Return to Transcripts main page
CNN Live Sunday
Interview With Michael Smerconish, Jayne Weintraub
Aired November 02, 2003 - 10:14 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: And two big murder trials dominate the legal news this week, as well, The sniper trial continues in Virginia, where John Allen Muhammad is on trial. Prosecutors say his motive was simple: he wanted money.
And a preliminary hearing in the Laci Peterson case continues in northern California, with her husband as the chief suspect. To consider the legal issues in those cases, we turn to Michael Smerconish, a CNN contributor and radio talk show host from Philadelphia. And in Washington, criminal defense attorney Jayne Weintraub.
Welcome to both of you.
MICHAEL SMERCONISH, RADIO TALK SHOW HOST: Good morning.
COSTELLO: Shall we start with the Peterson endless preliminary hearing? Yes?
JAYNE WEINTRAUB, CRIMINAL DEFENSE ATTORNEY: Sure.
SMERCONISH: Sure.
COSTELLO: OK. Let's start with Jayne.
WEINTRAUB: It started out as publicly being a slam dunk is what we heard it was going to be, and it is barely a foul shot. We are -- after three full days of testimony, tedious testimony about a DNA six- inch split hair, what we have found out, I think, is that Scott Peterson bought a boat without telling his father, that he changed his plans for the day that Laci was no longer at home on December 24, and that he's an adulterer.
I don't think that they are going to make beyond a reasonable doubt, like I've said all along. I think that they're barely going to be able to prove probably cause, which is the lowest standard there is.
COSTELLO: Oh, Michael, respond.
SMERCONISH: (AUDIO GAP) goes to trial. They'll survive the preliminary hearing just as the Kobe case did. But just as in the Kobe case, I don't think it's a slam dunk either. And I think the defense has a very strong case.
You know what's interesting, Carol? Is that in this particular case, Peterson maintains that he was fishing the day that she disappeared. And Friday, that alibi was undercut, they thought. , because he told some folks he was going to go golfing that day. I think that actually helps Peterson, because if the murder were premeditated, you think that he'd have a consistent story and would have been telling everybody all along, I'm going fishing that day. And apparently he didn't.
COSTELLO: An interesting twist. Jayne, do you think Amber Frey, the mistress in this case, will take the stand?
WEINTRAUB: Yes, I do. I think that she'll testify this week. And all she's going to provide, in my opinion, is going to be the "motive" that they're looking for to show why he would kill his wife. Of course, I don't believe they'll be able to show why he didn't go to divorce court. I don't think that Amber Frey is the motive, but I think that's how she's going to come off on Monday when we see her in court.
COSTELLO: Yes, but, Michael, doesn't she have all these taped phone calls from Scott Peterson?
SMERCONISH: Apparently she does. I mean, if the tabloids are to be believed and -- you know, what I come back to, though, there are no eyewitnesses, there's no murder weapon that we're aware of. The case fits when you add all of those elements that have reached the public domain but may not come into evidence. But still, in a court of law, beyond a reasonable doubt, I think like Jayne, I'm saying to myself, I'm not sure they can meet that threshold.
COSTELLO: Yes. Aren't you surprised that they didn't find more inside of the Peterson house?
SMERCONISH: I'm surprised that the best I've read so far is that they have detectives who arrived on the scene and they say that they smelled strong presence of cleaning fluids. But you know, they really didn't find anything. I mean, the guy either did one miraculous job of cleaning up or it just wasn't happening the way prosecutors thought that it was.
WEINTRAUB: You know, Michael, as a matter of fact, what they did is they put on the housekeeper this week to testify that she never used bleach, which they smelled, to clean the kitchen floor. And they were trying to infer that perhaps that's where she was killed and there would have been all this blood.
However, I don't know how they tripped over themselves, because there was a luminal (ph) procedure. It's a police investigative tool, where they literally spray over the area. And it would light up or illuminate any specks even of the blood. And there was none in this case.
So the fact that this maid testified this week that she's cleaned the house four times in a year and didn't use bleach, to me is ridiculous. And if Scott Peterson used bleach, he's got a dog. We all know what can happen. I mean it was just a non-important issue.
COSTELLO: How long do you think this prelim will last in the end, Michael or Jayne?
SMERCONISH: At this rate, I mean, I figure like Lance Ito is in charge. And it may go on for another two or three weeks.
COSTELLO: Oh, my gosh. Well, we hope not.
