Return to Transcripts main page

CNN Newsroom

Florida Law Would Speed Up Executions; Why Can't Nadal Hasan Plead Guilty; Ex-Cop Accused of Wife's Murder.

Aired June 03, 2013 - 11:30   ET

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


(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

ASHLEIGH BANFIELD, CNN ANCHOR: Welcome back to day-time justice. A man who spent years on death row is asking the governor of Florida to veto a brand new law that would speed up the executions in that state. If the new law had been on the books that man says he would not have lived to see his conviction overturned. A conviction for triple murder overturned. The critics bring up a key question though, is swift justice actually fair justice?

Sarah Ganim has more on the controversial justice act.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

SARAH GANIM, CNN CONTRIBUTOR (voice-over): This is where Seth Penalver comes to remember freedom, the sound of the sea, the smell of fresh ocean air, to forget cold hard injustice.

SETH PENALVER, TRIPLE MURDER CONVICTION OVERTURNED: There was always a part of me that would say this can't be it. You know, it can't be over. My life can't end like this in a sail, darkness, you know, where death is only 50-yard away.

GANIM: Penalver is the most recent inmate exonerated from Florida's death row. He spent 18.5 years there for a crime he didn't commit. So he wants Georgia's governor to veto a bill to speed up convictions. If it was in effect when he was on death row, he would be dead.

PENALVER: I am the exam. I am the face of that. Maybe there is somebody else on death row that is innocent and by us speeding up the process now, it could eventually kill somebody.

GANIM: The Timely Justice Act would force governor Rick Scott to sign warrants within 30 days of the highest court review, within 180 days of that would be execution, inmates choice, either by lethal injection or electric chair.

STATE REP. MATT GAETZ, FLORIDA: Of the over 400 people currently on death row, 155 of them have been there longer than 20 years. There is no -- it's a blight on our justice system, frankly, that we have a lack of finality in that process.

GANIM: The bill's sponsor, state law maker, Matt Gaetz, says with so many people sitting on death row, that itself not justice either, not for victims and their families. GAETZ: Look at the last individual that Florida executed, this individual who admitted killing multiple people, stood up at his trial and said I want to die. Yet, it took us 20 years. That's an inefficient system and I think we can do better.

GANIM: Governor Scott has 15 day to decide if he wants to sign this bill. If he does, this year, Florida could execute 13 people.

Sarah Ganim, CNN, Miami.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

BANFIELD: Wow, 13 people in a little less than six months? Should death penalty cases be put on the fast track or should we be giving ample opportunity for convicts to prove if, in fact, they are innocent? Our legal panel weighs in on this one, next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BANFIELD: We are going to get the legal panel now to go at it on this proposed new death penalty law. 32 states have capital punishment. Maryland is the latest of the states to repeal capital punishment. In Florida's case, it's going the other way. They're looking for swift justice, but is swift justice fair judgment? Should death penalty cases be fast tracked?

Defense attorney and former prosecutor, Danny Cevallos, specializes in criminal cases. He joins us from Philadelphia. And defense attorney and former prosecutor, Randy Zelin, is in New York.

That's a simple question with a lot of intricate stuff that goes into it.

Let me start with you, Danny.

Is swift justice, when you talk about people sometimes in the case of Florida have been on death row upwards of 35 years, is that the answer?

DANNY CEVALLOS DEFENSE ATTORNEY & FORMER PROSECUTOR: You know, swift justice is justice in traffic court or some other legal issue. No when it comes to the death penalty. When you look at the spotty past of the death penalty, not here, in the spire world, in America the death penalty has been ruled unconstitutional in the last 40 years. For three years, we have a moratorium against it. Some states have it. Some don't. We're that in doubt about an ultimate punishment like this. It doesn't make any sense that we want to fast track it. It's final. It can't be reversed like probation or a jail term. So it's not something we need to be speeding along. We shouldn't be considering costs or time to the government or to government employees as a factor.

BANFIELD: But it's very difficult not for the government or the people alone for those people who were victimized by that felon to have to go through year after year knowing that the final justice hasn't been meted out. No matter what you feel about the death penalty, those people exist. They suffer for decades.

So, Randy Zelin, go back to your prosecutor days, put on the prosecutor hat, and tell me why this is a great idea?

RANDY ZELIN, DEFENSE ATTORNEY & FORMER PROSECUTOR: For the reasons --

(CROSSTALK)

BANFIELD: Given are you a defense attorney now.

(LAUGHTER)

ZELIN: No, no, no, you know what, I got to be a judge just now. I know now what it feels like to change your mind as are you getting on to the bench. I agree with Danny. I mean, truth and justice, timely justice, talk about an oxymoron, particularly in Florida where they get it wrong more than anything else. But the truth is justice goes both ways. There is something. There is justice for the victims. Where is their justice? The Senator said, here's a guy that said "kill me," 25 years later, he hasn't been killed. Whether you agree or don't agree with the death penalty, if it's on the book, then use it, use it for its intend purpose.

