Return to Transcripts main page

CNN Live Sunday

Legal Briefs

Aired November 16, 2003 - 10:18   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.


RENAY SAN MIGUEL, CNN ANCHOR: Well, you can expect a lot more legal maneuvering ahead in the Peterson case. And, of course, there are several others in the national spotlight. It seems like a lot of news over the past week came out of the nation's courtrooms: the Kobe Bryant case and the sniper trials, a couple of others. Civil rights attorney Avery Friedman and attorney Albert Johnson are here with us to sample what has happened in those cases and try to talk about what's ahead.
Gentlemen, thanks for being with us today.

AVERY FRIEDMAN, CIVIL RIGHTS ATTORNEY: Nice to be with you.

J. ALBERT JOHNSON, ATTORNEY: Thank you.

SAN MIGUEL: Avery, let's start with you. Let's talk about some of the contradictions that came up in the Peterson case regarding the color of the pants that Laci was wearing on the last day that she was seen. The color different from the family members and what Scott remembered as well in police questioning. Just how damaging was that?

FRIEDMAN: Well, Renay, it's a big deal. This was the week of the pants. Remember that Amy Rocha, who is Laci's sister, said that she saw her shortly before her disappearance and she was wearing tan maternal pants.

Scott Peterson said the last day he saw her she was wearing black maternal pants. When they found her, she was wearing tan maternal pants. This is a credibility issue. It may become a significant issue in this case. So we'll see when it comes out of trial.

SAN MIGUEL: Al, can Mark Geragos get his client out of this one?

JOHNSON: Well, we have to remember we're in the preliminary hearing stages. And this preliminary hearing is longer than many first-degree murder cases I've tried in total. So I don't know the answer to that one.

I think that the fact of the matter is this case has disintegrated into a question as to whether or not the credibility of the paramour, of Amber Frey, is going to be at stake in the trial itself. I predict that this case will last a long time, much longer than most of us will have an enthusiasm for it. I also predict that the judge will not allow Amber Frey to testify.

SAN MIGUEL: Avery? FRIEDMAN: Well, I don't agree with that at all. I think Amber's coming in. She's got severe credibility problems. But the fact is that she has phone records, she also -- remember, Scott Peterson said to Amber Frey a year before Laci's disappearance that he was a widower. And a year later, of course, she's dead.

JOHNSON: But the fact of the matter is it matters not. All the judge has to find is if there was a probability that this defendant may have committed the crime of murder. And all he has to do is find probable cause. This is not the trial in question.

FRIEDMAN: I'm talking about at the trial, Al. I think she's in.

JOHNSON: Well, I think there's no question about it at the trial. The question, as I understand it, was presented as to whether or not she'll testify at the preliminary hearing. And I do not think she will.

SAN MIGUEL: All right. We have to move on to another issue here, the sniper trial and Lee Boyd Malvo. You know, it's kind of strange here to see one trial going into closing arguments; a related trial has started off with its opening arguments. So much so that the evidence that is needed in one trial is still being used in another trial.

And so, you know, there was a delay in the Malvo case. But Malvo's defense is insanity here. Avery, is that going to work?

FRIEDMAN: Right. Well, you know, insanity defenses are used in -- they're successful in 0.25 percent of cases. That's the defense.

Basically, the argument is, I did it, but I'm not responsible for it. He's arguing that John Muhammad had a Svengali-like power over him and therefore he murdered Ms. Franklin, the FBI analyst. And it's going to be a tough one.

SAN MIGUEL: Al, what do you think?

JOHNSON: Couldn't agree more. I think that the insanity defense is out in the United States ever since John Hinckley attempted to assassinate President Reagan and ever since the Twinkie defense, where the defendant raised it in the trial where he was accused of murdering the mayor of San Francisco.

SAN MIGUEL: The Harvey Milk, Dan White case is what you're referring to.

JOHNSON: Sure, the Dan White case. So I think that the insanity defense is going to be a loser in this case. Coercive persuasion of Lee Malvo is not going to curry favor.

And think that the other case, that is, the John Muhammad case, will bring a verdict of conviction. And I think that verdict will come down very soon, although I think that the jury will spend a longer time than is probably necessary because of the national attention brought to this case. FRIEDMAN: We'll see the verdict this week. We'll see the verdict this week.

JOHNSON: I think within the next several days.