Let's turn our attention to the sniper case, which is taking place in Virginia right now. There is such a preponderance of evidence in this case. It is going very well for the prosecution, isn't it, Michael?
WEINTRAUB: I'm sorry.
COSTELLO: Go ahead.
WEINTRAUB: Unlike in the Laci Peterson case, where I think they have very little evidence, if any, to show that Scott did anything, in this case, they have a strong circumstantial case. They've got real evidence to link John Muhammad, I think, through the laptop with his diary of the killings. There was a brown glove that was found at one of the killing scenes that matched another one that he was caught in possession of when he was arrested.
Those are very strong circumstantial cases. The modification of the old car so somebody could literally shoot out of the back. Those are very strong cases and evidence pointing towards his guilt. I'll tell you what bothered me about the testimony this week.
COSTELLO: Yes?
WEINTRAUB: The prosecution is seeking to introduce, or they did introduce, a grainy, fuzzy tape of video purporting to be John Allen Muhammad. But in fact, you couldn't really see who it was. They're muddying up their record for appeal purposes.
Also, I don't mean to seem unsympathetic or uncaring towards the many, many victims' relatives, families, but I think parading all these people into court with all this inflammatory prejudicial evidence is a major mistake.
COSTELLO: Really?
WEINTRAUB: Yes. It denies him the right to a fair trial. The purpose of this exercise is not to give the victims a cathartic, therapeutic podium. The purpose is to give the defendant a fair trial.
COSTELLO: But don't you want to show, Michael, what this defendant did in the most graphic terms you can?
SMERCONISH: Well, two interesting points. People need to know, there's only one murder charge right now being brought. And these other witnesses and the other crimes are being introduced because of an exception to Virginia law which says, if there's a common plan or scheme, you can bring in that other evidence. But I disagree with Jayne in this regard. Those witnesses, thus far, are being limited to describing who was the person who lost their life and what were the circumstances. There hasn't been any testimony about how that has impacted the survivors.
COSTELLO: Yes. Well, I'm really interested in what kind of case the defense will present. I wish we had time to get into that, but we don't. Michael Smerconish and Jayne Weintraub, thanks to both of you for joining us this morning.
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 November 2, 2003 - 10:14 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
CAROL COSTELLO, CNN ANCHOR: And two big murder trials dominate the legal news this week, as well, The sniper trial continues in Virginia, where John Allen Muhammad is on trial. Prosecutors say his motive was simple: he wanted money.
And a preliminary hearing in the Laci Peterson case continues in northern California, with her husband as the chief suspect. To consider the legal issues in those cases, we turn to Michael Smerconish, a CNN contributor and radio talk show host from Philadelphia. And in Washington, criminal defense attorney Jayne Weintraub.
Welcome to both of you.
MICHAEL SMERCONISH, RADIO TALK SHOW HOST: Good morning.
COSTELLO: Shall we start with the Peterson endless preliminary hearing? Yes?
JAYNE WEINTRAUB, CRIMINAL DEFENSE ATTORNEY: Sure.
SMERCONISH: Sure.
COSTELLO: OK. Let's start with Jayne.
WEINTRAUB: It started out as publicly being a slam dunk is what we heard it was going to be, and it is barely a foul shot. We are -- after three full days of testimony, tedious testimony about a DNA six- inch split hair, what we have found out, I think, is that Scott Peterson bought a boat without telling his father, that he changed his plans for the day that Laci was no longer at home on December 24, and that he's an adulterer.
I don't think that they are going to make beyond a reasonable doubt, like I've said all along. I think that they're barely going to be able to prove probably cause, which is the lowest standard there is.
COSTELLO: Oh, Michael, respond.
SMERCONISH: (AUDIO GAP) goes to trial. They'll survive the preliminary hearing just as the Kobe case did. But just as in the Kobe case, I don't think it's a slam dunk either. And I think the defense has a very strong case.
You know what's interesting, Carol? Is that in this particular case, Peterson maintains that he was fishing the day that she disappeared. And Friday, that alibi was undercut, they thought. , because he told some folks he was going to go golfing that day. I think that actually helps Peterson, because if the murder were premeditated, you think that he'd have a consistent story and would have been telling everybody all along, I'm going fishing that day. And apparently he didn't.
COSTELLO: An interesting twist. Jayne, do you think Amber Frey, the mistress in this case, will take the stand?
