Return to Transcripts main page

CNN Talkback Live

Music Industry Remembers Legendary Rapper Jam Master Jay; Third Person Involved in Alabama Shooting?

Aired October 31, 2002 - 15:00   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.


ARTHEL NEVILLE, HOST: Hello, everybody. I'm Arthel Neville. Welcome to TALKBACK LIVE. We have a lot ahead this hour here on TALKBACK LIVE.
Our audience is here ready to talk. We have some special guests joining us here in Atlanta. And we are going to keep it going here.

Among the many other things we are talking about, the hip-hop legend Sugar Hill Gang will join me, along with Grandmaster Melle Mel here in Atlanta to talk about the shooting death of legendary rapper Jam Master Jay -- also, lot of legal talk, with an update on the Winona Ryder trial.

And just to get everything going here, what I would like to do is, first up, talk to our correspondent Michael Okwu, who is standing by in New York with an update on the investigation of Jam Master Jay's death.

Michael, good afternoon.

MICHAEL OKWU, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Arthel, good afternoon to you today.

It's been really an extraordinary day. It's almost like when George Harrison died: fans flocking from far and wide to pay him tribute. And, in fact, I bring up George Harrison and the Beatles, because so many people here in Jamaica, Queens, not far from where Jam Master Jay grew up and lived in Hollis, Queens, that's exactly the comparison they're making. They say this is like a fallen Beatle for the hip-hop world.

Now, authorities say that, at about 7:30 last night, two assailants reportedly made their way up to his second-floor studio to the lounge where he was resting and shot him with a single gunshot wound to the head. Now, an associate who was with him at the time was shot in the leg. We understand that he's in stable condition.

Almost immediately, Arthel, an outpouring of emotion. Fans started coming last night, braving the cold raindrops here in New York last night to pay tribute to him, as investigators were on the scene trying to find whatever they could find. And we are told, at this point, that all they were able to recover were two .45-caliber shell casings, but absolutely no clues as to why any of this happened in the first place.

Now, this is a band that was seen very much as a pioneering act. They essentially scratched music, basically fusing sounds from other artists and from other musical genres in order to create their own genre with hip-hop, so a combination of different types of music to create a whole new genre. This is an act that had planned on getting back together in the studio, Arthel, to basically make their eighth album to coincide with their 20th anniversary.

That clearly is not going to happen here. His musical legacy is going to have to live on. He is survived at this point by a wife and three children -- Arthel.

NEVILLE: Michael, has anyone been able to identify the shooter?

OKWU: Absolutely no word on that. I mean, at this early hour, because it only happened last night, the investigation is still very, very fresh.

A lot of questions raised here: How exactly did they get in? Were they buzzed in? Because there's a buzzer on the door. And if they were buzzed in, who buzzed them in? Were these two people that perhaps he might have known? Were they after somebody else and ended up just shooting him and fled very quickly? What was this about? Because they didn't take any money. There was no ransacking of the area.

They simply shot the two men, obviously killing one of them, and left the scene -- so a lot of questions at this point, Arthel, but not very many answers.

NEVILLE: And, Michael, I know a lot of people are mourning this unfortunate, untimely death. Tell me about the mood there.

OKWU: Well, the mood is a somber mood. Some people were shell- shocked this here. This person is considered something of a grandfather in the community, again, I say a pioneer.

And I'm not overstating it when I say that he's considered to be a Beatle. It's something that so many people here kept repeating throughout the course of the day. There's a makeshift memorial on a stretch of sidewalk here, essentially posters, signs, many of the signs reading things like rest in peace, peace always, and no more violence.

And it's really ironic, Arthel, because that's what this act preached and sang about for so many years. They talked in their later years about spirituality and about nonviolence. So, for this particular rap artist to die this way is something that's really hitting hard in the community here -- Arthel.

NEVILLE: Indeed. Michael Okwu, thank you very much for joining us here today.

And later this hour, join Big Bank Hank, Wonder Mike and Master G of the Sugar Hill Gang to talk about the death of Jam Master Jay. They are going to here joining us in Atlanta, along with Grandmaster Melle Mel. So, if you could, stick around for that. But first, I want to talk about the Beltway sniper case. New information today suggests the possibility a third person could have been involved in an Alabama shooting. Meanwhile, "The Washington Post" is petitioning the U.S. District Court to open John Lee Malvo's juvenile proceedings to the public.

Right now, let's meet Catherine Crier, a former judge and host of "Catherine Crier Live" on Court TV.

CATHERINE CRIER, AUTHOR, "THE CASE AGAINST LAWYERS": Hey, Arthel.

NEVILLE: Hi, Catherine.

Hey, look, she's also the author of a new book titled "The Case Against Lawyers." There it is right there. Also with us is criminal defense attorney John Burris.

Hello, Mr. Burris. How are you today?

JOHN BURRIS, CRIMINAL DEFENSE ATTORNEY: Good to be with you.

NEVILLE: All right.

Listen, Catherine, you're up first today. Is trying to get Malvo's proceedings open an uphill battle?

CRIER: Well, we just saw where the Columbine records were being requested, the two shooters in that case. And the judge decided to open them up. It's normally not done. If in fact he's certified as an adult and tried as an adult, it may be a way in to try and look at those records. But it's normal that those records are sealed and they're not available to the public.

BURRIS: Some of those records ultimately, if he's tried as an adult, will be open, particularly that relate to violence. But I think general background information probably would not. But certainly anything related to violence would be open at some later point.

NEVILLE: So we'll find out what's going on. At this point, we're in the dark, though.

CRIER: Yes.

NEVILLE: OK. I mean, obviously, the federal proceedings are closed for a reason, which is to protect the privacy of a juvenile.

And, Catherine, you first on this one as well. Do you think that this will open up a legal can of worms?

CRIER: No, no, I don't think so, because this is standard operating procedure. You have got several courts, Virginia and Alabama, that have made it clear they would certify him as an adult. And whereas the state doesn't allow the execution of juveniles in the Montgomery County cases in Maryland, they certainly can in the other two.

I don't expect you'll see any problem moving this person into the adult court, unless, of course, the federal government supersedes all of those state courts. If they take the action and they pursue the federal death penalty against Muhammad, then they have basically created the due process and double jeopardy problems in all the other states and they may not be able to try anything else, except possibly Alabama.

NEVILLE: Interesting.

I thought Mr. Burris had something to add to that.

BURRIS: Well, I think, when you're looking at juveniles, I think the whole issue about whether the state can try him as a juvenile vs. the feds, it does raise a very interesting question.

The feds have very clear rules about opening up proceedings or not opening up for juveniles. There are different rules for the various states. And each one of these states may have a different rule. I suspect, though, if the feds keep the case, that the other states will not have any jurisdiction, won't be able to open up and get to these.

One point I have, I think what I get from "The Washington Post" really is more general information. They think that, because he was a bad person, he is a bad person, therefore it ought to be open. That really isn't the test at all. And I think "The Washington Post" is going to have to make a better case than one that he terrorized a community. They have got to make a much better case than that.

NEVILLE: What do you think about that, Catherine?

CRIER: Well, I agree completely, that those records are normally sealed. And, you know, as John said and I said earlier, if this case goes to trial, at some point, you may find out some of that information. But it is basically sealed records at this point in time for any juvenile.

And, of course, federal hearings are frequently done behind closed doors, so none of this at this stage is a surprise.

NEVILLE: OK, let me hear what Robert has to say.

ROBERT: Well, I think this was a public action. Anything that happens to the public, whether or not the federal court seals it or not, it should be made to the public and all of the knowledge of all these crimes accessible to our knowledge.

NEVILLE: Thank you very much, sir.

CRIER: That's actually really interesting. And there's been a debate for years over whether or not juvenile records ought to be available, given some horrendous juvenile cases where they had long records. There are a lot of people objecting to this, but it would require legislation. It would require a change in the current law to open those records up.

BURRIS: And I don't think we ought to make an exception in this case. I think the basic rules ought to apply that have applied to all juveniles. And those rules are such that the records can be opened up if certain conditions are met. And I just think the process needs to work like it traditionally does in this case, as well as to others.

