Return to Transcripts main page

CNN Connie Chung Tonight

Will Avila Face the Death Penalty?; Videotape Raises Questions About Police Brutality; Traficant Discusses Possible Expulsion From Congress

Aired July 23, 2002 - 20:00   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.
CONNIE CHUNG, CNN ANCHOR: I'm Connie Chung. Good evening.

Tonight, the Orange County district attorney, what is his strategy in the murder case of Samantha Runnion? Can the suspect get a fair trial?

ANNOUNCER: Will Alejandro Avila face the death penalty?

Tonight, the one man who can make that decision reviews his options. And why the kidnapping and murder of Samantha Runnion might not be such an open-and-shut case.

Caught on tape again and again and again. Renewed questions: excessive force or justified behavior?

The representative that may be too hot for Congress, James Traficant, now facing expulsion from the House. Tonight, Connie goes one-on-one with the controversial congressman from Ohio.

This is CONNIE CHUNG TONIGHT.

Live from the CNN broadcast center in New York: Connie Chung.

CHUNG: Good evening. Tonight, the toughest thing a mother will ever have to do, plan her own child's funeral. Services for Samantha Runnion will be held tomorrow night at 3000-seat cathedral in a neighboring town. Samantha's family are not parishioners there, but thousands of people are expected to join them to mourn a 5-year-old girl most of them never knew just two days before she would have turned 6 years old.

Suspect Alejandro Avila has denied killing her. He's being held without bail and will not enter his plea until a hearing August 9. And the district attorney's office has begun considering whether to seek the death penalty if Avila is convicted. Joining me now from Santa Anna is Orange County District Attorney Tony Rackauckas.

You have been quite outspoken about the Avila case, saying that the evidence is very compelling and that you believe you have the right person. Is this just an open and shut case?

TONY RACKAUCKAS, ORANGE COUNTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY: Connie, I've been in -- by the way, good evening, Connie. It's good to be here. And, no, I don't think that there is any such thing as an open and shut case. I've been in this legal system for a long time. I've been a trial attorney and a judge and now district attorney. And I've seen thousands of cases and I can tell you that there are no easy cases. There are no open and shut cases. So we don't view it that way at all.

CHUNG: But you are quite sure.

RACKAUCKAS: But I can tell you -- I can tell you that it's a good case, that the evidence is very compelling and that, you know, we are going to -- I am going to give top priority to this case. I'm going to make sure that the best and most experienced prosecutors that we have are going to be handling this case and that they have the resources to be successful. So we're not going to drop the ball.

CHUNG: Do you have a DNA match?

RACKAUCKAS: You know, at this point, it's really premature for me to discuss the evidence that specifically with you. I'm just able to say that there are different types of evidence in the case and we've reviewed it and we feel very good about it. Of course, we are still continuing to investigate and to develop evidence as we go.

CHUNG: Mr. Rackauckas, can you tell us if the playmate of Samantha, the one who was the eyewitness to the abduction, has she been asked to pick out the suspect in a lineup?

RACKAUCKAS: Well, that is something that I'm really not at liberty to talk about at this point. Of course, that will be revealed in time, you know, as we put on the preliminary hearing and the trial and so forth. But that is a little bit more specific than I'd like to go.

CHUNG: Can you tell us how much you will depend on that child's testimony, her eyewitness account in the case?

RACKAUCKAS: You know, I can tell you that what she did was critical in the case, that that little girl was so brave and she went to work with the sheriff's department investigators. And they put together a composite drawing and got that out to the media. And by the way, the media was very cooperative and worked with great cooperation with the sheriff and with all law enforcement and got that out to the public. And then the public, because of it, started calling in tips. And because of that, we were able to develop evidence that led to the arrest of Mr. Avila and now is amassing in even greater amounts.

CHUNG: You have said that you would bring...

RACKAUCKAS: So she's...

CHUNG: Yes, you said that you would bring this little girl up to testify, but the question is are you concerned that the jury will believe her? RACKAUCKAS: Well, we're going to have a lot of evidence that will be presented in the case and a lot of witnesses. And this is one person who, of course, probably will be a witness. But I don't think that we're ready to discuss that at this point, to get into that kind of strategy or that sort of detail.

CHUNG: All right. I understand. Mr. Rackauckas, can you tell us, do you think that pretrial publicity is a problem? Because you have been outspoken, of course, the sheriff has been outspoken, and of course, the media has been covering this story around the clock.

