Return to Transcripts main page

CNN Sunday Morning

Legal Briefs

Aired December 15, 2002 - 08:41   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.


CAROL COSTELLO, CNN ANCHOR: Now it's time to our Legal Briefs segment, where we talk about legal issues in the news with our experts.
Joining us today from Philadelphia is Michael Smerconish, who is a trial lawyer and a talk show host. And from Miami, Lida Rodriguez- Taseff. She's the president of the American Civil Liberties Union in Miami.

Welcome to both of you.

MICHAEL SMERCONISH, TRIAL ATTORNEY: Good morning.

LIDA RODRIGUEZ-TASEFF, PRESIDENT, MIAMI ACLU: Good morning.

COSTELLO: Let's talk, let's start with the issue of Cardinal Law, who was formerly the head of the archdiocese in Boston. He is back from Rome right now. He is in disgrace. But should he go to jail?

RODRIGUEZ-TASEFF: Oh, boy, should he go to jail? Will he? I mean I think the reality is, and maybe Michael will agree with me on this one on this morning, but the reality is who knows if he's going to end up in jail? The reality is that the charges that are being looked into by this grand jury are such that they're impossible to prove unless he was involved in the wrongdoing and we've got to worry about the fact that all these many months after Cardinal Law said he was going to cooperate with authorities, nothing has really happened.

The archdiocese has put up all sorts of barriers to disclosure of documents, to providing information. And we will see whether or not these eight priests will testify.

COSTELLO: Well, Michael, isn't that partly understandable? I mean, you know, they have to go through legal processes themselves...

SMERCONISH: Oh, no.

COSTELLO: ... and Cardinal Law and the archdiocese were just obeying their attorneys, weren't they?

SMERCONISH: No way. No way. What really blew this case up were the documents that were finally revealed about 10 days ago that showed that he coddled priests who were pedophiles. I mean some of the flowery letters that he wrote about how, on balance, they had done good work and so forth were disgusting. And that's what finally took him out.

He's not going to do time and he's not going to be charged criminally, in my view, because I don't think that the conduct rises to the level that he had the intent that was necessary. But there are ramifications for this from a civil side and that is that the civil cases, I think, are now worth less because the punitive damages are predicated on punishing somebody. And the fact that Cardinal Law has now resigned his position, I think, takes the edge off in those civil cases.

COSTELLO: But aren't there many people in Boston who really want to see him pay criminally for this?

SMERCONISH: Oh, I think there are. But I don't think that, when all is said and done, that the conduct equates to the criminal statutes that were on the books at that time.

COSTELLO: All right, let's...

RODRIGUEZ-TASEFF: I hate to agree with him.

COSTELLO: I know.

RODRIGUEZ-TASEFF: He's right.

COSTELLO: I want you guys to debate and you're not debating on this issue.

RODRIGUEZ-TASEFF: Oh, we will later.

COSTELLO: Oh, I'm sure you will.

RODRIGUEZ-TASEFF: Sure.

COSTELLO: Let's, in fact, on our next subject I'll bet, which is cross burning, which is now before the U.S. Supreme Court. And it was interesting that Clarence Thomas came out and said what he did against cross burning.

Let's start with you, Michael.

SMERCONISH: Well, Clarence Thomas, as usual, was correct in this case. And what he's saying is it's not simply a matter of speech. This is not a case of me -- and I would never do it -- but putting up a soap box in front of Independence Hall in Philadelphia and proclaiming some message of white supremacy, which would be protected speech.

When you burn a cross on somebody's front yard, it's an act of intimidation and it should be banned and it is constitutional to say that it's against the law.

COSTELLO: Lida?

RODRIGUEZ-TASEFF: Oh, my goodness, I knew we wouldn't agree for long. Absolutely ridiculous. You know, ironic is, I think, the word I would use for Clarence Thomas's, Justice Thomas's defense of this law. The reality is is that this protects core speech. If we are allowed to burn a flag in this country -- not that I'm saying it's wise or clever or smart -- but if we are allowed to burn a flag, why not be allowed to burn a cross?

What's most important about this is that it's Justice Thomas posturing. That's the reality of it. This is a man who has done nothing while he has been on the court to protect the reality of discrimination and racism in this country...

COSTELLO: But, Lida, why would he posture at this particular moment? I mean what difference does it make?

RODRIGUEZ-TASEFF: Oh, it's all about ego. It is all about ego. This is the same man who in 1995 in a similar case dealing with allowing the Ku Klux Klan to put up a cross at a public square in Columbus, Ohio, said yes, they should be allowed to put up that public cross. That is core speech.

The reality is he doesn't like the message. The message is a racist hateful message and it is a symbol of oppression in this country.

But here is a man who has never protected against real oppression now sitting around protecting against the symbols. I find it very ironic.

COSTELLO: Michael, I did want to bring up this point. You say burning a cross is an act of intimidation. But what if you burn a cross inside your own home? Then it's not. And should that be against the law, too?

SMERCONISH: Well, there is an intimidation requirement to the Virginia law so that if you burn a -- I don't know why you'd ever do such a thing, but if you were to burn a cross inside your own home, that would probably be protected conduct under this statute.