NEVILLE: OK, I have to take a break right now.

Up next: the latest from the Winona Ryder shoplifting trial. Some witnesses say Ryder kept a shoplifting kit in her purse. We'll get a live update.

And don't forget, I want to hear from you. Call me at 1-800-310- 4CNN or e-mail TALKBACK@CNN.com.

We'll be back in a moment.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

NEVILLE: And welcome back, everybody. I'm Arthel Neville.

Who knew a shoplifting trial could last this long? Actress Winona Ryder is back in court again today facing damaging testimony in her shoplifting trial. She has pleaded not guilty to charges she tried to steal more than $5,000 worth of designer goods from Saks Fifth Avenue.

Well, here with an update is CNN correspondent Thelma Gutierrez in Beverly Hills, California -- hi, Thelma.

THELMA GUTIERREZ, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Hi there, Arthel. How are you?

NEVILLE: I'm pretty good here.

I wanted you to tell us what happened in court this morning.

GUTIERREZ: Well, I can say that defense attorney Mark Geragos spent the better part of today trying to impeach the credibility of one of the prosecution's key witnesses, who is a security guard who works at Saks and who -- well, she formerly worked at Saks. She's moved on now and she's actually studying for her master's degree at Pepperdine University.

But she had testified yesterday that she actually witnessed Winona Ryder through the slats of a fitting room door sitting on the floor cutting sensors off of handbags and sweaters, that kind of thing and actually taking other hair accessories and socks and wrapping them in tissue paper and putting them into her bag.

She also testified that, when Winona Ryder was confronted by the security guards at the store, that she told them that she was practicing for a movie role and that she was told to do this for a movie called either "Shop Girl" or "White Jazz." Apparently, that story had changed. Well, today, defense attorney Mark Geragos tried to impeach the guard's credibility by showing jurors pictures of the fitting rooms, specifically the slats on the door, telling jurors there's no way that this security guard could have seen Winona Ryder on the floor doing what she alleges that she did.

She also had pointed out that nowhere on the incident reports that were written by the guard did she mention that she had witnessed Ryder committing these acts through the slats in the door or that she was told that Ryder was practicing for a movie role. And he says: "How is it possible that those two very important pieces of information you would not have put in an incident report?"

This woman says: "Well, it was a long time ago. And I don't know why I failed to do that." Defense attorney Mark Geragos also suggested that the guard may have had some kind of a motive for making this up. He said that the guard's husband is a struggling screen actor and that perhaps this guard may have wanted to sell -- quote -- "Winona Ryder's story."

Now, on redirect, the guard was asked, "Have you made any money from any of this?" And she said no. She was asked, "Have you done any type of interview regarding this case?" She said no. She claims she has made no money whatsoever from this case -- Arthel.

NEVILLE: Wow. Thank you, Thelma Gutierrez, for that update from Beverly Hills, California.

OK, Catherine and John, you've been listening to that.

John, what do you think the defense has to prove here?

BURRIS: Well, certainly, they just have to raise some questions that you cannot trust the evidence completely, at least beyond a reasonable doubt.

I think it's very important, on this last point, if the prosecutor said a woman was looking through something and she saw certain activities, the question is, did she do that? And if the defense was able to show that that's factually impossible and it didn't happen, that's a good point for them. It doesn't mean they win the case, but it does raise questions about why a woman would come in and make that kind of story up and not see it.

Likewise, what's also important is that she's now testifying about very important matters that are clear admissions that were not included in the report. From a defense point of view, he's very making very good points at it relates to this witness and would raise questions about whether or not the other witnesses themselves may have had some particular motive.

The fact that she hasn't receive any money does not negate my point of view. The question is whether or not she said -- you could see what she said and whether or not she did not put it in that report and why not.

NEVILLE: OK, so, Catherine, how should the prosecution proceed?

CRIER: Well, the prosecution has got some pretty damning evidence. And that is, apparently, the sensor tags, four of the sensor tags were found in the Chanel department. And they had on them the fabric that was on the clothing and the bags that these had been removed from. And those items were found on Winona Ryder.

Now, you have got the tags someplace else. You have got her leaving the store and the holes in the clothing in the bag where those sensor tags were pulled out of. You also have on the videotape, even though you never saw her putting anything in the bag on the tape, she actually went up to a counter with bulging bags and paid for a leather jacket and two other items.

None of the other items were paid for. She is saying she left her charge account there in the store. She was going to take things out and they of course would charge her account. Then why did she bother to pay for certain select items and not pay for everything at the same time? The prosecution has got a pretty good case. But there's a role that celebrity will play in this and probably in the decision.

NEVILLE: Yes, but will it work in her favor or against her?

CRIER: Sometimes -- it works both ways. You really never know until the jury gets ahold of it.

NEVILLE: Exactly.

CRIER: But she has been portrayed, certainly, as very sympathetic, that they have been picking on her, that, normally, a case like this would have been pled out, which I think is the case. And so, there was some sympathy garnered there. And we'll see how the jury reacts.

BURRIS: Another important point, just to raise a point and to go to what Catherine has said, and that is whether she testifies or not.

A celebrity doesn't always have to testify. But, if they do, they better have the ring of truth about what they have to say. Otherwise, it appears that they're using their celebrity status to take advantage of a situation and to pull the wool over the eyes of ordinary jurors. So, from the defense point of view, he has a very tough question he has to decide very soon.

NEVILLE: OK, well, we're going to take a break there.

Then: Another voting discrepancy heads to court, this time in Minnesota. Should absentee ballots cast for the late Senator Paul Wellstone automatically go to Walter Mondale?

We'll be back in a moment.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

NEVILLE: Welcome back, everybody. I'm Arthel Neville. The Minnesota Supreme Court will decide if absentee voters in that state should get new ballots for this Tuesday's senatorial election. As it stands, votes for the late Paul Wellstone won't count. With Walter Mondale now in the running, Democrats want absentee voters to get a second chance.

OK, John Burris, should the Minnesota Supreme Court make counties send out these new ballots for absentee voters?

BURRIS: That's a very tough question. I don't know what the law provides in that particular state.

I'm certain the Supreme Court, if it has a split Democratically or Republican, whichever way that is -- unfortunately, I hate to be cynical about it, but it is going to come down that way. If there are more Democrats on that Supreme Court, it's more than likely that they're going to say yes. I think it's a very tough question, because the people who have already voted may not be available. They did that because they didn't think they were going to be available.

And so, then, if you do it now, that means you have to extend the voting period. You have to give them more time to respond to that. And that may not happen before the election has taken place. And so then you make a change of direction of it. So I don't think they should allow it to happen. I think the people who have voted have voted.

Unfortunately, that will hurt Democrats, for the most part. But I think the integrity of the process, in order to make sure that it's not adversely affected, should not be extended. And the ballots should not be sent out. But I understand, from a Democratic point of view, why they want it to occur.

NEVILLE: Yes, because, Catherine, wouldn't some voters be disenfranchised?

CRIER: Absolutely. I disagree with John. And it's all going to come down to whether or not this is addressed, first of all, in the election laws of that particular state and whether the Supreme Court is willing to step in and take charge on this.

But, absolutely, the right to vote is sacrosanct in this country. Those people have this right. They done nothing wrong. In fact, they filled out and mailed in their absentee ballots. Now, some people may miss out, because, if those ballots are remailed, they're unavailable. Now, that's too bad. They are going to get the information. These things are going back out.

Then, if they can get their hands on them and send them in, that's fine. But at least you have given them the opportunity to actually vote for the candidates that are on the ballot.

BURRIS: The question is, what period of time is it, though? Is it the period of time up until the Election Day, or do you have it for a 20-day period?

CRIER: Well, John, we learned about this in Florida, that, in fact, it could become anything, depending, as you say...

BURRIS: It can become anything.

CRIER: ... on the politics. But if the politics were to affect the dates, I would feel less concerned about that than if they eliminated the right for these people to vote.

