Return to Transcripts main page
American Morning
Prosecutors in Sniper Investigation Moving Deliberately to Build Case
Aired October 25, 2002 - 08:34 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: Prosecutors in the sniper investigation are moving deliberately to build their cases, now that John Allen Muhammad and John Lee Malvo are in custody. For more now on the next legal steps, let's go to national correspondent Bob Franken.
He joins us from the federal courthouse in Baltimore this morning.
Good morning, Bob.
BOB FRANKEN, CNN NATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Good morning, Paula.
They're alleged to be mass murderers, but now, they're defendants. And shortly after their arrest yesterday, they were whisked to Baltimore, Maryland, where we are to the federal courthouse here for the initial legal proceedings, those jurisdictional proceedings. The charges, up until now, have very little to do with the sniping attacks that so consumed the Washington area for over three weeks. And there are a number of intricate legal questions that are going to have to be answered. They will have to be meetings to decide, first of all, what is the jurisdiction for the all-important first trial?
Montgomery County, Maryland, would seem to have the strongest claim because so many of the incidents happened there. But there are many who are in the prosecution community who want to go to the place for that first trial where there is the best chance of the death penalty. Maryland hasn't had an execution since 1998. There is a moratorium, as a matter of fact, in the state has only had three executions since 1976 when capital punishment was imposed.
Virginia, where other killings occurred, on the other hand, has had 86 executions since 1976. And there are questions about maybe whether the trial should be there. That's the kind of thing that has to be negotiated. There is also the role of the federal court system, with particularly the Northern Virginia court system, with its so- called rocket docket and its prosecution friendly kind of climate. The argument being made that is where the case should be conducted. So those kind of questions have to be worked out.
And, Paula, as you well know, these things are done very deliberately, and in the system of jurisprudence in the United States, it's deliberate for good reason.
ZAHN: What is the realistic timetable here? FRANKEN: Well, that's a good question. That's one of the things they will have to work out. They will have to work out exactly what and when the legal proceedings will proceed. Each jurisdiction has a different procedure. What we do know is that the next court appearance is here at the Baltimore federal courthouse next Tuesday.
ZAHN: Thanks so much, Bob. Appreciate it.
From Washington State to Washington D.C., people are breathing a collective sigh of relief now that the sniper suspects are in custody. Prosecutors today, as Bob just explained, are discussing how charges and where charges should be filed. But on the other side, how can an attorney defend suspects in such a horrific case that has drawn overwhelming national attention and overwhelming hatred of these two men that are soon to be charged with these crimes?
Joining us from Miami to talk about that and how prosecutors might proceed, former U.S. attorney Kendall Coffey.
Good to see you again, Kendall. Welcome.
KENDALL COFFEY, FMR. U.S. ATTY.: Hey, good morning, Paula.
ZAHN: Hey, I want you to help us understand the thought process any attorney would go through if he or she were asked to represent either one of these two men. Given what police have told us so far about this case, would your conscience allow you to represent either one of them?
COFFEY: I wouldn't do it, but I would sure have a lot of respect and admiration for the attorneys would. It's an essential part of the process. And ironically, nothing delays death penalty cases more than post-conviction allegations about ineffective assistance of counsel. So, in a sense, those who want to see the ultimate punishment for these suspects or whoever did it really have, in a way, a very strong interest in seeing them competently and energetically represented.
ZAHN: Why would you not represent either one of them?
COFFEY: Because I'm convinced that they did it from what I've seen. I think it's an overwhelming, although circumstantial case. As an attorney, I certainly believe in this kind of representation, but it's something I would not choose to do.
But that is very different, Paula, from some of the outrageous hatred that is cascading upon the attorneys that have the courage to stand up and do what our Constitution requires. They deserve our admiration. But more often than not, they have reviled, their reviled, their entire lives become ordeals when they handle these kind of cases.
ZAHN: But you're not surprised by that at all, given the nature of these crimes?
COFFEY: No, I'm not surprised. But you have to accept that in our country, there is going to be a whole process that examines every step of the way, and so they are getting a fair trial, going by the book, having attorneys be not just competent, but aggressive is essential to making sure that not only justice is done, but that there are no appellate reversals that could actually obstruct the path to the death penalty here.