SAN MIGUEL: Yes. OK. Let's move on to the Kobe Bryant hearing. Anything from this very brief hearing that shed any kind of new light here on anything with the defense or the prosecution or, you know, whether or not there was consent here maybe?

FRIEDMAN: Well, not really. It was a 12-minute hearing. Actually, the only specific hard stuff that came out of it is many of us have been predicting it will be a two or three-week trial. And, in fact, that was confirmed by the lawyers. We're looking at a two or three-week trial.

Remember, however, Renay, that we still don't have a plea yet. And there's a reason for that. Under Colorado law, and in most states, once you enter that not guilty plea, the plot starts ticking.

So that is significant on a legal end. On the non-legal end, Kobe's now out and he's going hip-hop. And I think Pam Mackey is going to say, we're going to have to tone it down because he's going to have to look more like the folks on juries in Eagle County than a hip-hop star.

SAN MIGUEL: Al, do you think Pamela Mackey is kind of losing the control of the appearance of her client?

JOHNSON: You know, I think this case has been a charade from the beginning. We had a presentation of a defendant sitting after his accusation with his wife holding her hand and smiling and looking very remorseful at the same time.

FRIEDMAN: That's all right. That's OK.

JOHNSON: Well, if you want to try it in the media, it's OK. But it's not something which I think gives dignity to a defendant. And I think that's very important in this case because my question here is whether we're going to obtain a fair and impartial jury.

The fact that this case has received the proliferation that it has of national attention is going to detract from the ability of a judge to come up with a jury which is going to be fair and impartial. And which can honestly say, I don't know about this case, and if I do know about this case, I can decide it fairly. That's my main concern in this case.

FRIEDMAN: Don't underestimate Pamela Mackey. There was a reason for that press conference. And as we get closer to trial -- and it is going to be after the NBA season -- we'll see how that plays in.

JOHNSON: Oh, I underestimate her greatly because of what she did ethically during this trial by mentioning the accuser's name.

FRIEDMAN: That's a different issue. JOHNSON: I do underestimate her.

SAN MIGUEL: We could spend another five minutes on that alone, but we have got to move on here. Albert Johnson, attorney; civil rights attorney, Avery Friedman, thank you both, gentlemen. We appreciate your time this Sunday morning.

FRIEDMAN: Nice to be with you.

JOHNSON: Thank you, Renay.

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 16, 2003 - 10:18   ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
RENAY SAN MIGUEL, CNN ANCHOR: Well, you can expect a lot more legal maneuvering ahead in the Peterson case. And, of course, there are several others in the national spotlight. It seems like a lot of news over the past week came out of the nation's courtrooms: the Kobe Bryant case and the sniper trials, a couple of others. Civil rights attorney Avery Friedman and attorney Albert Johnson are here with us to sample what has happened in those cases and try to talk about what's ahead.
Gentlemen, thanks for being with us today.

AVERY FRIEDMAN, CIVIL RIGHTS ATTORNEY: Nice to be with you.

J. ALBERT JOHNSON, ATTORNEY: Thank you.

SAN MIGUEL: Avery, let's start with you. Let's talk about some of the contradictions that came up in the Peterson case regarding the color of the pants that Laci was wearing on the last day that she was seen. The color different from the family members and what Scott remembered as well in police questioning. Just how damaging was that?

FRIEDMAN: Well, Renay, it's a big deal. This was the week of the pants. Remember that Amy Rocha, who is Laci's sister, said that she saw her shortly before her disappearance and she was wearing tan maternal pants.

Scott Peterson said the last day he saw her she was wearing black maternal pants. When they found her, she was wearing tan maternal pants. This is a credibility issue. It may become a significant issue in this case. So we'll see when it comes out of trial.

SAN MIGUEL: Al, can Mark Geragos get his client out of this one?

JOHNSON: Well, we have to remember we're in the preliminary hearing stages. And this preliminary hearing is longer than many first-degree murder cases I've tried in total. So I don't know the answer to that one.

I think that the fact of the matter is this case has disintegrated into a question as to whether or not the credibility of the paramour, of Amber Frey, is going to be at stake in the trial itself. I predict that this case will last a long time, much longer than most of us will have an enthusiasm for it. I also predict that the judge will not allow Amber Frey to testify.

SAN MIGUEL: Avery? FRIEDMAN: Well, I don't agree with that at all. I think Amber's coming in. She's got severe credibility problems. But the fact is that she has phone records, she also -- remember, Scott Peterson said to Amber Frey a year before Laci's disappearance that he was a widower. And a year later, of course, she's dead.