And I think that a reasonable expansion of dates, just as we saw in the event of an act of God and other things, that the Florida secretary of state was supposed to be able to extend this. So there's probably a similar provision.

(CROSSTALK)

BURRIS: That's going to turn politically, I think. If it's a Democratic-controlled...

NEVILLE: You're probably right about that, Mr. Burris.

BURRIS: And I'm a Democrat, so I'm for it to happen.

NEVILLE: I need to ask you a yes-or-no question here, because I'm tight on time. But do you think the absentee ballots that have already been cast for the late Senator Paul Wellstone, should those automatically go to Walter Mondale?

CRIER: Absolutely not. Absolutely not.

BURRIS: The answer is no on that as well.

NEVILLE: All right, John Burris, thank you so much for joining us here today on TALKBACK LIVE.

BURRIS: Thank you.

NEVILLE: OK. We'll see you again, I'm sure.

OK, we have to take another break.

Catherine, hang in there for me.

Don't forget to take our TALKBACK LIVE "Online Viewer Vote." I want to know what you think are the worst treats handed out Halloween night.

We're back in a moment.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

NEVILLE: And welcome back, everybody.

We're talking with Catherine Crier, who has written a new book with a provocative title. It's called "The Case Against Lawyers." All right, Catherine. We're going to talk about some things in your book. Listen, coming up on the ballot in less than a week, two states, Arizona and Nevada, are looking at legalizing marijuana. You speak about this in your book, so I want you to tell us your thoughts on that.

CRIER: Absolutely. Well, one of things you've got to ask when you're writing laws is what is the goal? Is the goal even achievable? And are the things that we are putting on the books to regulate or the laws, are they capable of achieving this? After 40 years and hundreds of billions of dollars of taxpayer money, we can see that we haven't changed the number of hardcore addicts in this country a wit, not at all. And marijuana use goes up and down and up and down in a cyclical fashion much like cocaine and heroine.

And yet we are still pouring this money in. We're look locking people away, often nonviolent offenders that are simply users or small-time dealers. The big traffickers in any of the drugs, they can flip people, they can give the D.A.s and the cops the names of people and often time get minimal sentences, while the little guy who doesn't know anybody is the one that's going to suffer those horrendous mandatory minimums that can be upwards of 10 or 20 years for a small amount of drugs.

So I think that the states ought to be able to take this into account whether they want to decriminalize, where it's simply a fine or traffic ticket, or legalize, that's their business. But from a citizen's point of view, we have to stop this amazing financial drain on this country from something that I've had a drug czar admit to me was no more dangerous than alcohol and tobacco for adults.

NEVILLE: Hey, listen, why the title, "The Case Against Lawyers"?

CRIER: Well that's a fair question, because, actually, I talk about legislation and legislators, the lobbyists, the bureaucrats, because all of these get their material, if you will, from the lawyers. Yes, the lawyers are in court. We worry about frivolous lawsuits or these big punitive damages, all sorts of things that happen in our civil courts, but they also are influential in our criminal courts.

They're the ones that are expanding the law's role in our education system, which is perverting that system. They are the ones that write the legislation that a legislator, often a lawyer, passes. Most of our lobbyists are lawyers.

So all of the lawyers write the rules that the bureaucrats pass. So fundamentally it is the lawyers and their interpretation and expansion of the role of law that has caused the problems.

NEVILLE: Now, you also come out pretty strongly against the death penalty. Why is that?

CRIER: Well I'm very pragmatic about it. It's not a question of morality. If someone wants to argue eye for an eye, that's fine and that's their belief. But pragmatically as a taxpayer in this country, we have about 3,200 people on death row. It costs more to try a single death row case through appeal than it would to house each individual for life.

I believe in life without parole; 23/7 locked up for good. Secondarily, there's no deterrence whatsoever to the death penalty, and we have demonstrated that for years with studies, except for the person that you kill. Third, if you could tell me the most horrible thing you would do to me, it wouldn't be putting me to death. It would be locking me in a box.

And I don't mean with lifting weighs and television. I mean you're locked in a box 23/7 for the rest of your life. I'd say, kill me.

NEVILLE: So, Catherine, who do you think benefits from reading your book?

CRIER: Well, I tried to write something that is not for the lawyers and not for the academics but, in fact, for the American people, because it's something that we look at as our cornerstone of democracy. The rule of law was going to provide that equality and justice for all our citizens as we escaped King George. But now, just as the king, we have legislators and lawyers who say, well, this law we're going to write for you over here, and the little people over here, too bad.

IRS being the best example. There are 36,000 pages for a reason. This's because a great portion of those laws are favors to individuals and corporations. And the same thing applies with our society. The reason a lot of public parks are no longer open or they don't have playground equipment is because the liability laws are so strenuous to the point that you cannot waive liability for anything that our social lives are actually changing.

The way we interact in the workplace, again, the way our kids are treated or our teachers are dealt with, all of this is now regulated rather than allowing any sort of common sense or good judgment.

NEVILLE: OK. "The Case Against Lawyers" by Catherine Crier. Catherine, don't go anywhere, because I want to give you a second to think about this. We're switching gears now. It is, after all, Halloween.

CRIER: My favorite holiday.

NEVILLE: That's right. I'm going to ask you what's the worst treat you ever got in your trick or treat bag. OK?

Now what we did -- hang on to your thought for me. We took a viewer vote on which trick or treats or treats were more like tricks, that is. Pennies, look at there.

OK. Listen, excuse me, everyone. We're going to go to Upper Marlboro, Maryland, where Prince George's County state attorney Jack Johnson is holding a news conference on the sniper case.

JACK JOHNSON, MARYLAND STATE'S ATTORNEY: Good afternoon, everyone. I'm Jack Johnson. I'm the state's attorney for Prince George's County, Maryland.

With me is Bill Manico (ph), who is head of the homicide division for the state's attorney's office, and detective -- homicide detective Joe Berstrom (ph) from the Prince George's County Police Department, who are with me today.

As you know, on October the 7th, one of our students, a young lad, was shot down at Benjamin Tasker Middle School at approximately 8:07 in the morning. The evidence indicates that he was shot from a wooded area and the ballistic examination connect the bullet fragments to an AR-52 -- I think it is a 52 Bushmaster weapon -- AR-15 Bushmaster weapon that was recovered in the possession of John Muhammad and Lee Boyd Malvo, or John Lee Malvo.

Our information is not clear on the name. Apparently he has used more than one name. But at any rate, we are using the name Lee Boyd Malvo for purposes of our position.

On October 24, Mr. Muhammad and Mr. Malvo, as you know, were arrested in Frederick County, Maryland. In their possession was the AR-15 weapon that has linked them to the crime. So, today, our office has filed charges against both defendants. We are filing first attempted first degree murder against both of these individuals and conspiracy to commit first degree murder against both of these individuals.

The murder charges, or the attempted murder charges carry a life sentence as well as a conspiracy a life sentence. We have also filed a detainer. And a detainer is basically a position that we're holding or requesting that the federal authorities turn over the individuals to us when they are through with them so that we can also prosecute these individuals.

As you know, the citizens of Prince George's County have a tremendous interest in this case. They expect that these cases will be prosecuted. The families of the victims, they need to have their day in court. And therefore, it is our position that these cases one day should be tried in Prince George's County so that our victims, too, can have their day in court.

Now, we understand that there are a number of jurisdictions that have charges of murder. I believe personally that these are local charges and that it will be more appropriate for these cases to be tried on the local level. Nevertheless, there is discussion going on now between the federal authorities and the state authorities as to who should go first. I believe that those discussions should end very soon, and that the citizens of this country, as well as Prince George's County, need to know where these cases are going.

It is my position as a state's attorney for Prince George's County that, consistent with the prosecutors in northern Virginia, while -- and in Ashland, where one of the shooting victims survived, that we would rather to see the murder cases go first. That does not mean that we're not interested in these cases and that we're not going to insist on prosecuting these cases. But I do believe that the murder cases should go first. And as I said, I do believe that these are (UNINTELLIGIBLE) state prosecutions, and I believe that it would be more appropriate to prosecute these cases on the state level.