ZAHN: How many cases like this where a defense attorney is representing a pariah? Do you think the attorney goes into the case believing that his client might have some guilt?
COFFEY: A lot. And it's going to be a terrifying, although perhaps in some ways, an exciting experience for attorneys. But the vast majority of defendants in criminal cases are guilty. Their lawyers know they're guilty, so that's the starting point.
What makes this so much more difficult is not just the overwhelming evidence of guilt, not just frankly the vast amount of publicity, but the sense that wherever you live, and the attorney is going to be coming from those communities, your neighbors, your friends, your school children's friends, are going to be appalled that anyone would handle such a case. But, Paula, That is the essence of our system and, frankly, that is the essence of courage for a lawyer.
ZAHN: I think we all try to understand that, but we are just curious what kind of strategy a defense attorney could possibly be using in this case. I guess the most obvious thing is get the kid to turn against the adult?
COFFEY: Yes. And there are two strategies here, because there appear to be two defendants. From the standpoint of 17-year-old John Malvo, it's not such a hopeless case in terms of some prospect of avoiding the death penalty. He was younger. We don't know yet how much he was directly involved in the shooting. And, depending upon how prosecutors make judgments, he may get an opportunity to cooperate.
The virtually impossible case is going to be the representation of John Muhammad. That's going to be a case where he tries to somehow suggest that maybe there was someone in a white van that ultimately did it. Meanwhile, the attorney will be picking and chipping away at every legal issue, not the least of which will be pretrial publicity. So they'll be attacking the media for denying them a right of a fair trial and attacking the police authorities, saying that they got so frustrated in this investigation that they found a scapegoat. Those are awfully far-fetched, but if you're representing John Muhammad, there is not much other place to go.
ZAHN: Kendall Coffey, as always, good to hear your perspective. Thanks so much for joining us this morning.
TO ORDER A VIDEO OF THIS TRANSCRIPT, PLEASE CALL 800-CNN-NEWS OR USE OUR SECURE ONLINE ORDER FORM LOCATED AT www.fdch.com
Build Case>
Aired October 25, 2002 - 08:34 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
PAULA ZAHN, CNN ANCHOR: Prosecutors in the sniper investigation are moving deliberately to build their cases, now that John Allen Muhammad and John Lee Malvo are in custody. For more now on the next legal steps, let's go to national correspondent Bob Franken.
He joins us from the federal courthouse in Baltimore this morning.
Good morning, Bob.
BOB FRANKEN, CNN NATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Good morning, Paula.
They're alleged to be mass murderers, but now, they're defendants. And shortly after their arrest yesterday, they were whisked to Baltimore, Maryland, where we are to the federal courthouse here for the initial legal proceedings, those jurisdictional proceedings. The charges, up until now, have very little to do with the sniping attacks that so consumed the Washington area for over three weeks. And there are a number of intricate legal questions that are going to have to be answered. They will have to be meetings to decide, first of all, what is the jurisdiction for the all-important first trial?
Montgomery County, Maryland, would seem to have the strongest claim because so many of the incidents happened there. But there are many who are in the prosecution community who want to go to the place for that first trial where there is the best chance of the death penalty. Maryland hasn't had an execution since 1998. There is a moratorium, as a matter of fact, in the state has only had three executions since 1976 when capital punishment was imposed.
Virginia, where other killings occurred, on the other hand, has had 86 executions since 1976. And there are questions about maybe whether the trial should be there. That's the kind of thing that has to be negotiated. There is also the role of the federal court system, with particularly the Northern Virginia court system, with its so- called rocket docket and its prosecution friendly kind of climate. The argument being made that is where the case should be conducted. So those kind of questions have to be worked out.
And, Paula, as you well know, these things are done very deliberately, and in the system of jurisprudence in the United States, it's deliberate for good reason.
ZAHN: What is the realistic timetable here? FRANKEN: Well, that's a good question. That's one of the things they will have to work out. They will have to work out exactly what and when the legal proceedings will proceed. Each jurisdiction has a different procedure. What we do know is that the next court appearance is here at the Baltimore federal courthouse next Tuesday.
