Return to Transcripts main page

CNN Live Today

Martha Plans for Court Battle

Aired June 05, 2003 - 11:12   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.


LEON HARRIS, CNN ANCHOR: In the meantime, another big story that we've been following is the case of Martha Stewart. She's proclaiming that she's innocent in a full page ad in "USA Today." She stepped down as head of her vast style and media empire following her indictment yesterday.
Our Allan Chernoff is in New York this morning. He's going to tell us what may be next for Martha Stewart - Allan.

ALLAN CHERNOFF, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Well, Leon, what is next right now is that she is most definitely taking her fight to the public. Martha Stewart has set up a special Web site, marthatalks.com, to present her side of this entire story and, as you mentioned, she also has taken out this ad in "USA Today." It cost $73,000. In the ad she says, "I will fight to clear my name."

She's also opening up the lines of communications, referring to the Web site and in the ad specifically saying, "I will do my best to post current information about the case and you will be able to contact me at Martha@marthatalks.com. I'll look forward to hearing from you.

Now, the pictures yesterday outside of the U.S. Federal Courthouse in Lower Manhattan may turn out to be quite sympathetic to Martha Stewart, certainly that's what plenty of people are saying this morning. Inside of the courthouse she was charged with obstruction of justice, lying to federal investigators, and also securities fraud.

The U.S. attorney James Comey said Martha Stewart is being prosecuted not for who she is but for what she did. Now, she also did step down yesterday evening as chairman and chief executive of her company, Martha Stewart Living OmniMedia. She will remain a director. She's also taking on a new title, chief creative officer, and very importantly she remains the biggest shareholder of the company.

By the way, yesterday, when all of this was happening the stock was actually up five percent. It was up a little bit this morning. The last I checked a few moments ago the stock was unchanged at $10 a share, but that is so important to Martha Stewart because she does own 61 percent of the company stock. That's where a vast amount of her fortune lies and she has lost hundreds of millions of dollars simply because the stock has taken such a tumble - Leon.

HARRIS: All right, thanks Allan, appreciate that, Allan Chernoff who's been on this story for us since it broke yesterday, appreciate that. All right, folks, you can read the full indictment against Martha Stewart on our Web site and also you can cast a quick vote there. "Are the Feds being too hard on Martha Stewart simply because she is Martha Stewart?" Let us know what you think about that and the address, cnn.com or just type CNN in your AOL keyword box and you'll go right there.

Now, let's go right to the Scott Peterson case. This man who's accused of killing his wife and unborn child returns to a Modesto, California courtroom tomorrow, the pretrial hearing likely to determine whether a jury will hear any potentially damaging phone calls by Peterson in the days after his wife was killed.

Let's talk with "COURT TV's" Catherine Crier about what to expect tomorrow. She joins us now from Modesto, California, good to see you again Catherine. How are you?

CATHERINE CRIER, "COURT TV": Hey, Leon.

HARRIS: Let's talk about this. What do you expect to have happen tomorrow with the matter of the phone taps there?

CRIER: It will be very interesting and will be open while another hearing will not, and that is the challenge by the defense to the admissibility of all of these tapes, some 68, 69 tape recordings because they say that the attorney/client privilege was breached by the police when they overheard conversations between Scott and his lawyers.

The prosecution says that wad inadvertent that only snippets were actually heard and this should in no way prohibit us from going forward with the rest of the conversations that might be pertinent to the prosecution. I think the court will probably, unless there's an egregious violation, will probably go along with the prosecution and allow the tapes.

HARRIS: All right, and you're speaking here of course as a former judge yourself. Where does the law lie on a matter like this?

CRIER: Well, again, it's a matter of discretion on the part of the court. If, in fact, it seems that police officers inadvertently got a portion of conversations between Scott and his attorneys, if they got something that was benign as opposed to critical information, the judge might say all right you guys pushed the envelope a little bit but I'm not going to punish you by disallowing the other important information.

