Return to Transcripts main page

CNN Live At Daybreak

'Legal Grounds,' Morning Coffey

Aired August 19, 2002 - 06:34   ET

THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.

CAROL COSTELLO, CNN ANCHOR: Now to our regular DAYBREAK feature, "Legal Grounds" with legal analyst, Kendall Coffey. Kendall joins us live in Atlanta this time to talk about what's on the court docket this week.
Welcome to Atlanta.

KENDALL COFFEY, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: Well, good morning, Carol.

COSTELLO: Glad you have business here, and you're joining us live and in person.

COFFEY: My pleasure.

COSTELLO: Let's talk about the David Westerfield trial. The jury has been deliberating now for eight days, and of course, Westerfield is accused of killing 7-year-old Danielle Van Dam. This jury has been out a long time. Do you think it will wrap up this week?

COFFEY: I think it's going to wrap up this week, and while it's still too early in the deliberation for prosecutors to be pressing the panic button, the fact is that the defense has given the jury something to think about, not the parents' lifestyle. I don't think a wacky lifestyle or pot smoking by the parents is going to keep a jury from doing justice in something like the murder-abduction of a small child. But clearly, the defense has planted some seeds of question marks about the time-of-death issue, and the jury asked for some more evidence on that Friday.

So they're working through this thing. It's still too early for the prosecution to panic, but obviously, the jury is studying this very closely.

COSTELLO: This has been such a bizarre trial, with jury members being kind of harassed by some members of the media. Do you think there is any chance the judge will change his mind and sequester the jury for the remainder of the trial?

COFFEY: No. I think this judge has staked out his position. And to a certain extent, the length of the jury deliberation, I think, proves his point. That is, this jury hasn't been steamrolled into a quick decision by media coverage. They're not asking for tapes of media coverage of other cases. What they are doing is focusing on the evidence within the same trial.

So in a sense, the length of deliberation, the way the jury has gone about it, I think will make this case clearly a matter of thoughtful jury deliberation, which means for appellate purposes, it's going to stand more strongly.

COSTELLO: Let's talk a little bit about the scandal on Wall Street. About 700 companies gave the SEC these financial reports, swearing to the accuracy of their accounting practices. So what happens to these things now?

COFFEY: Well, they've got huge piles of them, and the truth is that the big difference here is an oath, "to the best of my knowledge." And what's going to happen is there are going to be some cases that can be prosecuted with greater jury appeal than before, because rather than CEOs dumping everything off on the accountants and the lawyers, where the CEO undertakes his or her own oath, raises the hand and swears to it, if there are bad numbers in some of those reports, I think it's going to make the prosecutors' role that much easier.

COSTELLO: OK. So this is not all for naught.

COFFEY: No, I think it's...

COSTELLO: This really matters.

COFFEY: It's going to make a difference in the ability to prosecute cases where the books have been cooked.

COSTELLO: OK, let's move on to the anthrax investigation. Dr. Steven Hatfill is a "person of interest." Could it be possible that the government could declare him an enemy combatant?

COFFEY: That is a fascinating question, because right now, this whole issue of enemy combatant is being played out in the federal courts in Virginia. So far, the administration would say, of course not. But in this whole enemy combatant legal analysis, what the administration needs to do is lay down some limits, some explanation of who can be an enemy combatant. If not, literally anybody that's seen as an enemy on the war of terrorism could be, and that ought to be something that ought to make any American a little bit concerned.

COSTELLO: The courts are becoming more and more concerned about this, aren't they?

COFFEY: They are. And real issue is that they don't want to intrude on the administration's ability to fight the war on terrorism, but nor do they want to have the courthouse doors closed. So there has got to be some middle ground that hasn't been developed yet. The courts need to have a role. The administration needs to fight the war on terrorism. Some kind of balance needs to be achieved. It hasn't been yet.

COSTELLO: Oh, we'll see. Thank you very much, Kendall Coffey, for stopping by this morning. We sure appreciate it, and we'll see you next Monday.

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