ZAHN: Thanks so much, Bob. Appreciate it.
From Washington State to Washington D.C., people are breathing a collective sigh of relief now that the sniper suspects are in custody. Prosecutors today, as Bob just explained, are discussing how charges and where charges should be filed. But on the other side, how can an attorney defend suspects in such a horrific case that has drawn overwhelming national attention and overwhelming hatred of these two men that are soon to be charged with these crimes?
Joining us from Miami to talk about that and how prosecutors might proceed, former U.S. attorney Kendall Coffey.
Good to see you again, Kendall. Welcome.
KENDALL COFFEY, FMR. U.S. ATTY.: Hey, good morning, Paula.
ZAHN: Hey, I want you to help us understand the thought process any attorney would go through if he or she were asked to represent either one of these two men. Given what police have told us so far about this case, would your conscience allow you to represent either one of them?
COFFEY: I wouldn't do it, but I would sure have a lot of respect and admiration for the attorneys would. It's an essential part of the process. And ironically, nothing delays death penalty cases more than post-conviction allegations about ineffective assistance of counsel. So, in a sense, those who want to see the ultimate punishment for these suspects or whoever did it really have, in a way, a very strong interest in seeing them competently and energetically represented.
ZAHN: Why would you not represent either one of them?
COFFEY: Because I'm convinced that they did it from what I've seen. I think it's an overwhelming, although circumstantial case. As an attorney, I certainly believe in this kind of representation, but it's something I would not choose to do.
But that is very different, Paula, from some of the outrageous hatred that is cascading upon the attorneys that have the courage to stand up and do what our Constitution requires. They deserve our admiration. But more often than not, they have reviled, their reviled, their entire lives become ordeals when they handle these kind of cases.
ZAHN: But you're not surprised by that at all, given the nature of these crimes?
COFFEY: No, I'm not surprised. But you have to accept that in our country, there is going to be a whole process that examines every step of the way, and so they are getting a fair trial, going by the book, having attorneys be not just competent, but aggressive is essential to making sure that not only justice is done, but that there are no appellate reversals that could actually obstruct the path to the death penalty here.
ZAHN: How many cases like this where a defense attorney is representing a pariah? Do you think the attorney goes into the case believing that his client might have some guilt?
COFFEY: A lot. And it's going to be a terrifying, although perhaps in some ways, an exciting experience for attorneys. But the vast majority of defendants in criminal cases are guilty. Their lawyers know they're guilty, so that's the starting point.
What makes this so much more difficult is not just the overwhelming evidence of guilt, not just frankly the vast amount of publicity, but the sense that wherever you live, and the attorney is going to be coming from those communities, your neighbors, your friends, your school children's friends, are going to be appalled that anyone would handle such a case. But, Paula, That is the essence of our system and, frankly, that is the essence of courage for a lawyer.
ZAHN: I think we all try to understand that, but we are just curious what kind of strategy a defense attorney could possibly be using in this case. I guess the most obvious thing is get the kid to turn against the adult?
COFFEY: Yes. And there are two strategies here, because there appear to be two defendants. From the standpoint of 17-year-old John Malvo, it's not such a hopeless case in terms of some prospect of avoiding the death penalty. He was younger. We don't know yet how much he was directly involved in the shooting. And, depending upon how prosecutors make judgments, he may get an opportunity to cooperate.
The virtually impossible case is going to be the representation of John Muhammad. That's going to be a case where he tries to somehow suggest that maybe there was someone in a white van that ultimately did it. Meanwhile, the attorney will be picking and chipping away at every legal issue, not the least of which will be pretrial publicity. So they'll be attacking the media for denying them a right of a fair trial and attacking the police authorities, saying that they got so frustrated in this investigation that they found a scapegoat. Those are awfully far-fetched, but if you're representing John Muhammad, there is not much other place to go.
ZAHN: Kendall Coffey, as always, good to hear your perspective. Thanks so much for joining us this morning.
TO ORDER A VIDEO OF THIS TRANSCRIPT, PLEASE CALL 800-CNN-NEWS OR USE OUR SECURE ONLINE ORDER FORM LOCATED AT www.fdch.com
Build Case>