But if, in fact, he finds the substance there was a serious breach, a serious violation of that attorney/client privilege, he could do anything from throwing out other tapes that are relevant to even requiring the district attorney to step down from the case and somebody else come in to prosecute. I doubt that will happen though.

HARRIS: It's interesting. Well, one other matter that this judge is also considering is a request by the media out there to have the request for the search warrants actually unsealed and released. What do you think the judge is likely to decide on that and when do you think that will happen?

CRIER: Well, in the hearing on Tuesday, the judge was posing a lot of questions to both the prosecution and the defense saying tell me why I should not release the search warrants, why I should not release the autopsy report because at this point in time we're far enough along in the case that it's normally available to the public.

And so, what they have to come forward with is information that indicates they're still investigating the case, that there are still things that they don't want other people to know that might be contained in the search warrant or autopsy because there are legitimately other suspects.

And, I had a very interesting meeting last night with defense sources and they're out on a bit of a dangerous limb in that they're being very, very specific in the kind of defense they're going to propose. They say here is the brown van. Here is the license plate.

There is forensics that need to be done in this van. There was a woman who claims these people abducted and raped her saying they were going to kill somebody on Christmas Eve. We know who these people are. The cops have the van. Credible people in Scott Peterson's neighborhood saw Laci Peterson long after Scott had gone for the day.

They found a pair of shoes they believe belonged to her and I'm beginning to learn who some of these people are and, in fact, I think they're going to be see as sort of upstanding members of the community without any axe to grind one way or the other.

So, the defense is being very specific I think with the judge tomorrow on what they think they can prove and why the information shouldn't be released. I'm going to have an opportunity to elaborate on this quite a bit, 5:00 Eastern on "CATHERINE CRIER LIVE" and really go into some of the details, though, that we learned from defense sources last night.

HARRIS: We're going to have to check you out today at five o'clock because that sounds very interesting.

CRIER: OK.

HARRIS: Now, I want to hear some more about what you heard last night too. All right, thanks Catherine. We have to move on. I've got a break I need to get to today. Catherine Crier out there in Modesto, California, take care.

CRIER: Thanks, Leon.

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 June 5, 2003 - 11:12   ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
LEON HARRIS, CNN ANCHOR: In the meantime, another big story that we've been following is the case of Martha Stewart. She's proclaiming that she's innocent in a full page ad in "USA Today." She stepped down as head of her vast style and media empire following her indictment yesterday.
Our Allan Chernoff is in New York this morning. He's going to tell us what may be next for Martha Stewart - Allan.

ALLAN CHERNOFF, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Well, Leon, what is next right now is that she is most definitely taking her fight to the public. Martha Stewart has set up a special Web site, marthatalks.com, to present her side of this entire story and, as you mentioned, she also has taken out this ad in "USA Today." It cost $73,000. In the ad she says, "I will fight to clear my name."

She's also opening up the lines of communications, referring to the Web site and in the ad specifically saying, "I will do my best to post current information about the case and you will be able to contact me at Martha@marthatalks.com. I'll look forward to hearing from you.

Now, the pictures yesterday outside of the U.S. Federal Courthouse in Lower Manhattan may turn out to be quite sympathetic to Martha Stewart, certainly that's what plenty of people are saying this morning. Inside of the courthouse she was charged with obstruction of justice, lying to federal investigators, and also securities fraud.

The U.S. attorney James Comey said Martha Stewart is being prosecuted not for who she is but for what she did. Now, she also did step down yesterday evening as chairman and chief executive of her company, Martha Stewart Living OmniMedia. She will remain a director. She's also taking on a new title, chief creative officer, and very importantly she remains the biggest shareholder of the company.

By the way, yesterday, when all of this was happening the stock was actually up five percent. It was up a little bit this morning. The last I checked a few moments ago the stock was unchanged at $10 a share, but that is so important to Martha Stewart because she does own 61 percent of the company stock. That's where a vast amount of her fortune lies and she has lost hundreds of millions of dollars simply because the stock has taken such a tumble - Leon.

