Return to Transcripts main page
CNN Live Sunday
Interview With Avery Friedman, Michael Smerconish
Aired August 17, 2003 - 10:41 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.
FREDRICKA WHITFIELD, CNN ANCHOR: Let's talk about these cases this morning with Michael Smerconish, trial attorney and CNN contributor; he's in Philadelphia, and Avery Friedman, law professor and civil rights attorney, who is joining us from Cleveland.
Glad you got the lights on there, Avery.
AVERY FRIEDMAN, CIVIL RIGHTS ATTORNEY: Yeah.
WHITFIELD: Good to see both of you.
Let's begin with the Patrick Dennehy case. Carlton Dotson, with his extradition hearing scheduled for this Tuesday in Maryland, Avery, likely would he attend that extradition hearing? Would he need to be there?
FRIEDMAN: Fredricka, not only is he required to be there, but it would be important for him to be there in the event that his lawyer needs to introduce evidence. But the realty is, I think, is that the extradition motion has about as much likelihood as -- well, there is no likelihood. The fact is that he's going to be on his way to Texas this week.
WHITFIELD: Yeah. Michael, why would Dotson's attorneys possibly try to argue keeping him Maryland?
MICHAEL SMERCONISH, ATTORNEY: I think simply to get their ducks in a row. I think that only strategy here is to buy a little bit of time because I agree with Avery on this. The man is headed toward Texas and he's going to face charges.
This remarkable story that you just revealed on CNN will not impact the murder case itself. It will probably result in some false police charges, filing a false affidavit or report with the cops being lodged against that coach, and appropriately so if that's the way it went down. That's just remarkable that he would defame this dead man in the way that is now being reported.
WHITFIELD: All right. Let's move on to the Scott Peterson case in California. It's understandable why the defense might even argue for cameras to be in a courtroom during trial, to kind of ensure that their client is getting a fair trial in front of a public audience. But why in a preliminary hearing Michael, and that's so-called for September 9th?
SMERCONISH: I think, Fredricka, what's been going on in the Peterson case if you would assess the coverage that's been provided to the defense team so far, you would have to say that Mark Geragos routinely comes out on the short end of the stick.
So if you now allow cameras into the courtroom for the preliminary hearing, undoubtedly, that night, you know, on "Larry Kin Live", he's going to take another drubbing. And so too will the whole defense in the case, and I think that they want to keep that at bay because a jury has not yet been selected in this case. We're a long way from it. Ultimately the trial will probably be televised but it benefits defendants to keep those cameras at bay for as long as possible.
WHITFIELD: Avery, bottom line, the camera in the courtroom issue is always one that's argued to help to maintain the integrity of potential jurors?
FRIEDMAN: But the other issue is that once you bar media and the public from courtrooms then you actually pull the guts out of the First Amendment. It is our right to know the people's right to know. While he's trying to avoid poisoning the jury pool, the fact is that you can have cameras in the courtroom, you can have cameras in the hallway, and it should not impact on the right of the defendant.
It's all about jury selection. You're not entitled to an ignorant juror. You're entitled to an impartial juror.
SMERCONISH: But you know, Avery --
WHITFIELD: But isn't also the argument of the privacy issue? That both the defendant and - in other cases, the alleged victims, that perhaps, because it's an issue of privacy, that that would be another argument against having cameras in the courtroom?
SMERCONISH: I think it's slightly different, Fredricka. I think it's Scott Peterson's right to a fair trial and I believe that his right to a fair trial would trump any First Amendment issue, if the two had to be evaluated on the same stage. Ultimately, I think the trial should be televised. What I'm arguing is that the preliminary hearing probably should not because the risk is too great, that it will taint the jury pool.
WHITFIELD: All right, let's move on to the Kobe Bryant case, far from a trial. In fact, it won't be until October until we hear from the judge as to whether they will proceed with a trial.
In the meantime it is possible that any day now there might be an unsealing of the evidence, in an Eagle courtroom, as to what kind of evidence that the prosecution has gained already. Do you see that perhaps the judge just might do that, Avery?
FRIEDMAN: Oh, I think that without a question the judge is going release some of the evidence, but remember, October 9 a date for another preliminary hearing. It's like a mini trial. So I do think that we're going to see some unsealing of the evidence.
WHITFIELD: Well, what's the benefit of unsealing that evidence? If it once again is the issue of the integrity of the jury pool, is this to just kind of cut down on the rumor mill out there, Michael?
SMERCONISH: Absolutely. Fredricka, there's so much out there about this case, that according to the "Vail Daily", which seems to be the newspaper of record in Eagle County, Colorado, is bogus. Avery is absolutely correct on October 9 you're going to get a mini version, the "Cliff's Notes" version of what this case is about. I think we're doing harm to the alleged victim in this case, as we keep these records secret. They ought to let it all out now.
WHITFIELD: Let's talk about this alleged victim, and the role this alleged victim might play in either preliminary hearing or, you know the prosecution trying to protect this person's identity before this evidence is released.
Avery, what extent will the prosecution go to try to protect her?
FRIEDMAN: Well, to the extent that they can. The fact is, though, at this mini trial, they're going to need the testimony of the victim. In fact, without it I think Judge Fred Gannett is compelled to stop this prosecution.
So you're going to see the victim. You are going to see cameras in the courtroom. And again, it's always a balance, but I think Michael and I disagree on this one, I think First Amendment trumps that right and you're going see cameras in the courtroom.
WHITFIELD: All right, thanks very much, Michael Smerconish and Avery Friedman. Good to see both of you.
FRIEDMAN: Nice to be with you.
SMERCONISH: Nice to be with you.
