Return to Transcripts main page

CNN Live Today

Laci Peterson Case

Aired May 27, 2003 - 11:05   ET

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

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


FREDRICKA WHITFIELD, CNN ANCHOR: Let's continue this conversation and try to dissect with we might know a little bit about or what we may be learning a little bit about the hearings scheduled today, and bring in our Jeffrey Toobin who helps us kind of dissect these kinds of legal issues.
Jeffrey, let's talk about the extenuating circumstances that may apply to the legality of these wiretaps, when it might be admissible in court and when it might be useful.

JEFFREY TOOBIN, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: These are court-ordered wire wiretaps, so the overwhelming likelihood is that they will be admitted into court, if there is something relevant in there. Once the prosecution goes through the effort of getting court approval, the wiretaps are almost always admitted.

The one narrow possible exception here relates to conversations between Scott and his attorney. There's a process called minimization that the law enforcement officers who are listening are supposed to know that they're not supposed to listen to conversations with an attorney. They are supposed to minimize, which is cut off those sorts of wiretaps. If they did or didn't in certain wiretaps, that may come up in controversy today, but they probably won't have any bearing on the case. It will not be enough, I'm virtually certain, to throw out all the wiretaps, so that's really what they'll be talking about today.

WHITFIELD: So really perhaps the real, main focal point of this hearing today, the releasing or the unsealing of autopsy, as well as evidentiary files.

TOOBIN: That's right. This is a classic fight between fair trial versus free press. Both sides here, both the prosecution and defense say, look, there is nothing of public interest, nothing of public importance about these records, so in an effort to keep this case focused on what the jury will hear, don't release them. The newspapers and journalists who are going forward are saying, look, California law presumes that these kind of documents are supposed to be public. This is a public proceeding, and they should be released. It's actually I think a pretty tough call for the judge, and I don't know which way he's going to go.

WHITFIELD: And of course the defense attorney willing making the biggest fight, because of course the defense really doesn't want this type of information to in any way taint a jury pool. In fact, a motion just be made about a change of venue. Already, there is an issue on the defense team that there's no way he could get a fair trial in that community.

TOOBIN: You know, Fredricka, this, to me, is the best case for a change of venue I have ever seen in covering these kinds of cases. You have a small to medium size city in Modesto, not a very -- you know, not a place where there is a lot of other news that could dwarf something like this. You have the community highly mobilized to help Laci. Tremendous hostility toward Scott there. I think also you're talking about a state, California, where changes of venue, while not routine, are actually given.

So I think this is a case where it's very likely that the judge will say there's no way he could get a fair trial in Modesto. The case probably wouldn't move until they get to the trial stage. There is a long way to go until then, but for change of venue, this is certainly a very good candidate.

WHITFIELD: All right, Jeffrey Toobin, thanks very highly publicized case.

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 May 27, 2003 - 11:05   ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
FREDRICKA WHITFIELD, CNN ANCHOR: Let's continue this conversation and try to dissect with we might know a little bit about or what we may be learning a little bit about the hearings scheduled today, and bring in our Jeffrey Toobin who helps us kind of dissect these kinds of legal issues.
Jeffrey, let's talk about the extenuating circumstances that may apply to the legality of these wiretaps, when it might be admissible in court and when it might be useful.

JEFFREY TOOBIN, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: These are court-ordered wire wiretaps, so the overwhelming likelihood is that they will be admitted into court, if there is something relevant in there. Once the prosecution goes through the effort of getting court approval, the wiretaps are almost always admitted.

The one narrow possible exception here relates to conversations between Scott and his attorney. There's a process called minimization that the law enforcement officers who are listening are supposed to know that they're not supposed to listen to conversations with an attorney. They are supposed to minimize, which is cut off those sorts of wiretaps. If they did or didn't in certain wiretaps, that may come up in controversy today, but they probably won't have any bearing on the case. It will not be enough, I'm virtually certain, to throw out all the wiretaps, so that's really what they'll be talking about today.

WHITFIELD: So really perhaps the real, main focal point of this hearing today, the releasing or the unsealing of autopsy, as well as evidentiary files.

TOOBIN: That's right. This is a classic fight between fair trial versus free press. Both sides here, both the prosecution and defense say, look, there is nothing of public interest, nothing of public importance about these records, so in an effort to keep this case focused on what the jury will hear, don't release them. The newspapers and journalists who are going forward are saying, look, California law presumes that these kind of documents are supposed to be public. This is a public proceeding, and they should be released. It's actually I think a pretty tough call for the judge, and I don't know which way he's going to go.

WHITFIELD: And of course the defense attorney willing making the biggest fight, because of course the defense really doesn't want this type of information to in any way taint a jury pool. In fact, a motion just be made about a change of venue. Already, there is an issue on the defense team that there's no way he could get a fair trial in that community.

TOOBIN: You know, Fredricka, this, to me, is the best case for a change of venue I have ever seen in covering these kinds of cases. You have a small to medium size city in Modesto, not a very -- you know, not a place where there is a lot of other news that could dwarf something like this. You have the community highly mobilized to help Laci. Tremendous hostility toward Scott there. I think also you're talking about a state, California, where changes of venue, while not routine, are actually given.

So I think this is a case where it's very likely that the judge will say there's no way he could get a fair trial in Modesto. The case probably wouldn't move until they get to the trial stage. There is a long way to go until then, but for change of venue, this is certainly a very good candidate.

WHITFIELD: All right, Jeffrey Toobin, thanks very highly publicized case.

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