JOHNSON: But the fact of the matter is it matters not. All the judge has to find is if there was a probability that this defendant may have committed the crime of murder. And all he has to do is find probable cause. This is not the trial in question.

FRIEDMAN: I'm talking about at the trial, Al. I think she's in.

JOHNSON: Well, I think there's no question about it at the trial. The question, as I understand it, was presented as to whether or not she'll testify at the preliminary hearing. And I do not think she will.

SAN MIGUEL: All right. We have to move on to another issue here, the sniper trial and Lee Boyd Malvo. You know, it's kind of strange here to see one trial going into closing arguments; a related trial has started off with its opening arguments. So much so that the evidence that is needed in one trial is still being used in another trial.

And so, you know, there was a delay in the Malvo case. But Malvo's defense is insanity here. Avery, is that going to work?

FRIEDMAN: Right. Well, you know, insanity defenses are used in -- they're successful in 0.25 percent of cases. That's the defense.

Basically, the argument is, I did it, but I'm not responsible for it. He's arguing that John Muhammad had a Svengali-like power over him and therefore he murdered Ms. Franklin, the FBI analyst. And it's going to be a tough one.

SAN MIGUEL: Al, what do you think?

JOHNSON: Couldn't agree more. I think that the insanity defense is out in the United States ever since John Hinckley attempted to assassinate President Reagan and ever since the Twinkie defense, where the defendant raised it in the trial where he was accused of murdering the mayor of San Francisco.

SAN MIGUEL: The Harvey Milk, Dan White case is what you're referring to.

JOHNSON: Sure, the Dan White case. So I think that the insanity defense is going to be a loser in this case. Coercive persuasion of Lee Malvo is not going to curry favor.

And think that the other case, that is, the John Muhammad case, will bring a verdict of conviction. And I think that verdict will come down very soon, although I think that the jury will spend a longer time than is probably necessary because of the national attention brought to this case. FRIEDMAN: We'll see the verdict this week. We'll see the verdict this week.

JOHNSON: I think within the next several days.

SAN MIGUEL: Yes. OK. Let's move on to the Kobe Bryant hearing. Anything from this very brief hearing that shed any kind of new light here on anything with the defense or the prosecution or, you know, whether or not there was consent here maybe?

FRIEDMAN: Well, not really. It was a 12-minute hearing. Actually, the only specific hard stuff that came out of it is many of us have been predicting it will be a two or three-week trial. And, in fact, that was confirmed by the lawyers. We're looking at a two or three-week trial.

Remember, however, Renay, that we still don't have a plea yet. And there's a reason for that. Under Colorado law, and in most states, once you enter that not guilty plea, the plot starts ticking.

So that is significant on a legal end. On the non-legal end, Kobe's now out and he's going hip-hop. And I think Pam Mackey is going to say, we're going to have to tone it down because he's going to have to look more like the folks on juries in Eagle County than a hip-hop star.

SAN MIGUEL: Al, do you think Pamela Mackey is kind of losing the control of the appearance of her client?

JOHNSON: You know, I think this case has been a charade from the beginning. We had a presentation of a defendant sitting after his accusation with his wife holding her hand and smiling and looking very remorseful at the same time.

FRIEDMAN: That's all right. That's OK.

JOHNSON: Well, if you want to try it in the media, it's OK. But it's not something which I think gives dignity to a defendant. And I think that's very important in this case because my question here is whether we're going to obtain a fair and impartial jury.

The fact that this case has received the proliferation that it has of national attention is going to detract from the ability of a judge to come up with a jury which is going to be fair and impartial. And which can honestly say, I don't know about this case, and if I do know about this case, I can decide it fairly. That's my main concern in this case.

FRIEDMAN: Don't underestimate Pamela Mackey. There was a reason for that press conference. And as we get closer to trial -- and it is going to be after the NBA season -- we'll see how that plays in.

JOHNSON: Oh, I underestimate her greatly because of what she did ethically during this trial by mentioning the accuser's name.

FRIEDMAN: That's a different issue. JOHNSON: I do underestimate her.

SAN MIGUEL: We could spend another five minutes on that alone, but we have got to move on here. Albert Johnson, attorney; civil rights attorney, Avery Friedman, thank you both, gentlemen. We appreciate your time this Sunday morning.

FRIEDMAN: Nice to be with you.

JOHNSON: Thank you, Renay.

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