Return to Transcripts main page
American Morning
Sniper Trials: In the Hands of the Jury
Aired November 14, 2003 - 09:06 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.
SOLEDAD O'BRIEN, CNN ANCHOR: For more perspective on developments in both sniper trials, let's go to CNN legal analyst Jeffrey Toobin.
Hey, Jeff, good morning.
JEFFREY TOOBIN, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: Hi.
O'BRIEN: Always nice to see you.
OK, let's start with the John Muhammad trial. Give me a sense of the highlights at the closing arguments yesterday.
TOOBIN: Well, the -- it's sort of the absence of highlights from the defense is what's so remarkable. All Peter Greenspun could do was argue reasonable doubt and say there simply innocent of you evidence. There's no real theory of the defense in that there's no explanation of what he was doing there, why he was with this young man, other than that he's guilty. It's just such a tough case for the defense.
O'BRIEN: How possibly successful can he be when you considered to argue there's no evidence been presented over the last days and weeks with mountains, I think it's fair to say, of evidence, some about different shootings in the case.
TOOBIN: Soledad, we live in a country where Robert Durst was acquitted. So who knows what juries do. I was shocked at that verdict. I would certainly be shocked if Muhammad was acquitted.
Muhammad got even worse news this week, because the judge issued a legal ruling saying that the triggerman statute, the so-called triggerman statute, does not mean that Muhammad had to literally pull the trigger. The judge's interpretation, which he gave to the jury, was that the car at the sniper's nest, that's the weapon, so if Muhammad could be tied to the car, as there's ample evidence tying him to, it was not necessary for him to have actually fired the shots to be guilty.
O'BRIEN: Lowering the bar.
TOOBIN: Lowering the bar for conviction. There are two theories he could be convicted under, the terrorism statute and the triggerman. Both of them look very strong.
O'BRIEN: All right, let's talk a little bit about the opening statements for Lee Boyd Malvo. We heard from Jeanne Meserve that, obviously, the defense strategy is to go with this insanity. But less than traditional insanity, and more the "I was under the spell of another human being" insanity plea. How realistic do you think their chances of success are with this?
TOOBIN: In the guilt phase, it's a very tough call. It's very tough for Malvo, because brainwashing, which is basically the defense claim here, that's not a legal definition of insanity. That really does not apply to the insanity defense.
But they are setting up a penalty phase argument, that's actually quite a good argument, I think, that you can't give the death penalty because he was a, a minor when he committed these crimes. And b, someone who is just so much under the spell of another person, especially when you have a confession, as you do in the Malvo case. The guilt phase is going to be very difficult. The penalty phase, different story.
O'BRIEN: We've heard some of the details. And people often say chilling details. I think in this case that is a fair description of Malveaux's confession. How hard will the defense have to work in that particular case to humanize him and make him to be not a monster, when some of the things that he said in his confession are truly monstrous?
TOOBIN: This case is so difficult for the defense. Even Malvo, who has a somewhat more defensible case, 10 people. There are not lot of crimes, fortunately, in this country where 10 people are murdered, and especially in such a random way. You have no sense of remorse, no sense of humanity in how they decided to kill these people. Crime of passion, even a murder for hire, there's some reason that a jury can sort of latch onto. This was so random and awful. It would be not at all surprising for a jury to say, I don't care what your reasons were, this crime is just simply beyond the pale.
O'BRIEN: Jeff Toobin. Well, we will see as we wait for the jury to come back and to start really to get under way.
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 14, 2003 - 09:06 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
SOLEDAD O'BRIEN, CNN ANCHOR: For more perspective on developments in both sniper trials, let's go to CNN legal analyst Jeffrey Toobin.
Hey, Jeff, good morning.
JEFFREY TOOBIN, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: Hi.
O'BRIEN: Always nice to see you.
OK, let's start with the John Muhammad trial. Give me a sense of the highlights at the closing arguments yesterday.
TOOBIN: Well, the -- it's sort of the absence of highlights from the defense is what's so remarkable. All Peter Greenspun could do was argue reasonable doubt and say there simply innocent of you evidence. There's no real theory of the defense in that there's no explanation of what he was doing there, why he was with this young man, other than that he's guilty. It's just such a tough case for the defense.
O'BRIEN: How possibly successful can he be when you considered to argue there's no evidence been presented over the last days and weeks with mountains, I think it's fair to say, of evidence, some about different shootings in the case.
TOOBIN: Soledad, we live in a country where Robert Durst was acquitted. So who knows what juries do. I was shocked at that verdict. I would certainly be shocked if Muhammad was acquitted.
Muhammad got even worse news this week, because the judge issued a legal ruling saying that the triggerman statute, the so-called triggerman statute, does not mean that Muhammad had to literally pull the trigger. The judge's interpretation, which he gave to the jury, was that the car at the sniper's nest, that's the weapon, so if Muhammad could be tied to the car, as there's ample evidence tying him to, it was not necessary for him to have actually fired the shots to be guilty.
O'BRIEN: Lowering the bar.
TOOBIN: Lowering the bar for conviction. There are two theories he could be convicted under, the terrorism statute and the triggerman. Both of them look very strong.
O'BRIEN: All right, let's talk a little bit about the opening statements for Lee Boyd Malvo. We heard from Jeanne Meserve that, obviously, the defense strategy is to go with this insanity. But less than traditional insanity, and more the "I was under the spell of another human being" insanity plea. How realistic do you think their chances of success are with this?
TOOBIN: In the guilt phase, it's a very tough call. It's very tough for Malvo, because brainwashing, which is basically the defense claim here, that's not a legal definition of insanity. That really does not apply to the insanity defense.
But they are setting up a penalty phase argument, that's actually quite a good argument, I think, that you can't give the death penalty because he was a, a minor when he committed these crimes. And b, someone who is just so much under the spell of another person, especially when you have a confession, as you do in the Malvo case. The guilt phase is going to be very difficult. The penalty phase, different story.
O'BRIEN: We've heard some of the details. And people often say chilling details. I think in this case that is a fair description of Malveaux's confession. How hard will the defense have to work in that particular case to humanize him and make him to be not a monster, when some of the things that he said in his confession are truly monstrous?
TOOBIN: This case is so difficult for the defense. Even Malvo, who has a somewhat more defensible case, 10 people. There are not lot of crimes, fortunately, in this country where 10 people are murdered, and especially in such a random way. You have no sense of remorse, no sense of humanity in how they decided to kill these people. Crime of passion, even a murder for hire, there's some reason that a jury can sort of latch onto. This was so random and awful. It would be not at all surprising for a jury to say, I don't care what your reasons were, this crime is just simply beyond the pale.
O'BRIEN: Jeff Toobin. Well, we will see as we wait for the jury to come back and to start really to get under way.
TO ORDER A VIDEO OF THIS TRANSCRIPT, PLEASE CALL 800-CNN-NEWS OR USE OUR SECURE ONLINE ORDER FORM LOCATED AT www.fdch.com
