial attorney for 30 years, I think she damaged the defense so much with that question. But keep in mind that in this trial, Ms. Knoller constantly -- I mean, there's a constant foot travel of notes from Knoller to Nedra, "ask this question." And Nedra just will interrupt her cross- examination and ask the question that Knoller passes up to her.

I think that was Knoller's question. Nedra looked at it and probably without much thinking asked the question. It don't think it was tactically smart of her to do that. It was insensitive. I watched that jury. They visibly recoiled with that question. The judge came out of his seat and was leaning toward the district attorney waiting for the objection, which came, and he sustained in -- he was disgusted with it, too.

COOPER: How do you think Ruiz is doing? This is her first murder trial -- not just with what happened yesterday, but overall, how do you think she's doing? I mean, you see her on television, the opening statements, she was incredibly animated, to say the least.

CARDOZA: Well, I've done both prosecution for 15 years and defense attorney for 15 years. I've never seen an opening statement like that. I was taught by some great mentoring attorneys. And in opening statement, you don't get emotional with the jury. You certainly want to keep them interested, you want to tell the story to them, but you don't get as emotional as Nedra did.

I pass that off on her inexperience, because when she gets up in closing argument and does the same thing, they're going to say, we've seen this act. You're not going to impress us with this.

COOPER: And you think she's too much at the beck and call of her client?

CARDOZA: Oh, way too much. I mean, during cross-examination, she will be asking questions, for example, what happened in the hallway, Sharon? Or where were you that day? And she'll be going down a certain line of questioning. A note comes up to her, she'll stop her train of thought. She'll read it, go to a completely different subject and verbatim ask those two or three questions, then try and come back to what she was asking about.

No attorney that I know lets any client have that type of control. What you do is you tell them, sit there, write your questions out, when I'm through with my direct or my cross- examination, I will then ask you -- I'll ask the judge for a recess, if need be, I'll go over the questions and we can decide what, if any, of those we should ask.

She's being directed by Ms. Knoller in this case. And I think that's a horrible mistake, and I pass that off to her inexperience. She's got to control...

COOPER: Michael, we only have about 30 seconds left.

CARDOZA: OK.

COOPER: How is Susan Smith doing in all of this? I mean, an incredibly tough day on the stand.

CARDOZA: Oh, I'll tell you, after, Anderson, I spent about three hours with Sharon after. I mean, she was beside herself. She was distraught. She went back to her grief counselor today. To blame her for this? I asked her after, Sharon, for a second, do you believe what she asked you? Do you believe what -- that -- what she implied to you. She said no, intellectually, I really don't believe that, but, you know, and she thought, she said God, if I'd only got home earlier, if I had been there, it could have been me.

And it brought her back to that. That's why she was just savaged by that question, that insensitive question.

COOPER: All right, Michael Cardoza, thanks very much. I misspoke. As you pointed out, I called her Susan, I'm sorry about that.

CARDOZA: That's all right. That's no problem.

COOPER: Sharon. Give her our best tonight. Thanks very much.

CARDOZA: I will. Thank you, Anderson.

COOPER: Well, the dog mauling trial was moved from San Francisco, you may remember, to Los Angeles because of all the publicity. But what would any jury anywhere think of the legal tactics this jury is seeing? We're going to ask defense attorney Bernard Grimm. He joins us from Washington. And in Boston, defense attorney Henry Owens. Neither one is involved in the dog mauling case, we should point out.

Bernard, what, if anything, is Nedra Ruiz thinking?

BERNARD GRIMM, DEFENSE ATTORNEY: It appears -- and I'm not here to second guess a lawyer. Unless you are in the shoes of a lawyer in a courtroom involved in that dynamic, which can be very difficult, very stressful, I'm not here to second guess her.

However, how is she doing from a strategic point of view, not very well. If I could just dovetail on some of the points that Michael brought up. She's beyond emotional in a case where she should be toning down the emotion. You don't want the jury getting emotional. You want them looking at this case from a very technical standpoint, both as to the facts and to the law.

Second, you don't want to be having your client micromanage the case in the courtroom, because it's going to look like you've lost control and you're essentially becoming a mouthpiece for your client right in the courtroom. So strategically, I disagree with a lot of what she's doing. But I'm not here second guessing her.

COOPER: Henry, you have a person in mourning on the stand, a person who has obviously gone through an incredible trauma, a person who's crying in their testimony. Is a tough cross-examination a good idea?

HENRY OWENS, DEFENSE ATTORNEY: Well, I think on the facts of this case, I question the strategy of defense counsel. In a case -- unless she knows something about this jury that we don't know, it is very difficult to go after a witness in this type of situation, now try to blame the witness for the loss of the life of the victim.