I have to say that I think that, you know, the cheap shotting of Justice Thomas is unwarranted.

RODRIGUEZ-TASEFF: Cheap shotting?

SMERCONISH: Here's a guy who grew up in...

RODRIGUEZ-TASEFF: Give me a break.

SMERCONISH: Here's a guy who grew up in the segregated south in Georgia. He's been a terrific member of that court. Never gets the credit that he's deserving. And who better to speak up on the issue of burning a cross than an African-American member of the Supreme Court? I'm glad that he said what he said.

RODRIGUEZ-TASEFF: But let's not forget that this is the same African-American member who prior to coming to the court had to deal with very real, valid and credible allegations from an African- American woman that he was sexually harassing her. SMERCONISH: And she was...

RODRIGUEZ-TASEFF: Where was his...

SMERCONISH: She was totally incredible...

RODRIGUEZ-TASEFF: Where was his spirit back then?

SMERCONISH: ... America didn't believe her.

COSTELLO: OK, before we get into that debate...

SMERCONISH: Nobody believed her.

COSTELLO: ... let's pause for a moment.

RODRIGUEZ-TASEFF: No, no, no.

COSTELLO: We don't have much time.

Michael and Lida, I want to get to Pete Rose. Should he be reinstated to baseball?

RODRIGUEZ-TASEFF: Absolutely not.

COSTELLO: Why not?

RODRIGUEZ-TASEFF: Oh, you know what, though? Here's the reality. Here's what he's arguing. By the way, he has this incredible Web site, $700 for a jersey. If you want to buy a jersey from Pete Rose, this is all about the money. And his whole message as to why he should be reinstated is, look, you let drug users, you let sex, wife beaters, you let all sorts of horrible people who are, you know, just big brats who make a lot of money, why not me?

And you know what? If that's the standard, god bless baseball. Let him in. Let him join the club.

COSTELLO: Michael, do you agree at all?

SMERCONISH: There's got to be some consistency because, Lida, we do let the crack smokers, the ones who sleep with prostitutes, they beat their wives, they all get back in the game. Charlie Hussle (ph) is on the outside looking in. He's been there for 13 years. Enough is enough.

COSTELLO: Oh, right.

RODRIGUEZ-TASEFF: He lied. He lied.

COSTELLO: Unfortunately, we have to go.

RODRIGUEZ-TASEFF: He's a liar.

COSTELLO: Michael, Lida, it's been a lot of fun.

SMERCONISH: Thank you.

RODRIGUEZ-TASEFF: Thank you.

COSTELLO: We've got to take a break right now. We'll be right back. You stick around.

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







Aired December 15, 2002 - 08:41   ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
CAROL COSTELLO, CNN ANCHOR: Now it's time to our Legal Briefs segment, where we talk about legal issues in the news with our experts.
Joining us today from Philadelphia is Michael Smerconish, who is a trial lawyer and a talk show host. And from Miami, Lida Rodriguez- Taseff. She's the president of the American Civil Liberties Union in Miami.

Welcome to both of you.

MICHAEL SMERCONISH, TRIAL ATTORNEY: Good morning.

LIDA RODRIGUEZ-TASEFF, PRESIDENT, MIAMI ACLU: Good morning.

COSTELLO: Let's talk, let's start with the issue of Cardinal Law, who was formerly the head of the archdiocese in Boston. He is back from Rome right now. He is in disgrace. But should he go to jail?

RODRIGUEZ-TASEFF: Oh, boy, should he go to jail? Will he? I mean I think the reality is, and maybe Michael will agree with me on this one on this morning, but the reality is who knows if he's going to end up in jail? The reality is that the charges that are being looked into by this grand jury are such that they're impossible to prove unless he was involved in the wrongdoing and we've got to worry about the fact that all these many months after Cardinal Law said he was going to cooperate with authorities, nothing has really happened.

The archdiocese has put up all sorts of barriers to disclosure of documents, to providing information. And we will see whether or not these eight priests will testify.

COSTELLO: Well, Michael, isn't that partly understandable? I mean, you know, they have to go through legal processes themselves...

SMERCONISH: Oh, no.

COSTELLO: ... and Cardinal Law and the archdiocese were just obeying their attorneys, weren't they?

SMERCONISH: No way. No way. What really blew this case up were the documents that were finally revealed about 10 days ago that showed that he coddled priests who were pedophiles. I mean some of the flowery letters that he wrote about how, on balance, they had done good work and so forth were disgusting. And that's what finally took him out.

He's not going to do time and he's not going to be charged criminally, in my view, because I don't think that the conduct rises to the level that he had the intent that was necessary. But there are ramifications for this from a civil side and that is that the civil cases, I think, are now worth less because the punitive damages are predicated on punishing somebody. And the fact that Cardinal Law has now resigned his position, I think, takes the edge off in those civil cases.

COSTELLO: But aren't there many people in Boston who really want to see him pay criminally for this?

SMERCONISH: Oh, I think there are. But I don't think that, when all is said and done, that the conduct equates to the criminal statutes that were on the books at that time.

COSTELLO: All right, let's...

RODRIGUEZ-TASEFF: I hate to agree with him.