HARRIS: All right, thanks Allan, appreciate that, Allan Chernoff who's been on this story for us since it broke yesterday, appreciate that. All right, folks, you can read the full indictment against Martha Stewart on our Web site and also you can cast a quick vote there. "Are the Feds being too hard on Martha Stewart simply because she is Martha Stewart?" Let us know what you think about that and the address, cnn.com or just type CNN in your AOL keyword box and you'll go right there.

Now, let's go right to the Scott Peterson case. This man who's accused of killing his wife and unborn child returns to a Modesto, California courtroom tomorrow, the pretrial hearing likely to determine whether a jury will hear any potentially damaging phone calls by Peterson in the days after his wife was killed.

Let's talk with "COURT TV's" Catherine Crier about what to expect tomorrow. She joins us now from Modesto, California, good to see you again Catherine. How are you?

CATHERINE CRIER, "COURT TV": Hey, Leon.

HARRIS: Let's talk about this. What do you expect to have happen tomorrow with the matter of the phone taps there?

CRIER: It will be very interesting and will be open while another hearing will not, and that is the challenge by the defense to the admissibility of all of these tapes, some 68, 69 tape recordings because they say that the attorney/client privilege was breached by the police when they overheard conversations between Scott and his lawyers.

The prosecution says that wad inadvertent that only snippets were actually heard and this should in no way prohibit us from going forward with the rest of the conversations that might be pertinent to the prosecution. I think the court will probably, unless there's an egregious violation, will probably go along with the prosecution and allow the tapes.

HARRIS: All right, and you're speaking here of course as a former judge yourself. Where does the law lie on a matter like this?

CRIER: Well, again, it's a matter of discretion on the part of the court. If, in fact, it seems that police officers inadvertently got a portion of conversations between Scott and his attorneys, if they got something that was benign as opposed to critical information, the judge might say all right you guys pushed the envelope a little bit but I'm not going to punish you by disallowing the other important information.

But if, in fact, he finds the substance there was a serious breach, a serious violation of that attorney/client privilege, he could do anything from throwing out other tapes that are relevant to even requiring the district attorney to step down from the case and somebody else come in to prosecute. I doubt that will happen though.

HARRIS: It's interesting. Well, one other matter that this judge is also considering is a request by the media out there to have the request for the search warrants actually unsealed and released. What do you think the judge is likely to decide on that and when do you think that will happen?

CRIER: Well, in the hearing on Tuesday, the judge was posing a lot of questions to both the prosecution and the defense saying tell me why I should not release the search warrants, why I should not release the autopsy report because at this point in time we're far enough along in the case that it's normally available to the public.

And so, what they have to come forward with is information that indicates they're still investigating the case, that there are still things that they don't want other people to know that might be contained in the search warrant or autopsy because there are legitimately other suspects.

And, I had a very interesting meeting last night with defense sources and they're out on a bit of a dangerous limb in that they're being very, very specific in the kind of defense they're going to propose. They say here is the brown van. Here is the license plate.

There is forensics that need to be done in this van. There was a woman who claims these people abducted and raped her saying they were going to kill somebody on Christmas Eve. We know who these people are. The cops have the van. Credible people in Scott Peterson's neighborhood saw Laci Peterson long after Scott had gone for the day.

They found a pair of shoes they believe belonged to her and I'm beginning to learn who some of these people are and, in fact, I think they're going to be see as sort of upstanding members of the community without any axe to grind one way or the other.

So, the defense is being very specific I think with the judge tomorrow on what they think they can prove and why the information shouldn't be released. I'm going to have an opportunity to elaborate on this quite a bit, 5:00 Eastern on "CATHERINE CRIER LIVE" and really go into some of the details, though, that we learned from defense sources last night.

HARRIS: We're going to have to check you out today at five o'clock because that sounds very interesting.

CRIER: OK.

HARRIS: Now, I want to hear some more about what you heard last night too. All right, thanks Catherine. We have to move on. I've got a break I need to get to today. Catherine Crier out there in Modesto, California, take care.

CRIER: Thanks, Leon.

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