NEVILLE: Jack Johnson, Prince George's County state attorney saying that, listen, Muhammad and Malvo should be tried at the local level after the Feds are finished. He wants Maryland to have first crack at this duo. Catherine, you were listening to that. I'd like to hear your thoughts?

CRIER: Well I think Maryland is the place where this case ought to be tried initially. They had five -- six of the victims. They are able to combine them into a single case, whereas in the other cases, you are going to have one murder in one County, one murder in another. And, initially, I also said earlier in the show, if the Feds try these cases, then it's going to basically be double jeopardy for any of those states to take on the cases.

The Feds are going to deal with all of those murders and the extortion to make it a death penalty case. Only Alabama would be the state that may not be involved in the federal prosecution. They might be able to come after and prosecute on their own.

NEVILLE: Catherine, would this delay any sort of potential trials with all of the legal wrangling of who goes first and who tries the case first?

CRIER: Yes, it could. And I think they're ultimately going to resolve this where they don't have to have this public displaying of in-fighting. It may display it a bit, but we're going to have a long- term discovery on this case. You've got investigations going on in Alabama and Washington, up in Tacoma. This concern about a third person that might be involved. It's going to take a while to get any of these cases to trial.

NEVILLE: Catherine Crier, thank you very much for joining us today on TALKBACK LIVE.

NEVILLE: Thanks, Arthel.

NEVILLE: Nice to see you.

And up next, the Sugar Hill Gang and Grandmaster Melle Mel talk about legendary hip-hop deejay, Jam Master Jay. Share your memories with us right after this. Don't go anywhere. TALKBACK LIVE continues in a moment.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

NEVILLE: And welcome back, everybody.

The eulogies are coming in from all over, as fans mourn the death of hip-hop legend Jam Master Jay. Jason Mizell, deejay for Run DMC was shot inside a New York recording studio. Another man was wounded. Jam Master Jay helped pioneer a new sound by fusing rap with rock n roll, and Run DMC was the first rap group to be nominated for a Grammy.

And here to talk about Jam Master Jay's legacy, is the Sugar Hill Gang: Big Bank Hank, Wonder Mike, and Master Gee. Their break through single, "Rapper's Delight," you all know that song, in 1979, put rap into the mainstream. Also with us, rapper Grandmaster Melle Mel.

And I want to say good afternoon to everyone. Thank you so much for joining us here on TALKBACK LIVE. Good to see all of you. Unfortunately, under these conditions.

Big Bank Hank, I want to start with you. If you could give me your first thoughts when you first heard about the tragedy.

BIG BANK HANK, THE SUGAR HILL GANG: I was like totally devastated. I mean I heard it on the news. As a matter of fact, (UNINTELLIGIBLE) called us and told me. And I couldn't believe it. I really couldn't believe it at all.

NEVILLE: Wonder Mike?

WONDER MIKE, THE SUGAR HILL GANG: Well, I was packing for this trip, and just looked up and I saw the story on the local news. And it was really hard to take because our paths cross a lot with Run and them, and we do shows, and it was really hard to believe.

NEVILLE: Master Gee?

MASTER GEE, THE SUGAR HILL GANG: Well, it's so hard to believe because about two weeks ago, Jay was in our Sugar Hill studios mixing this album that he was working on. And unfortunately, we had a big fire in our building that burnt down our building. And for this to happen to someone right now, is unbelievable. I can't believe it.

NEVILLE: Melle Mel?

MELLE MEL, RAP ARTIS: Well, I actually had seen it on CNN and it's just sad all the way around. Because I knew him, you know, throughout the years. Like you said, our paths always crossed paths. And he was a good brother. So I mean, it's hard to just figure out how something can happen like that.

NEVILLE: Exactly. Listen, I have a phone call coming in now from Kurt (ph) in Ontario. I'd like to you to share your thoughts, Kurt (ph).

CALLER: Hi. How's it going?

NEVILLE: Hi.

CALLER: I just wanted to comment and (UNINTELLIGIBLE) hip-hop and R&B. Obviously, you just took a massive blow by losing, in my opinion, to easily the greatest deejay in the industry, I guess you could say. And being 15 years old, I was born when Run DMC was like probably the biggest rap band in the world. Nowadays, I'm listening to their music and, last week I bought the greatest hits album.

NEVILLE: How old are you?

CALLER: I'm 15. NEVILLE: All right, Kurt (ph), thank you very much for calling in to TALKBACK LIVE and sharing your thoughts with us. And time for another breakup next. More about the life and legacy of Jam Master Jay. We'll be back in a moment.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

NEVILLE: ... from Queens, New York, thank you very much for that e-mail.

Welcome back, everybody. We're talking with The Sugar Hill Gang. They started out before Run DMC, and Grandmaster Melle Mel about the shooting death and legacy of rapper Jam Master Jay.

And Big Bank Hank, if you could, tell me how Run DMC, what they meant to you in terms of music and how you'll remember...

BIG BANK HANK: Well, he changed the direction of music, rock into rap, and gave it a whole new persona. I mean it totally blew my mind. The situation I've been thinking about.

NEVILLE: And how will you remember Jam Master Jay?

WONDER MIKE: Well, every time we ran into James, he was really cordial, he was nice, he showed us crazy love, and that's what I remember about him. Then like 15 minutes later you see him on stage cutting it up and really talented guy, really cool guy.

NEVILLE: Master Gee?

MASTER GEE: Well, you know, when they came out, they came out with the beats, the drum beats, and they changed the way rap music was. When Sugar Hill Gang and Grandmaster Melle Mel and Grandmaster Flash came out, their beats were street orientated and then they came up with that song "Walk This Way" with Aerosmith and that was a monster song and it took rap to another dimension. You know? And we owe them so much praise for that.

NEVILLE: OK. Melle Mel?

MELLE MEL: Well, from my perspective, like, they were more like when rap came into the MTV generation. Because before that, I mean, maybe Michael Jackson might have been the only -- one of the brothers that was on MTV. And then (UNINTELLIGIBLE), kind of more or less opened up for hip-hop to be on MTV and "Yo, MTV Raps" and all of that. So they opened the doors to all that genre to be down. So they definitely were, you know, very influential in the whole thing.

NEVILLE: Hey, Wonder Mike, isn't it ironic that Jam Master Jay's life ended so violently?

WONDER MIKE: Yeah. It's one of those unfortunate things, you know with Biggie and Tupac and now Jam, I'm still trying to process it. It'll take a while because I really knew the guy. I didn't meet the other two gentlemen, but we used to kick it on the road. NEVILLE: Right, right. Well, listen, you know, I know that Run DMC definitely blazed some trails, but so did The Sugar Hill Gang. As with most mourning, there's also celebration. So before we go, if I could get The Sugar Hill Gang to do a little something for us, we would certainly love that here on TALKBACK LIVE.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: We'd love to.

NEVILLE: All right. I'm going to count you down. By the way, everybody, TALKBACK LIVE, we're going to see you tomorrow. Have a good Halloween and 1, 2, 3, hit it guys.

(MUSIC)

NEVILLE: Listen, guys, thank you so much. I just want to know -- we have a couple of seconds before we go here -- you obviously have a positive influence on young people out there. Quick final messages to young people today for me.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Keep your head up. Rap positive. Stay in school. And get an education.

NEVILLE: Yes.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Incidentally, our hearts and love go out to Run and DMC and the families of all of those guys, because we've got crazy love for them.

NEVILLE: Absolutely. Absolutely.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: My condolences to Jam Master Jay's family, his friends and his fans. And, man, you know we have to keep this on a positive tip, man. You know, life is a very precious thing and you don't want to lose it.

NEVILLE: Indeed. Thank you very much. We're out of time. Many, many thanks to Big Bank Hank, Wonder Mike, Master Gee and Grandmaster Melle Mel for being on the show today. Thanks for watching. I'm Arthel Neville.

Tomorrow is "Free-for-all Friday." "INSIDE POLITICS" up next. Happy Halloween.

