Return to Transcripts main page

NEWS FROM CNN

Legal Roundup: High Profile Court Cases

Aired December 19, 2003 - 12:34   ET

THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.

WOLF BLITZER, CNN ANCHOR: We're keeping a close eye on several developing legal stories this hour. Kobe Bryant is back in court. A jury is deciding whether convicted sniper Lee Boyd Malvo should die. And Michael Jackson's attorney goes on the offensive in trying to support his client.
Joining us now to talk about all these high profile cases, two guests: Christopher Darden is a former Los Angeles prosecutor, now a CNN legal analyst, and Gretchen von Helms is a defense attorney in San Diego, California. Let's start with Kobe Bryant in the news right now.

Chris, what's your sense? Are his defense attorneys going to get what they want; namely, evidence submitted, allowed in court about the accuser's history, medical background, psychological background?

CHRISTOPHER DARDEN, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: Well, I do believe that the defense will be allowed to introduce evidence of the victim's psychological history, number one, and her sexual history, at least as far back as June 27, the three or four days prior to the alleged rape.

BLITZER: Well what about the rape shield laws in Colorado, Chris? Don't they protect these accusers who come along, the alleged victims?

DARDEN: Well, they do, and they do it quite effectively. However, there is an exception to the Colorado shield law, and that exception is that prior sexual history can be admitted when it's offered to show that the defendant did not cause the physical injuries or commit the crime alleged by the victim.

Here, it would appear to me that whether or not the victim had sex either a few days prior to having sex with Kobe Bryant, and prior to the sexual assault examination done at the hospital, is highly relevant.

BLITZER: Gretchen, where do you stand on this?

GRETCHEN VON HELMS, DEFENSE ATTORNEY: Well, I agree with that. The things that this accuser has done is she has said, Kobe Bryant raped me. Then she goes to the rape examination with other semen in her underwear. And so, did she have sex immediately after that, and therefore it wasn't rape? Did she have sex immediately before that?

How were the injuries caused? Whose semen is that? All those questions are highly relevant. And the defense should be allowed to get answers to those questions. BLITZER: Won't the prosecution argue that it is no one's business whether or not she had sex, Chris, before or after if, in fact, Kobe Bryant did what they allege, that is rape?

DARDEN: Well, if Kobe Bryant did what she alleged is, in fact, rape, it is sexual assault. However, the prosecution's objection objective in a criminal case is to seek the truth, not to obtain a conviction. And if I were the prosecutor on the case, I would be hard pressed from an ethical standpoint to argue that the defense shouldn't be entitled to this information or to perhaps even introduce it at trial.

BLITZER: If you take a look at the prosecution team, Gretchen, right now, versus the district attorney, the prosecution versus the defense, it seems like there are almost two very different capabilities right now. A lot of money in Kobe Bryant's defense team, and some of the best defense attorneys around, with experts standing by, with a limited -- a less experienced DA out in Eagle, Colorado.

VON HELMS: Right. It looks like Kobe's defense team has the advantage in terms of experience and depth in their legal team. The prosecution, though, always has the jury, if you will. A lot of people are very concerned about rape, that town, that community, is very supportive of the victim from what we have seen. So the prosecution could have the advantage just in the minds of the jurors, which is what's critical.

BLITZER: Well, we'll follow up.

Go ahead, Chris.

DARDEN: I don't think you should underestimate the prosecution team here. As you'll recall, Wolf, prosecutors from other counties, adjacent counties, and including a sexual assault expert from Denver, as I recall, has also joined the prosecution team in Eagle, Colorado. So don't underestimate them.

BLITZER: Well, I'm not going to underestimate anyone. They're bringing in some big guns obviously in a high profile case like this.

Let's on to another case, the Michael Jackson case. We saw the formal charges being filed yesterday, nine counts against Michael Jackson. Last night, on "LARRY KING LIVE," his defense attorney, Mark Geragos, spoke out once again rather passionately. Let's listen to this excerpt.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

MARK GERAGOS, DEFENSE ATTORNEY: Take a look at the criminal complaint. The criminal complaint alleges from February 7, to March 10. Well, guess what happened on February 7? That's the day after the Bashir documentary aired. February 6...

LARRY KING, HOST, "LARRY KING LIVE": The Bashir documentary is the one from Britain. GERAGOS: From the U.K., that airs in America on February 6. February 7, the DA is now alleging that the molestation occurred. It is a joke. It's nothing but -- this case resolves around nothing but a financial motive, a shakedown, if you will. And it is perfect -- as I said earlier today, it is the perfect intersection between a financial motive and greed, and revenge.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BLITZER: Chris, give our viewers your perspective on what Mark Geragos just said.

DARDEN: Well, you know, I have been thinking about the Michael Jackson case. And it kept me awake last night there. There is a lot about this case that is very, very bothersome.

Apparently the DA in Santa Barbara County expects us to believe that Michael Jackson not only molested this kid prior to the children's services investigation, but while the investigation was going on. And then continued to molest this child even after that investigation.

I mean, there are problems here. And unless the prosecution has substantial corroborating evidence in this case, I have to wonder whether or not they could ever convict Michael Jackson, number one. And number two, whether or not they should have brought this case in the first place.

BLITZER: All right. We're going to pick up that thought in just a moment. Gretchen, stand by. We're going to take a quick break.

More with our legal experts coming up after this break. If you want to weigh in, this is a good time to do so. E-mail me your questions at wolf@cnn.com, or call us right now, 1-800-CNN-1896.