RACKAUCKAS: You know what? this is a case that it's terribly important. It's one that has a devastating effect, not just on a single family, but on the community and on the entire nation. People feel less safe. Parents feel less safe and more fearful because of this kind of a crime. So I think that we have a duty here to let the public know what is going on. The fact that we had such a fast and swift arrest in the case, I think, makes a lot of people feel somewhat safer now. And so I think it's important for people to...

CHUNG: Sure. I don't really mean to interrupt you, but, sir, can you tell me if you are concerned about pretrial publicity?

RACKAUCKAS: Well, no, I'm not terribly concerned about it. I think that, you know, that this is something that will be certainly the subject of a motion before trial and we will deal with that when it comes up.

CHUNG: All right. Mr. Rackauckas, did you believe that you will bring up that previous case in Riverside County in which Avila was acquitted? Do you want to? And if you do, can you bring it up?

RACKAUCKAS: Well, that is something that, of course, we haven't decided yet. That is a matter that we are going to need to look at all of the evidence and the circumstances and kind of make a decision about whether or not we want to try to use that evidence. Of course, it was an acquittal in that case, so we're cognizant of that as well.

CHUNG: Have you discussed with the Runnion family the whole question of the death penalty? You said that you would do so and also make a decision in the next couple of weeks. Have you spoken with the family?

RACKAUCKAS: Haven't spoken with them yet, no. Of course, my office -- very responsible members of my office are in contact with the family. I think what is important right now is to let that family have a funeral and, as you mentioned a little bit earlier, that is going to be tomorrow night. And I think they need to be -- I think they need to be able to get through that. And then I'll make an appointment and we'll talk to them very shortly after that.

CHUNG: Sir, how influential do you think their input will be in your decision-making process regarding the death penalty?

RACKAUCKAS: You know, I think it's a victims' rights issue. I've been certainly a proponent of victims' rights for years in California. And I think it's just terribly important to allow victims to have a voice in what it is that we're doing here in our proceeding. Now what I'm going to do is have a special circumstance committee that considers all of the facts and circumstances and gives me all of that input and listen to both sides and make a decision as to whether or not to proceed with the death penalty. The input from the family, what they have to say, is a factor. But, certainly, it's not the deciding factor necessarily. It's something that will be weighed in with all of the other factors and considered.

CHUNG: All right. Thank you so much for being with us, we appreciate it. Tony Rackauckas, district attorney.

Joining me now with some perspective on how we can expect this case to proceed is CNN legal analyst Jeffrey Toobin.

Jeffrey, it's nice to have you.

JEFFREY TOOBIN, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: Hi, Connie.

CHUNG: It is so difficult for the district attorney to answer my questions because he needs to tread that fine line. Why reveal his case before the public? because he can't.

TOOBIN: And it's early yet. They just brought the charges. They are still collecting evidence, the DNA evidence will be -- continue to be analyzed. So they really don't know at this point exactly how they're going to try this case.

CHUNG: Do you think Avila can get a fair trial? Because that is a question that he was dealing with and, obviously, the sheriff and the DA have been very outspoken.

TOOBIN: I think his attorneys will have a very good change of venue motion. The publicity in Orange County has been so intense, so obsessive that they may have an argument that he simply can't get a good fair trial there. Remember, this is California. California has a history of granting change of venue motions.

CHUNG: Rodney King.

TOOBIN: The Rodney King case was moved from Los Angeles to Simi Valley with very incendiary consequences. The dog mauling trial earlier this year was moved from San Francisco to Los Angeles. This case received at least as much publicity as certainly as the dog mauling trial and there really would be the possibility of moving this, say, to Northern California. It's something that people in the community really don't like. They feel like an important thing is being taken away from them, but it's one thing that judges deal with pretrial publicity.

CHUNG: All right. Of course, we in the media are very appreciative when the sheriff comes on and when the DA comes on and when both of them talk to us. The question is, though, have they been too outspoken?

TOOBIN: Well, they are -- every time they talk on television, you can be sure that the defense attorneys are getting the transcripts and saying, here, judge, look at what they are saying on TV. Look at what the elected officials are saying about how they are sure they got the right guy. We need to move this trial away. Tony Rackauckas doesn't have to be quiet. He's an elected official, he's a politician, but he's also campaigning. He knows that Gil Garcetti, the Los Angeles district attorney, just got voted out of office just north of where he is. So he has got to preserve his political position and that means being outspoken. But he does take a risk of getting the case sent somewhere else.