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





Third Person Involved in Alabama Shooting?>


Aired October 31, 2002 - 15:00   ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
ARTHEL NEVILLE, HOST: Hello, everybody. I'm Arthel Neville. Welcome to TALKBACK LIVE. We have a lot ahead this hour here on TALKBACK LIVE.
Our audience is here ready to talk. We have some special guests joining us here in Atlanta. And we are going to keep it going here.

Among the many other things we are talking about, the hip-hop legend Sugar Hill Gang will join me, along with Grandmaster Melle Mel here in Atlanta to talk about the shooting death of legendary rapper Jam Master Jay -- also, lot of legal talk, with an update on the Winona Ryder trial.

And just to get everything going here, what I would like to do is, first up, talk to our correspondent Michael Okwu, who is standing by in New York with an update on the investigation of Jam Master Jay's death.

Michael, good afternoon.

MICHAEL OKWU, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Arthel, good afternoon to you today.

It's been really an extraordinary day. It's almost like when George Harrison died: fans flocking from far and wide to pay him tribute. And, in fact, I bring up George Harrison and the Beatles, because so many people here in Jamaica, Queens, not far from where Jam Master Jay grew up and lived in Hollis, Queens, that's exactly the comparison they're making. They say this is like a fallen Beatle for the hip-hop world.

Now, authorities say that, at about 7:30 last night, two assailants reportedly made their way up to his second-floor studio to the lounge where he was resting and shot him with a single gunshot wound to the head. Now, an associate who was with him at the time was shot in the leg. We understand that he's in stable condition.

Almost immediately, Arthel, an outpouring of emotion. Fans started coming last night, braving the cold raindrops here in New York last night to pay tribute to him, as investigators were on the scene trying to find whatever they could find. And we are told, at this point, that all they were able to recover were two .45-caliber shell casings, but absolutely no clues as to why any of this happened in the first place.

Now, this is a band that was seen very much as a pioneering act. They essentially scratched music, basically fusing sounds from other artists and from other musical genres in order to create their own genre with hip-hop, so a combination of different types of music to create a whole new genre. This is an act that had planned on getting back together in the studio, Arthel, to basically make their eighth album to coincide with their 20th anniversary.

That clearly is not going to happen here. His musical legacy is going to have to live on. He is survived at this point by a wife and three children -- Arthel.

NEVILLE: Michael, has anyone been able to identify the shooter?

OKWU: Absolutely no word on that. I mean, at this early hour, because it only happened last night, the investigation is still very, very fresh.

A lot of questions raised here: How exactly did they get in? Were they buzzed in? Because there's a buzzer on the door. And if they were buzzed in, who buzzed them in? Were these two people that perhaps he might have known? Were they after somebody else and ended up just shooting him and fled very quickly? What was this about? Because they didn't take any money. There was no ransacking of the area.

They simply shot the two men, obviously killing one of them, and left the scene -- so a lot of questions at this point, Arthel, but not very many answers.

NEVILLE: And, Michael, I know a lot of people are mourning this unfortunate, untimely death. Tell me about the mood there.

OKWU: Well, the mood is a somber mood. Some people were shell- shocked this here. This person is considered something of a grandfather in the community, again, I say a pioneer.

And I'm not overstating it when I say that he's considered to be a Beatle. It's something that so many people here kept repeating throughout the course of the day. There's a makeshift memorial on a stretch of sidewalk here, essentially posters, signs, many of the signs reading things like rest in peace, peace always, and no more violence.

And it's really ironic, Arthel, because that's what this act preached and sang about for so many years. They talked in their later years about spirituality and about nonviolence. So, for this particular rap artist to die this way is something that's really hitting hard in the community here -- Arthel.

NEVILLE: Indeed. Michael Okwu, thank you very much for joining us here today.

And later this hour, join Big Bank Hank, Wonder Mike and Master G of the Sugar Hill Gang to talk about the death of Jam Master Jay. They are going to here joining us in Atlanta, along with Grandmaster Melle Mel. So, if you could, stick around for that. But first, I want to talk about the Beltway sniper case. New information today suggests the possibility a third person could have been involved in an Alabama shooting. Meanwhile, "The Washington Post" is petitioning the U.S. District Court to open John Lee Malvo's juvenile proceedings to the public.

Right now, let's meet Catherine Crier, a former judge and host of "Catherine Crier Live" on Court TV.

CATHERINE CRIER, AUTHOR, "THE CASE AGAINST LAWYERS": Hey, Arthel.

NEVILLE: Hi, Catherine.

Hey, look, she's also the author of a new book titled "The Case Against Lawyers." There it is right there. Also with us is criminal defense attorney John Burris.

Hello, Mr. Burris. How are you today?

JOHN BURRIS, CRIMINAL DEFENSE ATTORNEY: Good to be with you.

NEVILLE: All right.

Listen, Catherine, you're up first today. Is trying to get Malvo's proceedings open an uphill battle?

CRIER: Well, we just saw where the Columbine records were being requested, the two shooters in that case. And the judge decided to open them up. It's normally not done. If in fact he's certified as an adult and tried as an adult, it may be a way in to try and look at those records. But it's normal that those records are sealed and they're not available to the public.

BURRIS: Some of those records ultimately, if he's tried as an adult, will be open, particularly that relate to violence. But I think general background information probably would not. But certainly anything related to violence would be open at some later point.

NEVILLE: So we'll find out what's going on. At this point, we're in the dark, though.

CRIER: Yes.

NEVILLE: OK. I mean, obviously, the federal proceedings are closed for a reason, which is to protect the privacy of a juvenile.

And, Catherine, you first on this one as well. Do you think that this will open up a legal can of worms?

CRIER: No, no, I don't think so, because this is standard operating procedure. You have got several courts, Virginia and Alabama, that have made it clear they would certify him as an adult. And whereas the state doesn't allow the execution of juveniles in the Montgomery County cases in Maryland, they certainly can in the other two.

I don't expect you'll see any problem moving this person into the adult court, unless, of course, the federal government supersedes all of those state courts. If they take the action and they pursue the federal death penalty against Muhammad, then they have basically created the due process and double jeopardy problems in all the other states and they may not be able to try anything else, except possibly Alabama.

NEVILLE: Interesting.

I thought Mr. Burris had something to add to that.

BURRIS: Well, I think, when you're looking at juveniles, I think the whole issue about whether the state can try him as a juvenile vs. the feds, it does raise a very interesting question.

The feds have very clear rules about opening up proceedings or not opening up for juveniles. There are different rules for the various states. And each one of these states may have a different rule. I suspect, though, if the feds keep the case, that the other states will not have any jurisdiction, won't be able to open up and get to these.

One point I have, I think what I get from "The Washington Post" really is more general information. They think that, because he was a bad person, he is a bad person, therefore it ought to be open. That really isn't the test at all. And I think "The Washington Post" is going to have to make a better case than one that he terrorized a community. They have got to make a much better case than that.

NEVILLE: What do you think about that, Catherine?

CRIER: Well, I agree completely, that those records are normally sealed. And, you know, as John said and I said earlier, if this case goes to trial, at some point, you may find out some of that information. But it is basically sealed records at this point in time for any juvenile.

And, of course, federal hearings are frequently done behind closed doors, so none of this at this stage is a surprise.

NEVILLE: OK, let me hear what Robert has to say.

ROBERT: Well, I think this was a public action. Anything that happens to the public, whether or not the federal court seals it or not, it should be made to the public and all of the knowledge of all these crimes accessible to our knowledge.

NEVILLE: Thank you very much, sir.

CRIER: That's actually really interesting. And there's been a debate for years over whether or not juvenile records ought to be available, given some horrendous juvenile cases where they had long records. There are a lot of people objecting to this, but it would require legislation. It would require a change in the current law to open those records up.

BURRIS: And I don't think we ought to make an exception in this case. I think the basic rules ought to apply that have applied to all juveniles. And those rules are such that the records can be opened up if certain conditions are met. And I just think the process needs to work like it traditionally does in this case, as well as to others.