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 August 17, 2003 - 10:41 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 talk about these cases this morning with Michael Smerconish, trial attorney and CNN contributor; he's in Philadelphia, and Avery Friedman, law professor and civil rights attorney, who is joining us from Cleveland.
Glad you got the lights on there, Avery.
AVERY FRIEDMAN, CIVIL RIGHTS ATTORNEY: Yeah.
WHITFIELD: Good to see both of you.
Let's begin with the Patrick Dennehy case. Carlton Dotson, with his extradition hearing scheduled for this Tuesday in Maryland, Avery, likely would he attend that extradition hearing? Would he need to be there?
FRIEDMAN: Fredricka, not only is he required to be there, but it would be important for him to be there in the event that his lawyer needs to introduce evidence. But the realty is, I think, is that the extradition motion has about as much likelihood as -- well, there is no likelihood. The fact is that he's going to be on his way to Texas this week.
WHITFIELD: Yeah. Michael, why would Dotson's attorneys possibly try to argue keeping him Maryland?
MICHAEL SMERCONISH, ATTORNEY: I think simply to get their ducks in a row. I think that only strategy here is to buy a little bit of time because I agree with Avery on this. The man is headed toward Texas and he's going to face charges.
This remarkable story that you just revealed on CNN will not impact the murder case itself. It will probably result in some false police charges, filing a false affidavit or report with the cops being lodged against that coach, and appropriately so if that's the way it went down. That's just remarkable that he would defame this dead man in the way that is now being reported.
WHITFIELD: All right. Let's move on to the Scott Peterson case in California. It's understandable why the defense might even argue for cameras to be in a courtroom during trial, to kind of ensure that their client is getting a fair trial in front of a public audience. But why in a preliminary hearing Michael, and that's so-called for September 9th?
SMERCONISH: I think, Fredricka, what's been going on in the Peterson case if you would assess the coverage that's been provided to the defense team so far, you would have to say that Mark Geragos routinely comes out on the short end of the stick.
So if you now allow cameras into the courtroom for the preliminary hearing, undoubtedly, that night, you know, on "Larry Kin Live", he's going to take another drubbing. And so too will the whole defense in the case, and I think that they want to keep that at bay because a jury has not yet been selected in this case. We're a long way from it. Ultimately the trial will probably be televised but it benefits defendants to keep those cameras at bay for as long as possible.
WHITFIELD: Avery, bottom line, the camera in the courtroom issue is always one that's argued to help to maintain the integrity of potential jurors?
FRIEDMAN: But the other issue is that once you bar media and the public from courtrooms then you actually pull the guts out of the First Amendment. It is our right to know the people's right to know. While he's trying to avoid poisoning the jury pool, the fact is that you can have cameras in the courtroom, you can have cameras in the hallway, and it should not impact on the right of the defendant.
It's all about jury selection. You're not entitled to an ignorant juror. You're entitled to an impartial juror.
SMERCONISH: But you know, Avery --
WHITFIELD: But isn't also the argument of the privacy issue? That both the defendant and - in other cases, the alleged victims, that perhaps, because it's an issue of privacy, that that would be another argument against having cameras in the courtroom?
SMERCONISH: I think it's slightly different, Fredricka. I think it's Scott Peterson's right to a fair trial and I believe that his right to a fair trial would trump any First Amendment issue, if the two had to be evaluated on the same stage. Ultimately, I think the trial should be televised. What I'm arguing is that the preliminary hearing probably should not because the risk is too great, that it will taint the jury pool.
WHITFIELD: All right, let's move on to the Kobe Bryant case, far from a trial. In fact, it won't be until October until we hear from the judge as to whether they will proceed with a trial.
In the meantime it is possible that any day now there might be an unsealing of the evidence, in an Eagle courtroom, as to what kind of evidence that the prosecution has gained already. Do you see that perhaps the judge just might do that, Avery?
FRIEDMAN: Oh, I think that without a question the judge is going release some of the evidence, but remember, October 9 a date for another preliminary hearing. It's like a mini trial. So I do think that we're going to see some unsealing of the evidence.
WHITFIELD: Well, what's the benefit of unsealing that evidence? If it once again is the issue of the integrity of the jury pool, is this to just kind of cut down on the rumor mill out there, Michael?
SMERCONISH: Absolutely. Fredricka, there's so much out there about this case, that according to the "Vail Daily", which seems to be the newspaper of record in Eagle County, Colorado, is bogus. Avery is absolutely correct on October 9 you're going to get a mini version, the "Cliff's Notes" version of what this case is about. I think we're doing harm to the alleged victim in this case, as we keep these records secret. They ought to let it all out now.
WHITFIELD: Let's talk about this alleged victim, and the role this alleged victim might play in either preliminary hearing or, you know the prosecution trying to protect this person's identity before this evidence is released.
Avery, what extent will the prosecution go to try to protect her?
FRIEDMAN: Well, to the extent that they can. The fact is, though, at this mini trial, they're going to need the testimony of the victim. In fact, without it I think Judge Fred Gannett is compelled to stop this prosecution.
So you're going to see the victim. You are going to see cameras in the courtroom. And again, it's always a balance, but I think Michael and I disagree on this one, I think First Amendment trumps that right and you're going see cameras in the courtroom.
WHITFIELD: All right, thanks very much, Michael Smerconish and Avery Friedman. Good to see both of you.
FRIEDMAN: Nice to be with you.
SMERCONISH: Nice to be with you.
TO ORDER A VIDEO OF THIS TRANSCRIPT, PLEASE CALL 800-CNN-NEWS OR USE OUR SECURE ONLINE ORDER FORM LOCATED AT www.fdch.com