So I don't know what she was thinking. And it maybe due to her inexperience, but my experience has been, in a situation like this, there's a lot of emotion on the side of the prosecution. You do not want to do anything to offend those jurors. Those are the same jurors in your closing argument that you want them to come back with not guilty.

COOPER: Well, I mean, Henry, it would seem beating up on a victim on the witness stand is a pretty good way to offend the jury, or to have the jury turn against you as a lawyer or your client.

OWENS: Well, it's not a strategy that I would use based upon the facts of this case. If anything, you want to endear yourself to the jury, try to say, this is a very emotional case, a tragedy. A person has lost their life, but there's some very extenuating circumstances, and my client cannot be found guilty of the charges.

COOPER: Bernie, I want to ask you, I mean, I suppose one might argue that Ms. Ruiz is trying to deflect attention away from what some people said was very damaging testimony. Kind of an interesting way she did it?

GRIMM: Yeah, if you want to deflect attention away from damaging testimony, you can do one of two things. You can have a forceful cross-examination that matches the force of the direct testimony, or you cannot ask any questions and get the witness off the stand, a witness that's very emotional. It was the partner of the victim.

Stepping back, there are cases back, strategically, there are cases where you do blame the victim and it's completely proper. In a rape case, where your client's charged with rape and the defense is consent, you're naturally saying the victim contributed to what happened, that it was consensual sex. In a self-defense case, where your client shot somebody and the defense that the victim shot first, you're blaming the victim. So there's nothing wrong with it. This just isn't the case to do it.

COOPER: Well, Henry, let me ask you. Ms. Ruiz did another thing yesterday, which was some people said was a mistake. She asked Ms. Smith about the civil suit that Ms. Smith has filed against the couple. I suppose the idea being get the jury to think, well, you know, money is a motive here. But in fact, it opened up a door for the prosecution. It allowed them to talk to Ms. Smith about why she thinks the couple is culpable. Was that a mistake?

OWENS: I think it was a grave mistake. I know you want to show that this witness is biased. But the jury already knows that the victim was her partner. So to open up that door, the first thing the prosecution said, OK, then why? Why? Because these people had this dog, killed my life partner. And so, the jury heard it again. So I think that was a grave mistake going into that about the civil lawsuit to try to show I'm only on this witness stand because now I want to get money. And she also -- the witness also stated that any proceeds from this civil case is going to go to a foundation. So, again, right between the eyes, right back at her.

COOPER: Bernie, let me ask you this. Clearly, Ruiz is trying to shift blame away from her clients. How difficult is that to do in a case like this and what do you think Ruiz is doing right? GRIMM: Well, it's -- we probably can't do it in the time we have, but in a nutshell, the government needs to prove in its manslaughter count against both defendants a reckless disregard for the life and safety of others. In order to do that, they have to prove the defendants had noticed that these dogs were essentially wild animals.

The reason they called Ms. Smith to the stand is to bring in the evidence of the prior bite. Therefore, the owners should have been aware that these dogs shouldn't be out. They should always be on leashes or maybe they even should be put to sleep. That was a good question.

To take the next step and then blame her partner for saying, well, had you complained to the proper authorities, she would be alive today, that was -- bordered on tragedy. I'm not blaming Ms. Ruiz. I remember my first murder trial. Fortunately, I did it with another lawyer who knew what he was doing because my client really wasn't too happy with what I was doing, but I was learning and I had insulation there with me. I didn't go into my first murder case just sort of out there flailing punches by myself. The next question was the problem and the jury would not only lose any respect or concern or care they had for the lawyer, that's going to overflow into the client, is the problem.

COOPER: Bernard, thanks very much. We're going to have to end it there tonight. We're simply out of time. Bernard Grimm, Henry Owens, thanks very much for being with us.

There is, of course, another trial making national headlines. Andrea Yates is charged with murder for drowning her children. This week's testimony focused on the family's religious beliefs. What, if anything, did those beliefs have to do with the tragedy? That's is our next point.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

COOPER: At the Andrea Yates trial today, a psychiatrist testified Yates believed she was saving her five children from an eternity in hell when she drowned them in her bathtub last June. He added Mrs. Yates did not know the difference between right and wrong.

Now the Yates' religious beliefs have become a focus of testimony just this week. On the witness stand, Russell Yates talked about his family's relationship with one particular preacher, saying the preacher told the family that by age 14 or 15, it is too late to undo society's damage to a child. Later, the preacher issued a written statement which you're seeing now, saying in part: "If Rusty thinks that painting a picture of me as a crazy madman will in any way help the defense of his wife, then so be it. I will gladly sacrifice my reputation if it can spare Andrea from the death penalty and give her a second chance at life."