NEVILLE: OK, I have to take a break right now.

Up next: the latest from the Winona Ryder shoplifting trial. Some witnesses say Ryder kept a shoplifting kit in her purse. We'll get a live update.

And don't forget, I want to hear from you. Call me at 1-800-310- 4CNN or e-mail TALKBACK@CNN.com.

We'll be back in a moment.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

NEVILLE: And welcome back, everybody. I'm Arthel Neville.

Who knew a shoplifting trial could last this long? Actress Winona Ryder is back in court again today facing damaging testimony in her shoplifting trial. She has pleaded not guilty to charges she tried to steal more than $5,000 worth of designer goods from Saks Fifth Avenue.

Well, here with an update is CNN correspondent Thelma Gutierrez in Beverly Hills, California -- hi, Thelma.

THELMA GUTIERREZ, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Hi there, Arthel. How are you?

NEVILLE: I'm pretty good here.

I wanted you to tell us what happened in court this morning.

GUTIERREZ: Well, I can say that defense attorney Mark Geragos spent the better part of today trying to impeach the credibility of one of the prosecution's key witnesses, who is a security guard who works at Saks and who -- well, she formerly worked at Saks. She's moved on now and she's actually studying for her master's degree at Pepperdine University.

But she had testified yesterday that she actually witnessed Winona Ryder through the slats of a fitting room door sitting on the floor cutting sensors off of handbags and sweaters, that kind of thing and actually taking other hair accessories and socks and wrapping them in tissue paper and putting them into her bag.

She also testified that, when Winona Ryder was confronted by the security guards at the store, that she told them that she was practicing for a movie role and that she was told to do this for a movie called either "Shop Girl" or "White Jazz." Apparently, that story had changed. Well, today, defense attorney Mark Geragos tried to impeach the guard's credibility by showing jurors pictures of the fitting rooms, specifically the slats on the door, telling jurors there's no way that this security guard could have seen Winona Ryder on the floor doing what she alleges that she did.

She also had pointed out that nowhere on the incident reports that were written by the guard did she mention that she had witnessed Ryder committing these acts through the slats in the door or that she was told that Ryder was practicing for a movie role. And he says: "How is it possible that those two very important pieces of information you would not have put in an incident report?"

This woman says: "Well, it was a long time ago. And I don't know why I failed to do that." Defense attorney Mark Geragos also suggested that the guard may have had some kind of a motive for making this up. He said that the guard's husband is a struggling screen actor and that perhaps this guard may have wanted to sell -- quote -- "Winona Ryder's story."

Now, on redirect, the guard was asked, "Have you made any money from any of this?" And she said no. She was asked, "Have you done any type of interview regarding this case?" She said no. She claims she has made no money whatsoever from this case -- Arthel.

NEVILLE: Wow. Thank you, Thelma Gutierrez, for that update from Beverly Hills, California.

OK, Catherine and John, you've been listening to that.

John, what do you think the defense has to prove here?

BURRIS: Well, certainly, they just have to raise some questions that you cannot trust the evidence completely, at least beyond a reasonable doubt.

I think it's very important, on this last point, if the prosecutor said a woman was looking through something and she saw certain activities, the question is, did she do that? And if the defense was able to show that that's factually impossible and it didn't happen, that's a good point for them. It doesn't mean they win the case, but it does raise questions about why a woman would come in and make that kind of story up and not see it.

Likewise, what's also important is that she's now testifying about very important matters that are clear admissions that were not included in the report. From a defense point of view, he's very making very good points at it relates to this witness and would raise questions about whether or not the other witnesses themselves may have had some particular motive.

The fact that she hasn't receive any money does not negate my point of view. The question is whether or not she said -- you could see what she said and whether or not she did not put it in that report and why not.

NEVILLE: OK, so, Catherine, how should the prosecution proceed?

CRIER: Well, the prosecution has got some pretty damning evidence. And that is, apparently, the sensor tags, four of the sensor tags were found in the Chanel department. And they had on them the fabric that was on the clothing and the bags that these had been removed from. And those items were found on Winona Ryder.

Now, you have got the tags someplace else. You have got her leaving the store and the holes in the clothing in the bag where those sensor tags were pulled out of. You also have on the videotape, even though you never saw her putting anything in the bag on the tape, she actually went up to a counter with bulging bags and paid for a leather jacket and two other items.

None of the other items were paid for. She is saying she left her charge account there in the store. She was going to take things out and they of course would charge her account. Then why did she bother to pay for certain select items and not pay for everything at the same time? The prosecution has got a pretty good case. But there's a role that celebrity will play in this and probably in the decision.

NEVILLE: Yes, but will it work in her favor or against her?

CRIER: Sometimes -- it works both ways. You really never know until the jury gets ahold of it.

NEVILLE: Exactly.

CRIER: But she has been portrayed, certainly, as very sympathetic, that they have been picking on her, that, normally, a case like this would have been pled out, which I think is the case. And so, there was some sympathy garnered there. And we'll see how the jury reacts.

BURRIS: Another important point, just to raise a point and to go to what Catherine has said, and that is whether she testifies or not.

A celebrity doesn't always have to testify. But, if they do, they better have the ring of truth about what they have to say. Otherwise, it appears that they're using their celebrity status to take advantage of a situation and to pull the wool over the eyes of ordinary jurors. So, from the defense point of view, he has a very tough question he has to decide very soon.

NEVILLE: OK, well, we're going to take a break there.

Then: Another voting discrepancy heads to court, this time in Minnesota. Should absentee ballots cast for the late Senator Paul Wellstone automatically go to Walter Mondale?

We'll be back in a moment.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

NEVILLE: Welcome back, everybody. I'm Arthel Neville. The Minnesota Supreme Court will decide if absentee voters in that state should get new ballots for this Tuesday's senatorial election. As it stands, votes for the late Paul Wellstone won't count. With Walter Mondale now in the running, Democrats want absentee voters to get a second chance.

OK, John Burris, should the Minnesota Supreme Court make counties send out these new ballots for absentee voters?

BURRIS: That's a very tough question. I don't know what the law provides in that particular state.

I'm certain the Supreme Court, if it has a split Democratically or Republican, whichever way that is -- unfortunately, I hate to be cynical about it, but it is going to come down that way. If there are more Democrats on that Supreme Court, it's more than likely that they're going to say yes. I think it's a very tough question, because the people who have already voted may not be available. They did that because they didn't think they were going to be available.

And so, then, if you do it now, that means you have to extend the voting period. You have to give them more time to respond to that. And that may not happen before the election has taken place. And so then you make a change of direction of it. So I don't think they should allow it to happen. I think the people who have voted have voted.

Unfortunately, that will hurt Democrats, for the most part. But I think the integrity of the process, in order to make sure that it's not adversely affected, should not be extended. And the ballots should not be sent out. But I understand, from a Democratic point of view, why they want it to occur.

NEVILLE: Yes, because, Catherine, wouldn't some voters be disenfranchised?

CRIER: Absolutely. I disagree with John. And it's all going to come down to whether or not this is addressed, first of all, in the election laws of that particular state and whether the Supreme Court is willing to step in and take charge on this.

But, absolutely, the right to vote is sacrosanct in this country. Those people have this right. They done nothing wrong. In fact, they filled out and mailed in their absentee ballots. Now, some people may miss out, because, if those ballots are remailed, they're unavailable. Now, that's too bad. They are going to get the information. These things are going back out.

Then, if they can get their hands on them and send them in, that's fine. But at least you have given them the opportunity to actually vote for the candidates that are on the ballot.

BURRIS: The question is, what period of time is it, though? Is it the period of time up until the Election Day, or do you have it for a 20-day period?

CRIER: Well, John, we learned about this in Florida, that, in fact, it could become anything, depending, as you say...

BURRIS: It can become anything.

CRIER: ... on the politics. But if the politics were to affect the dates, I would feel less concerned about that than if they eliminated the right for these people to vote.

And I think that a reasonable expansion of dates, just as we saw in the event of an act of God and other things, that the Florida secretary of state was supposed to be able to extend this. So there's probably a similar provision.