We'll be right back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BLITZER: Welcome back. We are talking about several high profile legal cases making headlines today. Among my guests, Chris Darden, former LA prosecutor, now a CNN legal analyst, Gretchen von Helms, a defense attorney in San Diego, California.

Gretchen, why don't you pick up on what Chris was saying about the Michael Jackson case, Mark Geragos making that very passionate defense of his client.

VON HELMS: You know, I have to agree with Chris, because I just have to wonder why the prosecutor ever even brought these charges. Unless they have something -- I mean, they have the mother of the victim, who has, you know, asked for money before from this -- well, actually from a sexual harassment. And she has her kids out shoplifting. The father of the kids has willful cruelty to the children alleged in the divorce battle. All kinds of stuff are going on with this kid. Apparently, when he gets less money from Michael Jackson, then the parents turn on Michael Jackson and say all this stuff occurred. LA Child Protective Services goes out, does an investigation, says the charges are absolutely unfounded. The prosecutor in Santa Barbara tries to pooh-pooh that and say, oh, well, that's LA, they're overburdened.

I used to work in California...

BLITZER: But they also said that that review was done before these latest incidents, which they say they can prove, Gretchen. They say the other report in LA was immaterial to this.

VON HELMS: I thought it was overlapping, because the report from LA is February 21, I think, to the 27, and the allegations are February 7 through March. So it is actually overlapping.

BLITZER: But they are insisting, Chris, aren't they, that these very serious seven counts of child molestation occurred after that LA report was concluded?

DARDEN: Yes. When you look at the timeline, apparently some of these incidents allegedly occurred after the DCS investigation was concluded. Now, I'm going to try to keep an open mind about all of this, and certainly the prosecution isn't required to release all of its evidence at its initial press conference after filing these criminal charges. However, I am expecting substantial corroboration of these allegations, and I think that anyone watching this case would also expect substantial corroborating evidence in this case.

BLITZER: You know, this is the point that I just want to pick up on, Chris. A case like this, these DAs, the prosecution, the law enforcement authorities in Santa Barbara, knowing the kind of defense they would mount, you have to believe they have some corroborating evidence, not just the word, let's say, of this boy and his mother. I mean, just -- it just doesn't make any sense that an established DA, like this Tom Sneddon, would go forward and risk his reputation, his career, just on some flimsy kind of evidence out there.

DARDEN: Well, you know, absolutely. Michael Jackson's legal...

BLITZER: By the way, I'm going to interrupt for a second, Chris. Stand by, because we see these pictures. Kobe Bryant has been leaving this courtroom where he has been watching the hearing proceed -- proceeding going on, on whether or not all sorts of evidence should be admitted involving the alleged victim, the accuser of Kobe Bryant.

I want to interrupt this for a second. Gary Tuchman can update us. He's been watching it for us in Eagle, Colorado.

Gary, what can you tell us?

GARY TUCHMAN, CNN NATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Wolf, the motion hearing has started. There are at least 16 motions that the judge will deal with over today and probably a day next month, also. They've dealt with four minor issues so far. But the one that's created the most controversy involves a T-shirt that was handed out here last month. It was a T-shirt that had a stick figure like a hangman stick figure, that game you played as a kid, hangman. And it's in the little letters next to the stick finger hangman, K-O-B-E, Kobe.

It turns out that it appears that members of the district attorney's office and sheriff's office took some of the shirts. They were given out free. According to the testimony in the court and agreed to by the prosecution, 78 employees of the district attorney's office and the sheriff's office took these T-shirts.

The defense is very angry about that. Now, according to the prosecution, no investigators in the case kept the T-shirts, but they do admit the district attorney himself, Mark Hurlbert, actually took the T-shirt but then gave it up.

The defense is asking the judge to do something about it. The judge at this point said, we want the district attorney to investigate if any investigators, people working directly on the case, took these T-shirts, and then he will decide what to do. So that gives you an idea of how there are these tangential issues to deal with. and motion hearings.

Also coming up today, the prosecution is conducting scientific testing. The defense wants to be present at all the scientific testing. The judge said he will hold a hearing on that next month to decide if the defense has to be there all the time.

And also, regarding clothes that are being tested, the defense wants to have access to the clothes. The final decision made by the judge, let the defense look at the clothes, and then make a plea if they want to look at specific clothes, and then he will make a decision.

Coming up this afternoon, after a 20-minute break right now, they will hold a discussion. The prosecution wants all discussions about this woman's medical records to be without the news media inside. The defense is saying, we want the medical records to be introduced at trial, because we do believe this woman tried to commit suicide twice, has taken anti-psychotic drugs, and therefore, it's relevant, because we believe she's seeking attention in many of her moves. But what the judge is saying is, before we even discuss whether medical records will be allowed in a trial, we're going to discuss the prosecution plea that the media not be present while we discuss it.

I hope I didn't confuse you too much, but that's what goes on inside the court. Lots of interesting issues discussed very technically.

Wolf, Back to you.

BLITZER: Gary, you didn't confuse us at all. We know you will be back throughout the day here updating our viewers on precisely what is happening in these hearings in Eagle, Colorado. Gary tuckman is out there for us.

Unfortunately, we are all out of time for this legal segment. I want to thank our two guests, Christopher Darden, our CNN legal analyst, and Gretchen von Helms. We'll have you back. These stories, unfortunately, are not going away anytime soon. We'll continue our discussion.

Thanks to both of you for joining us.

VON HELMS: Thank you.