Maybe what we need to focus in on is getting it right before the conviction. Then we don't have to worry about this and we have an appeals process like any other appellate process.

BANFIELD: That has been a problem all along.

Danny Cevallos, and I have probably talked a couple times at least about DNA not always going according to plan. It's a science and it's only as good as the people that handle it. We as human beings make terrible mistakes. We don't intend to make them but we do make it. And other people's lives are on the line for it. So shouldn't we have a very lengthy process of weeding out all those potential errors, even if it takes two decades?

CEVALLOS: Exactly that. When it comes to the death penalty, it's the only punishment that is final. At this time, the only punishment really where we exact the same revenge on the person that they committed. It's only available for death. In assault case, we don't assault prisoners. In rape case, we don't rape prisoners. It's the only one that we adhere to some Biblical eye-for-an-eye type justice. It doesn't have a place in the modern world. And if it's that controversial, again, is there any public policy reason supporting fast tracking it? Keep in mind, also, Florida is one of the only states that has non-unanimous death penalties. That's definitely a state that should not be speeding up the process.

BANFIELD: When you say there is no place in the modern world, I will name five countries that we share the death penalty with, Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Iran, Syria, North Korea. Apparently, in the modern world, however, modern they are, we are in that group. I know a lot of people are uncomfortable with that. And we do make mistakes. No matter how you feel about the retribution aspect of it. We do make mistakes. Danny Cevallos and Randy Zelin, you both have to come back. Thanks so much, both of you.

Just ahead, a little more day-time justice. He is accused of killing 13 people at Ft. Hood, but Army Major Nadal Hasan wants to plead guilty. Apparently, he can't. What?

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BANFIELD: Former Army psychologist, Nadal Hasan, admits that he did it. He says he is the one that drew his weapon on fellow soldiers at Ft. Hood back in 2009, opening fire, killing 13 American servicemen and wounding 32 others. But the judge says he's not allowed to say that in court. He's not allowed to plead guilty. It is just the rule. So now Hasan, who is paralyzed after being stopped in his track, wants to represent himself at his court martial. And this judge has to decide something other than murder. Here's the big question: Why can't he plead guilty?

Joining me now is Lee Zeldin, a New York State senator and also a major in the Army Judge Advocate General Reserves. He served in Iraq with the 82nd Airborne before starting a law practice.

Senator, thanks so much for being with me.

Can you answer that why under the UCMJ are you not allowed to plead guilty in a case like this?

STATE SEN. LEE ZELDIN, NEW YORK & U.S. ARMY JAG RESERVES: Basically, because it's a capital offense. It carries the death penalty. They're concerned that under the rules, even if he was to plead to a lesser charge, that that could be used against him in a trial on the capital offense. Because it carries the death penalty, he's not allowed to do it.

BANFIELD: But is there something different than civilian justice? I mean, you can do it in civilian justice. Is there it an honor thing in the military? Is there something more?

ZELDIN: The rules simply don't allow the military judge in this particular case to allow him to take a guilty plea because of the capital offense. Unfortunately, the rules seem pretty black and white. The military judge is sticking to it. Major Hasan wants to confess for what he did wrong. It is remarkable, in this case, when you have someone willing to come to court in front of the judge and putting forth and the justice has to be carried out. Unfortunately, the rules don't allow it because of the death penalty.

BANFIELD: Here's the weird part. It can save us money, time, pain for all those people who are affected be this crime, having to live through a trial. Interestingly, Senator, he wants to represent himself. There was a hearing about this today. I can just see a huge can of worms about this guy representing himself. Could he not effectively stand up and do what he wants and say, as my attorney I'm guilty? ZELDIN: Sure. Once he has that, he sure can say it. One of the really scary things we are concerned about, the victim impact of the crimes that he committed. And the fact that he, as the prosecutor, that defense has an opportunity to stand there and the question these witnesses, people who are bringing forth evidence against him, he, as the defense counsel, representing himself, are confronting all the people accusing him. So it's a little of a predicament. But the fact is, from some of the earlier medical examinations that have been done of Major Hasan, they found he was fit to stand trial. And we'll find out very shortly whether or not he is fit to represent himself. And jury selection is scheduled to start right away. A four-week process. Major Hasan probably doesn't know that much about military law, though, he's been -- I guess he has been experiencing it since he committed these heinous crimes.

(CROSSTALK)

BANFIELD: You heard that expression, Senator -- I always get it backwards, forgive me -- "A man who happens as a client has a fool for a lawyer." Can you tell me if that is also representative of military justice?

ZELDIN: Well, he fired his civilian attorney. What I have experienced as a prosecutor -- I was prosecutor for about a year-and- a-half under the military system and as a magistrate for a year. There were great defense counsels. Some were better than others. He's made a decision to fire this particular counsel and represent himself. It seems like it may be right to do that, although, he is probably doing a disservice to himself. And As far as knowing the military rules of evidence and being a quote/unquote, "representative of himself," we'll see how this goes. It may get worse before it gets better as far as chaos reigning in the courtroom.

(AUDIO PROBLEM)

ZELDIN: Military info.