(CROSSTALK)

BURRIS: That's going to turn politically, I think. If it's a Democratic-controlled...

NEVILLE: You're probably right about that, Mr. Burris.

BURRIS: And I'm a Democrat, so I'm for it to happen.

NEVILLE: I need to ask you a yes-or-no question here, because I'm tight on time. But do you think the absentee ballots that have already been cast for the late Senator Paul Wellstone, should those automatically go to Walter Mondale?

CRIER: Absolutely not. Absolutely not.

BURRIS: The answer is no on that as well.

NEVILLE: All right, John Burris, thank you so much for joining us here today on TALKBACK LIVE.

BURRIS: Thank you.

NEVILLE: OK. We'll see you again, I'm sure.

OK, we have to take another break.

Catherine, hang in there for me.

Don't forget to take our TALKBACK LIVE "Online Viewer Vote." I want to know what you think are the worst treats handed out Halloween night.

We're back in a moment.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

NEVILLE: And welcome back, everybody.

We're talking with Catherine Crier, who has written a new book with a provocative title. It's called "The Case Against Lawyers." All right, Catherine. We're going to talk about some things in your book. Listen, coming up on the ballot in less than a week, two states, Arizona and Nevada, are looking at legalizing marijuana. You speak about this in your book, so I want you to tell us your thoughts on that.

CRIER: Absolutely. Well, one of things you've got to ask when you're writing laws is what is the goal? Is the goal even achievable? And are the things that we are putting on the books to regulate or the laws, are they capable of achieving this? After 40 years and hundreds of billions of dollars of taxpayer money, we can see that we haven't changed the number of hardcore addicts in this country a wit, not at all. And marijuana use goes up and down and up and down in a cyclical fashion much like cocaine and heroine.

And yet we are still pouring this money in. We're look locking people away, often nonviolent offenders that are simply users or small-time dealers. The big traffickers in any of the drugs, they can flip people, they can give the D.A.s and the cops the names of people and often time get minimal sentences, while the little guy who doesn't know anybody is the one that's going to suffer those horrendous mandatory minimums that can be upwards of 10 or 20 years for a small amount of drugs.

So I think that the states ought to be able to take this into account whether they want to decriminalize, where it's simply a fine or traffic ticket, or legalize, that's their business. But from a citizen's point of view, we have to stop this amazing financial drain on this country from something that I've had a drug czar admit to me was no more dangerous than alcohol and tobacco for adults.

NEVILLE: Hey, listen, why the title, "The Case Against Lawyers"?

CRIER: Well that's a fair question, because, actually, I talk about legislation and legislators, the lobbyists, the bureaucrats, because all of these get their material, if you will, from the lawyers. Yes, the lawyers are in court. We worry about frivolous lawsuits or these big punitive damages, all sorts of things that happen in our civil courts, but they also are influential in our criminal courts.

They're the ones that are expanding the law's role in our education system, which is perverting that system. They are the ones that write the legislation that a legislator, often a lawyer, passes. Most of our lobbyists are lawyers.

So all of the lawyers write the rules that the bureaucrats pass. So fundamentally it is the lawyers and their interpretation and expansion of the role of law that has caused the problems.

NEVILLE: Now, you also come out pretty strongly against the death penalty. Why is that?

CRIER: Well I'm very pragmatic about it. It's not a question of morality. If someone wants to argue eye for an eye, that's fine and that's their belief. But pragmatically as a taxpayer in this country, we have about 3,200 people on death row. It costs more to try a single death row case through appeal than it would to house each individual for life.

I believe in life without parole; 23/7 locked up for good. Secondarily, there's no deterrence whatsoever to the death penalty, and we have demonstrated that for years with studies, except for the person that you kill. Third, if you could tell me the most horrible thing you would do to me, it wouldn't be putting me to death. It would be locking me in a box.

And I don't mean with lifting weighs and television. I mean you're locked in a box 23/7 for the rest of your life. I'd say, kill me.

NEVILLE: So, Catherine, who do you think benefits from reading your book?

CRIER: Well, I tried to write something that is not for the lawyers and not for the academics but, in fact, for the American people, because it's something that we look at as our cornerstone of democracy. The rule of law was going to provide that equality and justice for all our citizens as we escaped King George. But now, just as the king, we have legislators and lawyers who say, well, this law we're going to write for you over here, and the little people over here, too bad.

IRS being the best example. There are 36,000 pages for a reason. This's because a great portion of those laws are favors to individuals and corporations. And the same thing applies with our society. The reason a lot of public parks are no longer open or they don't have playground equipment is because the liability laws are so strenuous to the point that you cannot waive liability for anything that our social lives are actually changing.

The way we interact in the workplace, again, the way our kids are treated or our teachers are dealt with, all of this is now regulated rather than allowing any sort of common sense or good judgment.

NEVILLE: OK. "The Case Against Lawyers" by Catherine Crier. Catherine, don't go anywhere, because I want to give you a second to think about this. We're switching gears now. It is, after all, Halloween.

CRIER: My favorite holiday.

NEVILLE: That's right. I'm going to ask you what's the worst treat you ever got in your trick or treat bag. OK?

Now what we did -- hang on to your thought for me. We took a viewer vote on which trick or treats or treats were more like tricks, that is. Pennies, look at there.

OK. Listen, excuse me, everyone. We're going to go to Upper Marlboro, Maryland, where Prince George's County state attorney Jack Johnson is holding a news conference on the sniper case.

JACK JOHNSON, MARYLAND STATE'S ATTORNEY: Good afternoon, everyone. I'm Jack Johnson. I'm the state's attorney for Prince George's County, Maryland.

With me is Bill Manico (ph), who is head of the homicide division for the state's attorney's office, and detective -- homicide detective Joe Berstrom (ph) from the Prince George's County Police Department, who are with me today.

As you know, on October the 7th, one of our students, a young lad, was shot down at Benjamin Tasker Middle School at approximately 8:07 in the morning. The evidence indicates that he was shot from a wooded area and the ballistic examination connect the bullet fragments to an AR-52 -- I think it is a 52 Bushmaster weapon -- AR-15 Bushmaster weapon that was recovered in the possession of John Muhammad and Lee Boyd Malvo, or John Lee Malvo.

Our information is not clear on the name. Apparently he has used more than one name. But at any rate, we are using the name Lee Boyd Malvo for purposes of our position.

On October 24, Mr. Muhammad and Mr. Malvo, as you know, were arrested in Frederick County, Maryland. In their possession was the AR-15 weapon that has linked them to the crime. So, today, our office has filed charges against both defendants. We are filing first attempted first degree murder against both of these individuals and conspiracy to commit first degree murder against both of these individuals.

The murder charges, or the attempted murder charges carry a life sentence as well as a conspiracy a life sentence. We have also filed a detainer. And a detainer is basically a position that we're holding or requesting that the federal authorities turn over the individuals to us when they are through with them so that we can also prosecute these individuals.

As you know, the citizens of Prince George's County have a tremendous interest in this case. They expect that these cases will be prosecuted. The families of the victims, they need to have their day in court. And therefore, it is our position that these cases one day should be tried in Prince George's County so that our victims, too, can have their day in court.

Now, we understand that there are a number of jurisdictions that have charges of murder. I believe personally that these are local charges and that it will be more appropriate for these cases to be tried on the local level. Nevertheless, there is discussion going on now between the federal authorities and the state authorities as to who should go first. I believe that those discussions should end very soon, and that the citizens of this country, as well as Prince George's County, need to know where these cases are going.

It is my position as a state's attorney for Prince George's County that, consistent with the prosecutors in northern Virginia, while -- and in Ashland, where one of the shooting victims survived, that we would rather to see the murder cases go first. That does not mean that we're not interested in these cases and that we're not going to insist on prosecuting these cases. But I do believe that the murder cases should go first. And as I said, I do believe that these are (UNINTELLIGIBLE) state prosecutions, and I believe that it would be more appropriate to prosecute these cases on the state level.