COSTELLO: I know.

RODRIGUEZ-TASEFF: He's right.

COSTELLO: I want you guys to debate and you're not debating on this issue.

RODRIGUEZ-TASEFF: Oh, we will later.

COSTELLO: Oh, I'm sure you will.

RODRIGUEZ-TASEFF: Sure.

COSTELLO: Let's, in fact, on our next subject I'll bet, which is cross burning, which is now before the U.S. Supreme Court. And it was interesting that Clarence Thomas came out and said what he did against cross burning.

Let's start with you, Michael.

SMERCONISH: Well, Clarence Thomas, as usual, was correct in this case. And what he's saying is it's not simply a matter of speech. This is not a case of me -- and I would never do it -- but putting up a soap box in front of Independence Hall in Philadelphia and proclaiming some message of white supremacy, which would be protected speech.

When you burn a cross on somebody's front yard, it's an act of intimidation and it should be banned and it is constitutional to say that it's against the law.

COSTELLO: Lida?

RODRIGUEZ-TASEFF: Oh, my goodness, I knew we wouldn't agree for long. Absolutely ridiculous. You know, ironic is, I think, the word I would use for Clarence Thomas's, Justice Thomas's defense of this law. The reality is is that this protects core speech. If we are allowed to burn a flag in this country -- not that I'm saying it's wise or clever or smart -- but if we are allowed to burn a flag, why not be allowed to burn a cross?

What's most important about this is that it's Justice Thomas posturing. That's the reality of it. This is a man who has done nothing while he has been on the court to protect the reality of discrimination and racism in this country...

COSTELLO: But, Lida, why would he posture at this particular moment? I mean what difference does it make?

RODRIGUEZ-TASEFF: Oh, it's all about ego. It is all about ego. This is the same man who in 1995 in a similar case dealing with allowing the Ku Klux Klan to put up a cross at a public square in Columbus, Ohio, said yes, they should be allowed to put up that public cross. That is core speech.

The reality is he doesn't like the message. The message is a racist hateful message and it is a symbol of oppression in this country.

But here is a man who has never protected against real oppression now sitting around protecting against the symbols. I find it very ironic.

COSTELLO: Michael, I did want to bring up this point. You say burning a cross is an act of intimidation. But what if you burn a cross inside your own home? Then it's not. And should that be against the law, too?

SMERCONISH: Well, there is an intimidation requirement to the Virginia law so that if you burn a -- I don't know why you'd ever do such a thing, but if you were to burn a cross inside your own home, that would probably be protected conduct under this statute.

I have to say that I think that, you know, the cheap shotting of Justice Thomas is unwarranted.

RODRIGUEZ-TASEFF: Cheap shotting?

SMERCONISH: Here's a guy who grew up in...

RODRIGUEZ-TASEFF: Give me a break.

SMERCONISH: Here's a guy who grew up in the segregated south in Georgia. He's been a terrific member of that court. Never gets the credit that he's deserving. And who better to speak up on the issue of burning a cross than an African-American member of the Supreme Court? I'm glad that he said what he said.

RODRIGUEZ-TASEFF: But let's not forget that this is the same African-American member who prior to coming to the court had to deal with very real, valid and credible allegations from an African- American woman that he was sexually harassing her. SMERCONISH: And she was...

RODRIGUEZ-TASEFF: Where was his...

SMERCONISH: She was totally incredible...

RODRIGUEZ-TASEFF: Where was his spirit back then?

SMERCONISH: ... America didn't believe her.

COSTELLO: OK, before we get into that debate...

SMERCONISH: Nobody believed her.

COSTELLO: ... let's pause for a moment.

RODRIGUEZ-TASEFF: No, no, no.

COSTELLO: We don't have much time.

Michael and Lida, I want to get to Pete Rose. Should he be reinstated to baseball?

RODRIGUEZ-TASEFF: Absolutely not.

COSTELLO: Why not?

RODRIGUEZ-TASEFF: Oh, you know what, though? Here's the reality. Here's what he's arguing. By the way, he has this incredible Web site, $700 for a jersey. If you want to buy a jersey from Pete Rose, this is all about the money. And his whole message as to why he should be reinstated is, look, you let drug users, you let sex, wife beaters, you let all sorts of horrible people who are, you know, just big brats who make a lot of money, why not me?

And you know what? If that's the standard, god bless baseball. Let him in. Let him join the club.

COSTELLO: Michael, do you agree at all?

SMERCONISH: There's got to be some consistency because, Lida, we do let the crack smokers, the ones who sleep with prostitutes, they beat their wives, they all get back in the game. Charlie Hussle (ph) is on the outside looking in. He's been there for 13 years. Enough is enough.

COSTELLO: Oh, right.

RODRIGUEZ-TASEFF: He lied. He lied.

COSTELLO: Unfortunately, we have to go.

RODRIGUEZ-TASEFF: He's a liar.

COSTELLO: Michael, Lida, it's been a lot of fun.

SMERCONISH: Thank you.

RODRIGUEZ-TASEFF: Thank you.

COSTELLO: We've got to take a break right now. We'll be right back. You stick around.

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