Return to Transcripts main page

CNN Live Saturday

Interview With Kendall Coffey, Former U.S. Attorney

Aired June 08, 2002 - 12:15   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.
FREDRICKA WHITFIELD, CNN ANCHOR: ... verdict I have ever had or will ever have in my life, but I will tell you that as long as there is a breath there my body, this case is not over as far as I am concerned."

Is this case over? Does he have a chance at his appeal?

KENDALL COFFEY, FORMER U.S. ATTORNEY: There's a shot, but appeals are always tough. This has got to be one of the most stunning prosecution victories in years in a high-profile case. Facts go back 27 years, no forensics tying the victim to the defendant, such as fingerprints or blood.

And with each of the witnesses, with each brick prosecution evidence, it appeared that defense lawyer, Mickey Sherman, was raising questions, cracking the brick, sometimes knocking big holes in them. But was this such a surprising outcome? First of all, this is 27 years old, but it is the crime of a horrible murder. That's not the kind of thing that a jury is going to think ultimately should go unpunished.

And while you didn't have traditional forensic evidence, let's face it, the murder weapon was right there next to the victim, and it was a golf club that came from the Skakel home.

WHITFIELD: So in your view that's really all it took, that golf club that once belonged to his mother and was found at his home, was the evidence they needed, even though there was no blood samples, there was no semen, there was no other physical evidence in which to secure a conviction for Michael Skakel?

COFFEY: Well, let's face it, the murder weapon is sometimes the most important physical evidence, but beyond that -- and there's been references to there was no eyewitness -- but according to the jury, the most important eyewitness was Michael Skakel himself and a number of comments he made over the years that amounted to self- incrimination.

And at every turn, it seemed that Mickey Sherman was raising questions about the creditability of each witness. But after a while, if you get enough bricks, even with some cracks and even bricks that are very old, the prosecution can build a wall that reaches the level of guilty of murder. And so there might have been one or two witnesses that seemed unbalanced, that couldn't be relied upon. But after you got to more than half a dozen witnesses that said that, in effect, Skakel said things to them that seemed tantamount to admitting the crime of murder.

WHITFIELD: I'm sorry, how significant do you see now that this Skakel case may have set precedence, particularly, for other high- profile cases dealing with celebrity types that wealth and their celebrity will not necessarily protect them?

COFFEY: Well, that's a very important question, because does this case say the prosecutors can really turn back the hands of time on very old cases. That's important not only with respect to unsolved murder cases, but let's face it, there are a number of Catholic clergy right now that are facing allegations civilly and criminally of events that go back 15, 20 years ago. And I think with the Skakel verdict, it's going to become much easier for people to come forward, and perhaps in some way for prosecutors to make charging decisions that examine what otherwise might seem to be cases too old to bring up again.

WHITFIELD: Well, let's now shift gears now. This is a fairly recent case, but it does involve another celebrity, former New Jersey Jet star Jason Williams. He pleaded not guilty to aggravated manslaughter. At first, the jury wanted a manslaughter charge; now it's aggravated manslaughter, which means a much stiffer sentence if convicted, if this does indeed go to trial.

What really is at stake here? What is the difference between aggravated manslaughter and manslaughter?

COFFEY: Well, there's a huge difference when the charges were upgraded from second degree man slaughter to first degree manslaughter. That means under first degree manslaughter, he could face as many as 30 years. But what happened here is you had not what anybody thinks was an intentional murder; it was a terrible accident, which, in a amateurish, bumbling way, he attempted apparently to cover up.

So what I think this case calls out for is, frankly, a plea deal, not to first degree manslaughter, but perhaps to some event of the apparent obstruction or the cover-up, and hopefully at some point they're going to get to that, because there are at least, according to the prosecution, a number of witnesses that can show that he either tried to have fingerprints removed, tried to have blood stained clothes buried, things like that. So from a defense standpoint, it is going to be tough to deal with the obstruction issues.

WHITFIELD: OK, real quick, yes or no question. When it comes to the Levy investigation, the private investigators hired by the family found a bone which they believe are part of the remains of Chandra Levy that were overlooked by D.C. police. Yes or no, do the family members have any legal recourse to seek against the D.C. police?

COFFEY: Probably almost assuredly no, but they ought to be mighty upset. WHITFIELD: All right. Thanks very much -- Kendall Coffey, former U.S. attorney, thanks for joining us. I appreciate all of those high profile cases we will all be watching.

COFFEY: Thank you.

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