"Flashpoint": keeping faith. We're going to talk things over right now with Suzie Spencer. She's the author of a book about the Yates case, "Breaking Point." Thanks very much for being with us, Suzie.

I just want to start off this conversation by, you know, letting people in our audience know that we're not in any way looking to cast aspersions on anyone's religious beliefs. What we're trying to do tonight is really paint a picture of the religious life in that household. And secondly, try to see, what, if anything that had to do with the form Andrea Yates' psychosis took.

Let me ask, you spent a lot of time with Russell Yates. What role did religion play in that household?

SUZIE SPENCER, AUTHOR, "BREAKING POINT": Well, it was obviously very important. They had bible study there at home. We've seen pictures from inside the home where they had biblical sayings all over the place. And when Andrea would go shopping for the curriculum for the kids' for home schooling, she always said I want the religious curriculum.

COOPER: What form of religious belief was it? It wasn't necessarily sort of mainstream -- they received a lot of pamphlets from this traveling preacher. Tell us a little bit about that.

SPENCER: Well, the way Rusty explains it, in fact Rusty, when I would talk to him, would try to avoid the topic of the preacher and say he was just this kind of quiet and simple preacher. But when I would go out and do research and talk to college students about him, I would get a totally different thing, like the preacher believes that all women are wicked and evil, in fact, he has a brochure called the "Witch and the Wimp." All women are witches, all men are wimps. And that is sort of the basis.

I have letters that the preacher's wife wrote to Andrea, where she's constantly saying, you're a descendant of Eve, you're wicked, God knows how wicked you are.

COOPER: Now, Andrea Yates went through natural childbirth in every case without any sort of medication on the advice of the preacher's wife, is that correct?

SPENCER: Well, what has come out in court is that the preacher believes that natural childbirth is a humbling experience. And so that's why they went through it, because it was a humbling experience.

COOPER: She apparently had -- Andrea Yates, after killing her children, apparently told her brother that Satan was inside her. She apparently had talked to a doctor about wanting to shave her head to reveal a 666. Was that anything -- that sort of religious iconography, had that been expressed earlier?

SPENCER: Well, one of the things that I've learned in all of this is that the last thing you do is talk to a psychotic patient about religion, because their brains can't process it and it gets all twisted up. So when the Warneckis (ph) from what I see in the letters I have from the summer of '98 to the spring of '99, they started really hammering Andrea about her faith, saying you've got to do it now, you know, believe now. The window of opportunity is closing. We won't be in your lives much longer. And it was in the summer of '99, after having been hammered for months about this, that she attempted suicide the first time believing that she was trying to save the kids, you know, because she was bad, she was evil and she wanted to kill herself rather than them.

COOPER: There have been some people who have suggested, you know, as strange as it may seem, to some people, sort of a religious demonic possession. I'm wondering if Russell Yates had indicated anything like that to you?

SPENCER: No, he hasn't. In fact, his religious beliefs, from what I get, even though he follows the Warneckis, like whatever they do, he does -- I get the feeling that his beliefs aren't quite as out there, so to speak, as the Warneckis. Because Rusty refers to himself as a Christian. And the Warneckis say we are not Christians, don't call us that because all Christians are hypocrites. In the letters, yes, it's sort of like Satan is in you, the demons are in you. But I've never heard this from Rusty.

COOPER: All right, Suzie Spencer. The book is "Breaking Point," a very interesting read. Thank you very much for being with us.

SPENCER: Thank you.

COOPER: Coming up next, sex and the male college student for credit, guess where?

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

COOPER: Time for a quick "Final Point" tonight.

Some people worry the American educational system is stifling. Au contraire, mon frere. You all will be relieved to know the University of California at Berkeley has reinstated its male sexuality class. But perhaps you're unaware there even was a male sexuality class. Well get this, it is a student-run class for credit, which the course catalog describes as -- quote -- "a safe environment in which men may learn about their own bodies and male sexuality," how educational. How like California, dude?

The class was suspended when a campus newspaper reported that some students went to a strip club where they watched an instructor disrobe and had a party where they took pictures of their private parts and even had an orgy. Sounds like a pretty safe environment to me.

Why was the male sexuality class reinstated, you might ask? Well, it turns out all the, shall we say, extracurricular activities were just that, extracurricular and not mandatory. So class is back in session. But don't worry, if you can't get in there are still plenty of other great classes at UC Berkeley, among them, "Joy of Garbage," "The Erotic as Power," "Deconstructing Professional Wrestling" and "The Grateful Dead." Only in California.

Your assignment, let us know what you think. In lieu of a three- page essay with footnotes, just send an e-mail to thepoint@cnn.com. I am Anderson Cooper in New York.

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