Return to Transcripts main page

CNN Live Today

The Peterson Case

Aired October 30, 2003 - 10:16   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 LIN, CNN ANCHOR: So once again, prosecutors believe that after killing his wife, Scott Peterson used his boat to dump her body in the San Francisco Bay. And the FBI agent's testimony yesterday was presented to show a connection between her body and the boat, but if the defense gets its way, a jury will never hear about it. Rusty Dornin touched on it in her piece.
CNN's legal analyst Jeff Toobin, of course, is with us to flesh it out live from Modesto, to explain what's going on here.

Good morning, Jeff.

JEFFREY TOOBIN, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: Hi, Carol.

LIN: All right, I see shades of O.J. once again; the question of DNA and whether it is a viable form of evidence is being presented here in this trial. What do you think?

TOOBIN: Well, it's interesting, Carol, you know, you and I are both veterans of the O.J. wars.

LIN: Bring back those memories.

TOOBIN: That's right. Almost a decade has passed, and this is an example of how much DNA evidence has changed and evolved over that time. DNA of the kind used in the O.J. Simpson case, blood, which is chiefly used to identify blood, is completely accepted. It is now routinely introduced in court.

What's different about that kind of DNA, called mitochondrial DNA, is that it can be used to identify hair, which is other form -- the other kind of DNA testings don't do so well. But the other difference is the more familiar kind of DNA, we hear evidence the chances are one in a billion, one in a million, that it could be someone other than the person they are trying to identify. Mitochondrial DNA is not nearly as accurate. You're talking about one in a hundred, one in 200.

So it is a useful tool in court. It's been used in court. For example, it was used in the David Westerfield case down in San Diego, but it's not nearly as precise in identifying the specific source of the biological product.

LIN: See, but there to me is an oxymoron, Jeff, because it's enough to contribute to a body of evidence to put somebody behind bars for the rest of his life, it's enough evidence in some cases to free up rape suspects who are convicted and then freed once hair DNA had been tested to prove that person wasn't the actual attacker. So why in this case wouldn't it be strong enough to at least bring this case to trial?

TOOBIN: Well, I think the answer is it is likely to be introduced, but I think the jury will be informed, as appropriately so, that this is not a 100 percent identification. If this hair is introduced, the jury will be told, look, it is one in a hundred that it's someone else as opposed to one in a billion or one in a trillion. I mean, those are the kind of numbers that people are used to with DNA evidence. And mitochondrial DNA evidence is useful, but it is much less precise in its identification.

LIN: So do you think that if the defense make as very effective argument to this case, that the prosecution may actually drop its desire to introduce this hair evidence from these pliers in Scott Peterson's boat?

TOOBIN: I doubt it. I think -- the prosecution's case does not rise or fall on this specific hair evidence. It's pretty interesting evidence when you think about it. Here you have -- even though they were married, so their hair is likely to be intermingled, on a pliers, in a boat, when the prosecution theory apparently is that he hit her with the pliers and dumped her out of the boat into San Francisco Bay. It's pretty good evidence, but there's a lot of other evidence in the case, other circumstantial evidence. So I don't think the case rises or falls with whether this particular piece of evidence is admitted.

LIN: So, Jeffrey, what are you expecting today in court?

TOOBIN: I'm afraid more of the same. You know, I said yesterday, the Scott Peterson preliminary case is off and crawling. This does not move -- this is not moving very quickly. The prosecution has its expert. It's likely to be a defense expert on Monday. I think in the true tradition of the California court systems, things are taking a lot slower than we all expected. And this preliminary hearing which was -- had thought to take about five days is likely to take closer to two weeks.

LIN: All right, thank you very much. Jeffrey Toobin, life in Modesto for the next couple of weeks for you. All right, thanks so much.

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 October 30, 2003 - 10:16   ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
CAROL LIN, CNN ANCHOR: So once again, prosecutors believe that after killing his wife, Scott Peterson used his boat to dump her body in the San Francisco Bay. And the FBI agent's testimony yesterday was presented to show a connection between her body and the boat, but if the defense gets its way, a jury will never hear about it. Rusty Dornin touched on it in her piece.
CNN's legal analyst Jeff Toobin, of course, is with us to flesh it out live from Modesto, to explain what's going on here.

Good morning, Jeff.

JEFFREY TOOBIN, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: Hi, Carol.

LIN: All right, I see shades of O.J. once again; the question of DNA and whether it is a viable form of evidence is being presented here in this trial. What do you think?

TOOBIN: Well, it's interesting, Carol, you know, you and I are both veterans of the O.J. wars.

LIN: Bring back those memories.

TOOBIN: That's right. Almost a decade has passed, and this is an example of how much DNA evidence has changed and evolved over that time. DNA of the kind used in the O.J. Simpson case, blood, which is chiefly used to identify blood, is completely accepted. It is now routinely introduced in court.

What's different about that kind of DNA, called mitochondrial DNA, is that it can be used to identify hair, which is other form -- the other kind of DNA testings don't do so well. But the other difference is the more familiar kind of DNA, we hear evidence the chances are one in a billion, one in a million, that it could be someone other than the person they are trying to identify. Mitochondrial DNA is not nearly as accurate. You're talking about one in a hundred, one in 200.

So it is a useful tool in court. It's been used in court. For example, it was used in the David Westerfield case down in San Diego, but it's not nearly as precise in identifying the specific source of the biological product.

LIN: See, but there to me is an oxymoron, Jeff, because it's enough to contribute to a body of evidence to put somebody behind bars for the rest of his life, it's enough evidence in some cases to free up rape suspects who are convicted and then freed once hair DNA had been tested to prove that person wasn't the actual attacker. So why in this case wouldn't it be strong enough to at least bring this case to trial?

TOOBIN: Well, I think the answer is it is likely to be introduced, but I think the jury will be informed, as appropriately so, that this is not a 100 percent identification. If this hair is introduced, the jury will be told, look, it is one in a hundred that it's someone else as opposed to one in a billion or one in a trillion. I mean, those are the kind of numbers that people are used to with DNA evidence. And mitochondrial DNA evidence is useful, but it is much less precise in its identification.

LIN: So do you think that if the defense make as very effective argument to this case, that the prosecution may actually drop its desire to introduce this hair evidence from these pliers in Scott Peterson's boat?

TOOBIN: I doubt it. I think -- the prosecution's case does not rise or fall on this specific hair evidence. It's pretty interesting evidence when you think about it. Here you have -- even though they were married, so their hair is likely to be intermingled, on a pliers, in a boat, when the prosecution theory apparently is that he hit her with the pliers and dumped her out of the boat into San Francisco Bay. It's pretty good evidence, but there's a lot of other evidence in the case, other circumstantial evidence. So I don't think the case rises or falls with whether this particular piece of evidence is admitted.

LIN: So, Jeffrey, what are you expecting today in court?

TOOBIN: I'm afraid more of the same. You know, I said yesterday, the Scott Peterson preliminary case is off and crawling. This does not move -- this is not moving very quickly. The prosecution has its expert. It's likely to be a defense expert on Monday. I think in the true tradition of the California court systems, things are taking a lot slower than we all expected. And this preliminary hearing which was -- had thought to take about five days is likely to take closer to two weeks.

LIN: All right, thank you very much. Jeffrey Toobin, life in Modesto for the next couple of weeks for you. All right, thanks so much.

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