Return to Transcripts main page

American Morning

Interview with Frank Rubino, Defense Attorney

Aired April 26, 2002 - 07:49   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.
PAULA ZAHN, CNN ANCHOR: We're going to return to the other story that deserves a lot of attention today, and that is the upcoming trial of Zacarias Moussaoui. And lawyers for the accused 9/11 terrorist are asking for a thorough psychiatric examination to determine if he is, in fact, mentally competent to defend himself.

On Monday you might remember that Moussaoui demanded that his court appointed attorneys be fired and actually accused them of conspiring with the government to have him executed. He also went on a 55 minute rant against the United States.

Moussaoui is charged with conspiracy in the 9/11 attacks and faces a possible death sentence.

Joining us now to talk more about the motion filed by Moussaoui's lawyers from Miami, criminal defense attorney Frank Rubino.

Welcome back, Frank.

FRANK RUBINO, CRIMINAL DEFENSE ATTORNEY: Good morning, Paula. It's good to be here with you.

ZAHN: Thank you.

So what do you make of this latest move, that his attorneys want a psychiatric evaluation done on him?

RUBINO: Well, as your headline said, crazy like a fox. The interesting issue is there are two, it's a two-pronged test. First, sanity, which is pretty clear cut. Sanity is does the defendant understand the difference between right and wrong and does he understand the consequences of his act. I think this...

ZAHN: Do you think he does?

RUBINO: Oh, clearly. There's no question. This man went about what he did with intent and design. This is not a delusional person. This is not a paranoid schizophrenic. In the vernacular we may call him crazy, but he's clearly legally sane.

ZAHN: And then go on to the second prong of that that you were leading to.

RUBINO: The second prong is where we get the real balancing act. The second prong is, is he competent to conduct his own defense? Normally competency is only is he competent to aid and assist his lawyer in presenting the defense. And that, again, is a pretty easy test, assuming one just has a, no better than a dull normal mentality, they can assist their lawyer.

ZAHN: So based on what you've heard --

RUBINO: But in this...

ZAHN: ... this guy's rant in the courtroom earlier this week, does he also pass the second test?

RUBINO: The second test is where the judge is going to have to conduct a real balancing act. Is he competent to conduct his defense? Well, is he intelligent enough to conduct his defense? Probably so. Is he able to understand our complex legal system? Probably so. But the real question that I would ask, especially based upon the pleadings, is does he intend to put on a legitimate defense?

ZAHN: Well, that is a very good question to raise because there are a lot of folks out there that think if he defends himself it's simply going to be a show trial and a repeat of this performance we saw earlier this week. Is that your fear?

RUBINO: I completely agree with that. I think what he wants to do is not plead his case, but plead his cause. And I don't think the judge should allow him to do that. We have certain rules of court. As long as he abides by them, he should be entitled to put on his defense. But if he wants to put on his cause and not his defense, I think the judge should shut that down and prohibit it.

ZAHN: We should also talk about the fact that if he ends up defending himself, what the issue of whether he will be used to be able to look at any of the classified information that's complied against him that his lawyers are supposed to have access to, but he's not allowed to see. What would a judge do with this ruling?

RUBINO: Under CIPA, which is known as the Classified Information Procedures Act, that presents a huge problem because the lawyers themselves would have to get a top security clearance just to view that material. How in god's name could we give a man like this a top security clearance and allow him to look at material of that nature? That would be just ludicrous.

ZAHN: And then, of course, the other issue is if he defends himself how he would ever interview any witnesses. I mean what -- I don't even know how this would work, do you?

RUBINO: I think what he's trying to do is maneuver the court into a position where they're kind of be darned if they do and be darned if they don't. If they don't let him defend himself, he comes back on appeal and says I was denied the right to defend myself. If they let him defend himself and then he puts on this mockery of a defense, then he comes and says see, I wasn't competent, therefore I should get a new trial.

He wants to put the court in that position.

ZAHN: Basically everything you've said today suggests that this judge is going to be under enormous pressure. We've already seen this other judge get a lot of flak for letting this guy go on for 55 minutes and you said actually you agreed with her strategy, even though it might have ended up damaging his case. But let's move on to the next step. What is this judge up against?

RUBINO: This judge has got problems with this man and the way he's maneuvering along. What he's trying to do, in my opinion, is to manipulate our justice system. And we've got to understand the tail should never wag the dog. We have rules. We have a legitimate court system with legitimate rules. He either can follow those rules or he can step aside and let a lawyer take over. But he should not be able to change the rules nor should we dare change them for him.

ZAHN: Well, we always appreciate your perspective and look forward to having you back and keeping us posted on all the latest developments in this case.

Frank Rubino, have a good weekend. Thanks for your time this morning.

RUBINO: Thank you for having me.

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