Return to Transcripts main page

CNN Live Today

New Trouble for Former NBA Star

Aired April 26, 2002 - 14:31   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.
BILL HEMMER, CNN ANCHOR: New trouble again today for former NBA star, Jayson Williams. A friend has cut a deal with prosecutors and will testify against Williams at his manslaughter trial. Kent Culuko pleaded guilty to tampering with witnesses and evidence in the scene at that mansion in New Jersey.

In an exclusive tape of the court proceedings obtained by CNN, Culuko, off camera in this particular shot, questioned by a prosecutor. He tells the prosecutor he wiped Williams' fingerprints off the shotgun used to shoot Williams' limo driver.

More on the other legal matters of the day. We're joined by a double dose today. Court TV anchor Catherine Crier is sitting next to me. From New York, our legal analyst, Jeffrey Toobin is with us as well.

Jeffrey, good to see you.

JEFFREY TOOBIN, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: Hi, Bill. Hi, Catherine.

HEMMER: Good to see you, too, Catherine.

CATHERINE CRIER, COURT TV: Hey, there. Hi, Jeffrey.

HEMMER: Jeffrey, you're closer to the state of New Jersey.

TOOBIN: That's true.

HEMMER: I use that as my peg here, essentially. What do you make of this friend, who could essentially be a star witness right now, in the Jayson Williams matter?

TOOBIN: This is really sort of prosecution 101. If you have a group of people involved potentially in criminal activity, you work your way up from the bottom.

You have a -- a celebrated potential defendant, or now a defendant, Jayson Williams, who was alleged to have shot this gun. And there's this alleged cover-up. So you go to the people who were there and you try to squeeze them for pleas. Here, Culuko pleaded guilty. I think it's going to be very damaging evidence against Williams.

It is worth noting that he got a very sweet deal. He got a no jail time plea. So if this case goes to trial, that will be something that Williams' attorneys will be able to work with.

HEMMER: Prosecutor's dream?

CRIER: Of course it is. I'm an ex-prosecutor. That's what you do. If this case goes to trial was something important Jeffrey just said -- I'm not sure it will. The evidence is certainly piled up against him. You've got this tampering with evidence.

But what it is, it's a negligent activity. He had too much to drink, he was waving the gun around, as we understand the facts, as alleged. And the gun went off. So it's not as if someone was covering up a murder, even though it was a bad thing to do -- wrong thing, boys.

HEMMER: Interesting. Let's go to California and talk about the Robert Blake case here. Prosecutors now say they're not going to seek the death penalty. He's 68 years old. Is age a factor involved here?

CRIER: I'd like to think it was. But I think that we have a couple of levels of justice in this country. You don't go after O.J. in a double murder that was planned out. You do go after David Westerfield in the same state for the killing of a little girl, which is a horrific deal. Don't have a problem with that.

But then you don't go against Blake. Very well planned out.

HEMMER: What are you suggesting?

CRIER: I'm suggesting that they pick and choose their cases. They pick and choose cases where a jury will be upset enough at the activity that they will go along with what the DA wants. And in this case maybe they don't think they need a tough enough jury which has been death penalty qualified.

HEMMER: Interesting. Jeffrey, do you agree with that?

TOOBIN: I'm a little more sympathetic to the prosecutors in this case. Since the United States Supreme Court reinstated the death penalty in the United States in 1976, the oldest person to be executed is 66 years old. Blake is 68 today and he's not even been tried.

I think it would have been a very tough case. If you look at the potential special circumstances, the things under California law that potentially qualify someone for the death penalty, they are things like double murder, financial gain and yes, lying in wait, which is the one that was potentially applicable here.

I think this was a very tough case.

(CROSSTALK)

CRIER: None of those apply to David Westerfield, of course. And we're willing to execute people who are 17.

HEMMER: Tell me this -- and I want you both to jump on this. Viewers tell us, why should we care about the Robert Blake matter? A washed up actor, he's accuse of murder. If he is guilty, we shall see down the road. Murders happen every day in this country. What is special about this case, other than it's Hollywood, it's a murder mystery?