NEVILLE: Jack Johnson, Prince George's County state attorney saying that, listen, Muhammad and Malvo should be tried at the local level after the Feds are finished. He wants Maryland to have first crack at this duo. Catherine, you were listening to that. I'd like to hear your thoughts?

CRIER: Well I think Maryland is the place where this case ought to be tried initially. They had five -- six of the victims. They are able to combine them into a single case, whereas in the other cases, you are going to have one murder in one County, one murder in another. And, initially, I also said earlier in the show, if the Feds try these cases, then it's going to basically be double jeopardy for any of those states to take on the cases.

The Feds are going to deal with all of those murders and the extortion to make it a death penalty case. Only Alabama would be the state that may not be involved in the federal prosecution. They might be able to come after and prosecute on their own.

NEVILLE: Catherine, would this delay any sort of potential trials with all of the legal wrangling of who goes first and who tries the case first?

CRIER: Yes, it could. And I think they're ultimately going to resolve this where they don't have to have this public displaying of in-fighting. It may display it a bit, but we're going to have a long- term discovery on this case. You've got investigations going on in Alabama and Washington, up in Tacoma. This concern about a third person that might be involved. It's going to take a while to get any of these cases to trial.

NEVILLE: Catherine Crier, thank you very much for joining us today on TALKBACK LIVE.

NEVILLE: Thanks, Arthel.

NEVILLE: Nice to see you.

And up next, the Sugar Hill Gang and Grandmaster Melle Mel talk about legendary hip-hop deejay, Jam Master Jay. Share your memories with us right after this. Don't go anywhere. TALKBACK LIVE continues in a moment.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

NEVILLE: And welcome back, everybody.

The eulogies are coming in from all over, as fans mourn the death of hip-hop legend Jam Master Jay. Jason Mizell, deejay for Run DMC was shot inside a New York recording studio. Another man was wounded. Jam Master Jay helped pioneer a new sound by fusing rap with rock n roll, and Run DMC was the first rap group to be nominated for a Grammy.

And here to talk about Jam Master Jay's legacy, is the Sugar Hill Gang: Big Bank Hank, Wonder Mike, and Master Gee. Their break through single, "Rapper's Delight," you all know that song, in 1979, put rap into the mainstream. Also with us, rapper Grandmaster Melle Mel.

And I want to say good afternoon to everyone. Thank you so much for joining us here on TALKBACK LIVE. Good to see all of you. Unfortunately, under these conditions.

Big Bank Hank, I want to start with you. If you could give me your first thoughts when you first heard about the tragedy.

BIG BANK HANK, THE SUGAR HILL GANG: I was like totally devastated. I mean I heard it on the news. As a matter of fact, (UNINTELLIGIBLE) called us and told me. And I couldn't believe it. I really couldn't believe it at all.

NEVILLE: Wonder Mike?

WONDER MIKE, THE SUGAR HILL GANG: Well, I was packing for this trip, and just looked up and I saw the story on the local news. And it was really hard to take because our paths cross a lot with Run and them, and we do shows, and it was really hard to believe.

NEVILLE: Master Gee?

MASTER GEE, THE SUGAR HILL GANG: Well, it's so hard to believe because about two weeks ago, Jay was in our Sugar Hill studios mixing this album that he was working on. And unfortunately, we had a big fire in our building that burnt down our building. And for this to happen to someone right now, is unbelievable. I can't believe it.

NEVILLE: Melle Mel?

MELLE MEL, RAP ARTIS: Well, I actually had seen it on CNN and it's just sad all the way around. Because I knew him, you know, throughout the years. Like you said, our paths always crossed paths. And he was a good brother. So I mean, it's hard to just figure out how something can happen like that.

NEVILLE: Exactly. Listen, I have a phone call coming in now from Kurt (ph) in Ontario. I'd like to you to share your thoughts, Kurt (ph).

CALLER: Hi. How's it going?

NEVILLE: Hi.

CALLER: I just wanted to comment and (UNINTELLIGIBLE) hip-hop and R&B. Obviously, you just took a massive blow by losing, in my opinion, to easily the greatest deejay in the industry, I guess you could say. And being 15 years old, I was born when Run DMC was like probably the biggest rap band in the world. Nowadays, I'm listening to their music and, last week I bought the greatest hits album.

NEVILLE: How old are you?

CALLER: I'm 15. NEVILLE: All right, Kurt (ph), thank you very much for calling in to TALKBACK LIVE and sharing your thoughts with us. And time for another breakup next. More about the life and legacy of Jam Master Jay. We'll be back in a moment.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

NEVILLE: ... from Queens, New York, thank you very much for that e-mail.

Welcome back, everybody. We're talking with The Sugar Hill Gang. They started out before Run DMC, and Grandmaster Melle Mel about the shooting death and legacy of rapper Jam Master Jay.

And Big Bank Hank, if you could, tell me how Run DMC, what they meant to you in terms of music and how you'll remember...

BIG BANK HANK: Well, he changed the direction of music, rock into rap, and gave it a whole new persona. I mean it totally blew my mind. The situation I've been thinking about.

NEVILLE: And how will you remember Jam Master Jay?

WONDER MIKE: Well, every time we ran into James, he was really cordial, he was nice, he showed us crazy love, and that's what I remember about him. Then like 15 minutes later you see him on stage cutting it up and really talented guy, really cool guy.

NEVILLE: Master Gee?

MASTER GEE: Well, you know, when they came out, they came out with the beats, the drum beats, and they changed the way rap music was. When Sugar Hill Gang and Grandmaster Melle Mel and Grandmaster Flash came out, their beats were street orientated and then they came up with that song "Walk This Way" with Aerosmith and that was a monster song and it took rap to another dimension. You know? And we owe them so much praise for that.

NEVILLE: OK. Melle Mel?

MELLE MEL: Well, from my perspective, like, they were more like when rap came into the MTV generation. Because before that, I mean, maybe Michael Jackson might have been the only -- one of the brothers that was on MTV. And then (UNINTELLIGIBLE), kind of more or less opened up for hip-hop to be on MTV and "Yo, MTV Raps" and all of that. So they opened the doors to all that genre to be down. So they definitely were, you know, very influential in the whole thing.

NEVILLE: Hey, Wonder Mike, isn't it ironic that Jam Master Jay's life ended so violently?

WONDER MIKE: Yeah. It's one of those unfortunate things, you know with Biggie and Tupac and now Jam, I'm still trying to process it. It'll take a while because I really knew the guy. I didn't meet the other two gentlemen, but we used to kick it on the road. NEVILLE: Right, right. Well, listen, you know, I know that Run DMC definitely blazed some trails, but so did The Sugar Hill Gang. As with most mourning, there's also celebration. So before we go, if I could get The Sugar Hill Gang to do a little something for us, we would certainly love that here on TALKBACK LIVE.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: We'd love to.

NEVILLE: All right. I'm going to count you down. By the way, everybody, TALKBACK LIVE, we're going to see you tomorrow. Have a good Halloween and 1, 2, 3, hit it guys.

(MUSIC)

NEVILLE: Listen, guys, thank you so much. I just want to know -- we have a couple of seconds before we go here -- you obviously have a positive influence on young people out there. Quick final messages to young people today for me.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Keep your head up. Rap positive. Stay in school. And get an education.

NEVILLE: Yes.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Incidentally, our hearts and love go out to Run and DMC and the families of all of those guys, because we've got crazy love for them.

NEVILLE: Absolutely. Absolutely.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: My condolences to Jam Master Jay's family, his friends and his fans. And, man, you know we have to keep this on a positive tip, man. You know, life is a very precious thing and you don't want to lose it.

NEVILLE: Indeed. Thank you very much. We're out of time. Many, many thanks to Big Bank Hank, Wonder Mike, Master Gee and Grandmaster Melle Mel for being on the show today. Thanks for watching. I'm Arthel Neville.

Tomorrow is "Free-for-all Friday." "INSIDE POLITICS" up next. Happy Halloween.

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





Third Person Involved in Alabama Shooting?>