BANFIELD: We are getting break-up on your signal. I'm sorry, Senator. But this has been number of drama from the moment he wanted to grow a border and that wasn't allowed. We will have to have you back and talk about the outcome, whether, if, in fact, he is allowed to be counsel, and whether there was an ineffectiveness of counsel brought forward later on.

Senator Zeldin, thank you.

Sorry we don't have a stronger Skype signal on the senator.

Coming up, another case where a woman is shot and her home is set on fire with her children inside. The person who is accused of doing it says she did it. It's her husband, a former cop. You have to hear the forensics on this. Was it murder? Or was it suicide?

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BANFIELD: The last time a police officer accused of murder claimed that he was innocent, we had what appeared to be a very guilty man on our hands, Drew Peterson. In fact, he was convicted of first-degree murder in the death of his ex-wife and was sentenced to 38 years in prison. And now there's another ex-cop getting a lot of spotlight. His name is Brett Seacat and he's accused of murdering his wife and then setting her body on fire.

When police interrogated him, he seed very, very defense, raising his voice in anger and flat-out denying he did it.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER: Did you murder her?

BRETT SEACAT, ACCUSED OF MURDER: No.

UNIDENTIFIED LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER: Did you pull the trigger?

SEACAT: No.

UNIDENTIFIED LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER: Did you kill her?

SEACAT: No!

UNIDENTIFIED LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER: She told a friend a week and a half prior to this incident happening that you threatened to kill her.

SEACAT: What?

UNIDENTIFIED LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER: You threatened to burn the house down. And you threatened to make it look like she did it.

(CROSSTALK)

SEACAT: That is bull (EXPLETIVE DELETED).

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BANFIELD: Mr. Seacat says his wife killed herself and then somehow simultaneously burned the house down, all while he and their two little boys, aged just 2 and 4 years old, were inside the house. At the time, he had just been served with divorce papers. So we ask the question: Was this suicide or was this murder?

Joining me now to talk about this is the guy who could probably shed a lot of light. He's the person I always ask when it comes to this. Lawrence Kobilinsky is chairman of the Science Department at John Jay College of Criminal Justice in New York.

The reason I thought of you is because this is the kind of case that screams forensics. Nobody witnessed it, so now it's all about what was left behind. What stood out in that case that I just outlined?

LAWRENCE KOBILINSKY, SCIENCE DEPARTMENT CHAIRMAN, JOHN JAY COLLEGE OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE: I agree with you, this is a forensic case. And I think there are two aspects to it. First, the question about suicide or homicide and the second is arson. The problem is the body has been burnt, charred. And some evidence has clearly been lost. The ballistics evidence is only partially available. The gun was found under the body.

BANFIELD: How does that happen?

KOBILINSKY: That's a good question. Can somebody shoot themselves and then fall upon the gun? I mean, she was in bed. It doesn't really make a lot of sense. You generally do not find the weapon underneath somebody who commits suicide.

BANFIELD: I don't know if the gun was found under her front, meaning she was falling forward under the gun, or under her back. But that would make a big difference, wouldn't it?

KOBILINSKY: It would. But more importantly, when you have a gun, you have DNA, and the question is whether or not DNA can survive arson. Sometimes it can, sometimes it can't. Even on a charred body, there's some trajectory information. And sometimes the autopsy will reveal whether the shot was very a very close-in shot. That's question number one.

The other question is about the arson. Assuming that the same person committed both, we really have to tie the pieces together. So what kind of evidence would we find in an arson?

BANFIELD: You're seeing a few pictures right now of the accused in this case. And I want to read some of the things that they've collected in terms of evidence in this case. The reason you're seeing the foot is specific. But to start with his injuries, he didn't have any blood on him when he was found. And I think he told investigators he helped carry this body out and clearly she would have been bleeding. There were singed hair on his calves, two blisters on his foot and some ignitable liquid, apparently, gasoline, found on his pants.

KOBILINSKY: That's not good for the defense.

(CROSSTALK)

KOBILINSKY: The fact there is no blood on the body is a good important question. Although, there are some instances where somebody can cover themselves up and not have blood on their body. But in a situation like this, where he is claiming he heard loud noises and went to rescue his wife, you would expect, if he lifted her up and she was bleeding, to have blood transfer. But more telling is the gasoline on the clothing. We look for accelerants. Have a direct link between him, his clothing, gasoline and the fire, there's kind of a message here.

BANFIELD: If I was a defense attorney, I'd say he might have, in the frenzy, bumped up against wherever that accelerant was. But I think we have to let this one play out because I have a whole other list of evidence I want to ask you next time.

KOBILINSKY: Sure.

BANFIELD: Lawrence Kobilinsky, always good to see you.

KOBILINSKY: Thanks.

BANFIELD: Thanks so much.

Thanks, everyone, for being with us. AROUND THE WORLD starts right after this break.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

SUZANNE MALVEAUX: CNN ANCHOR: What started as a sit-in to protect a park in Istanbul, Turkey, has now turned into a countrywide protest against the government.