CRIER: Well, but it's the same thing. The Van Dam case was special because it was a beautiful little girl that we were all searching for for days. There are horrific murders all over. This is one that we can look at as maybe the post O.J., in the sense that the LAPD is going to demonstrate whether it's gotten its act together, whether it can competently prosecute again and maybe restore a bit of its integrity. We'll see.

HEMMER: Interesting point too, because it took about a year to bring these charges.

CRIER: For that reason.

HEMMER: Jeffrey, do you think right now the prosecution has holes in its case? Are you seeing any?

TOOBIN: Boy, it's hard for me to say at this point...

HEMMER: I that's that's your beeper.

TOOBIN: I'm learning how to use it. This is my first week here at CNN.

HEMMER: I've heard it three times.

TOOBIN: Trying to figure out how to turn it off.

HEMMER: Take your time.

TOOBIN: This is a really early stage. The preliminary hearing will be scheduled next week. I think that's the first time witnesses will come forward. But boy, when you talk about a planned murder, I mean, as Catherine said, you have not just the alleged murder itself, but possible solicitation of murder, with these two stuntmen. That's a bad -- that's a bad problem for Blake, if it's true.

HEMMER: Jeffrey, take care of that.

Back here in Atlanta, we want to shift our focus a little bit. The reason why we're hopping around so much is that, frankly, there is a lot to talk about. Let's talk about the Catholic Church right now. There appears to be a battle on the inside of the church that suggests that they're not quite sure how to handle matters that occurred, possibly, of abuse years ago, maybe 10 or 20 or 30, pick your time frame.

How is it that an institution like the Catholic Church can sort this out? Or do they need the legal process to step in and assist on this going forward?

CRIER: Well, the legal process cannot intrude upon the province of the church. They have to make their own decisions about those things that we know not of. And there are plenty of priests that they know about, we don't.

Now, the pope did come out and say this is a crime and thank god, because we were not getting that conversation two months ago from the Vatican, when he issued in Italian a decree -- so that no one was paying attention -- that basically we will continue to take care of this in our own house.

But interestingly, I had a conversation last night with Father Tom Hartman of the god squad. This morning I was doing a panel with Bill Bennett, good Catholic boy that he is, and got both of their perspectives. I got the impression they're both disappointed with the not zero-tolerance. The church needs a zero tolerance policy. They must cooperate with prosecutors.

And additional, I asked Father Tom, what do you think about Cardinal Law? And he's such a diplomat. And he said, once a year priests and nuns rethink their relationship with the church. Each year they have to decide whether to stay or not.

He said I'm sure the cardinal is going through that right now. Cardinal Law should not be going to the Vatican. He should be stepping down.

HEMMER: I'm going to get a final word, Jeffrey Toobin. Jump in on this one, Jeffrey.

(CROSSTALK)

HEMMER: Go ahead.

TOOBIN: I just think that, as we look ahead on this church scandal, there are going to be two tracks, I think, the civil and criminal. I think criminally, it's going to be very difficult to make any cases against the church leadership. I think those are very tough cases.

But I think the civil liability of the Catholic Church, as this snowballs and snowballs, each of these verdicts is for millions of dollars. I think that's the incredible peril that the church faces. And it's only going to get worse and worse as they start to fund-raise in this environment. I don't know how they're going to do it.

CRIER: And, Bill, I left Dallas in the '80s right after a huge multimillion dollar verdict to one of these cases. The church has taken a lot of hits. They can afford it.

HEMMER: I tell you, I think a lot of people right now are sitting back and waiting to see what happens in June, when the bishops get together and convene and possibly move it even further than some people would have liked to have seen at this point.

Thank you, Catherine.

CRIER: You bet. Good to see you.

HEMMER: Pleasure. In person, too. CRIER: Thanks.

HUME: Jeffrey, thanks. We'll talk to you again soon, all right? Jeffrey Toobin, our legal analyst there in New York City.

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