WEINTRAUB: Yes, I do. I think that she'll testify this week. And all she's going to provide, in my opinion, is going to be the "motive" that they're looking for to show why he would kill his wife. Of course, I don't believe they'll be able to show why he didn't go to divorce court. I don't think that Amber Frey is the motive, but I think that's how she's going to come off on Monday when we see her in court.
COSTELLO: Yes, but, Michael, doesn't she have all these taped phone calls from Scott Peterson?
SMERCONISH: Apparently she does. I mean, if the tabloids are to be believed and -- you know, what I come back to, though, there are no eyewitnesses, there's no murder weapon that we're aware of. The case fits when you add all of those elements that have reached the public domain but may not come into evidence. But still, in a court of law, beyond a reasonable doubt, I think like Jayne, I'm saying to myself, I'm not sure they can meet that threshold.
COSTELLO: Yes. Aren't you surprised that they didn't find more inside of the Peterson house?
SMERCONISH: I'm surprised that the best I've read so far is that they have detectives who arrived on the scene and they say that they smelled strong presence of cleaning fluids. But you know, they really didn't find anything. I mean, the guy either did one miraculous job of cleaning up or it just wasn't happening the way prosecutors thought that it was.
WEINTRAUB: You know, Michael, as a matter of fact, what they did is they put on the housekeeper this week to testify that she never used bleach, which they smelled, to clean the kitchen floor. And they were trying to infer that perhaps that's where she was killed and there would have been all this blood.
However, I don't know how they tripped over themselves, because there was a luminal (ph) procedure. It's a police investigative tool, where they literally spray over the area. And it would light up or illuminate any specks even of the blood. And there was none in this case.
So the fact that this maid testified this week that she's cleaned the house four times in a year and didn't use bleach, to me is ridiculous. And if Scott Peterson used bleach, he's got a dog. We all know what can happen. I mean it was just a non-important issue.
COSTELLO: How long do you think this prelim will last in the end, Michael or Jayne?
SMERCONISH: At this rate, I mean, I figure like Lance Ito is in charge. And it may go on for another two or three weeks.
COSTELLO: Oh, my gosh. Well, we hope not.
Let's turn our attention to the sniper case, which is taking place in Virginia right now. There is such a preponderance of evidence in this case. It is going very well for the prosecution, isn't it, Michael?
WEINTRAUB: I'm sorry.
COSTELLO: Go ahead.
WEINTRAUB: Unlike in the Laci Peterson case, where I think they have very little evidence, if any, to show that Scott did anything, in this case, they have a strong circumstantial case. They've got real evidence to link John Muhammad, I think, through the laptop with his diary of the killings. There was a brown glove that was found at one of the killing scenes that matched another one that he was caught in possession of when he was arrested.
Those are very strong circumstantial cases. The modification of the old car so somebody could literally shoot out of the back. Those are very strong cases and evidence pointing towards his guilt. I'll tell you what bothered me about the testimony this week.
COSTELLO: Yes?
WEINTRAUB: The prosecution is seeking to introduce, or they did introduce, a grainy, fuzzy tape of video purporting to be John Allen Muhammad. But in fact, you couldn't really see who it was. They're muddying up their record for appeal purposes.
Also, I don't mean to seem unsympathetic or uncaring towards the many, many victims' relatives, families, but I think parading all these people into court with all this inflammatory prejudicial evidence is a major mistake.
COSTELLO: Really?
WEINTRAUB: Yes. It denies him the right to a fair trial. The purpose of this exercise is not to give the victims a cathartic, therapeutic podium. The purpose is to give the defendant a fair trial.
COSTELLO: But don't you want to show, Michael, what this defendant did in the most graphic terms you can?
SMERCONISH: Well, two interesting points. People need to know, there's only one murder charge right now being brought. And these other witnesses and the other crimes are being introduced because of an exception to Virginia law which says, if there's a common plan or scheme, you can bring in that other evidence. But I disagree with Jayne in this regard. Those witnesses, thus far, are being limited to describing who was the person who lost their life and what were the circumstances. There hasn't been any testimony about how that has impacted the survivors.
COSTELLO: Yes. Well, I'm really interested in what kind of case the defense will present. I wish we had time to get into that, but we don't. Michael Smerconish and Jayne Weintraub, thanks to both of you for joining us this morning.
TO ORDER A VIDEO OF THIS TRANSCRIPT, PLEASE CALL 800-CNN-NEWS OR USE OUR SECURE ONLINE ORDER FORM LOCATED AT www.fdch.com