CHUNG: Even though he does have a background in law and as a judge and what have you. But he's not...

TOOBIN: It's not a bad thing.

CHUNG: But he's now prosecuting the case.

TOOBIN: That's right. It's not illegal, but it's just a question of risk and benefits. If he said nothing at all, that means the change of venue motion probably would fail.

CHUNG: OK. In the last minute we have, there is such an interesting part of California law that applies to this case. If the DA wants to bring up that previous case in which Avila was acquitted, I think, in most states, you wouldn't be able to do that.

TOOBIN: Wouldn't be able to do it.

CHUNG: But in California?

TOOBIN: All roads lead to O.J. Simpson. After the Simpson case, where the domestic violence issue was so important, the California legislature changed the law to make prior conduct admissible to show intent, to show motive, even to show what is called propensity, to say, look, where there is smoke, there is fire with this guy.

CHUNG: So even though he was acquitted.

TOOBIN: The two girls -- the court case wouldn't be admissible, but the two girls who were the alleged victims in the first case, it seems to me, this is certainly going to be the subject of legal fighting in the case, but it seems to me based on my understanding of the law, they could testify about what they say Avila did to them. And that could show his motive, his intent, his propensity to abuse young girls.

CHUNG: And that is only in California that that could be done?

TOOBIN: Well, certainly, I don't know all 50 states, but certainly -- I don't have that at my fingertips. But certainly it is an unusual law and it is a permissive law that -- one prosecutors fought for and won after the Simpson case.

CHUNG: All right. Thank you, Jeffrey Toobin.

Still ahead, Congressman James Traficant,, he's now a convicted felon and possibly about to become only the second man expelled from Congress since the Civil War. He's in rare form tonight and he'll be with us. You should be too.

ANNOUNCER: Coming up, an avalanche of violent encounters caught on tape. Why now? why so many? And is the force justified? CONNIE CHUNG TONIGHT is coming right back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

CHUNG: The pictures are shocking at least to some people, not just because of the violence but also because of who is committing it. The police violence seen recently in Inglewood, California, is only the most notorious incident. A number of taped encounters have raised questions of whether incidents of a parent, and I emphasize a parent, brutality are actually on the rise; or are cameras simply proliferating and capturing a seldom seen reality of police work in a negative light?

So we asked CNN's Brian Cabell to put the police beatings in focus for us.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

BRIAN CABELL, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): November 7 of last year in Ruidoso, New Mexico, a 15-year-old runaway is taken into custody, she's handcuffed to a bench in her cell. Officer Alfred Stinnett enters.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

ALFRED STINNNETT, POLICE OFFICER: Are you listening to me?

DIPAOLO: No I'm not. I hate you and I didn't take this (EXPLETIVE DELETED) any more. And you're a (EXPLETIVE DELETED) crooked cop.

STINNETT: If you open your mouth again -- are you understanding me?

DIPAOLO: I'm not listening to you! I don't like you!

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CABELL: The girl suffered a concussion and bruises and the officer was indicted for battery against a juvenile, a misdemeanor. Her attorney has filed a federal lawsuit.

Another videotape, March 20 of this year: Milwaukee police arrest a man on disorderly conduct charges. An argument apparently ensues, an officer shoves the suspect into the wall then onto the desk. The suspect claims he was assaulted.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: So I threw my hands up because I wasn't sure if he was going to hit me. And I was trying to let him know that, you know, cool out. CABELL: The officer claims he was protecting himself from being spat upon. The case is now being investigated by police internal affairs and the DA, but as of now, no charges have been filed against the officer.

Another police tape, this from May 31, Catoosa County, Georgia: authorities chasing a suspected carjacker who's fleeing on foot. Their car rams him, the deputies say accidentally, and breaks both his legs, he's down. And then seconds later, an officer tackles him and hits him repeatedly. The suspect, who is still hospitalized, suffered compound fractures. He's planning to file a lawsuit. The deputy was suspended by the department while it undertakes an internal investigation.

CHARLES ROGERS, SON ALLEGEDLY RUN OVER BY POLICE: It disturbs me that a man can run over you with a vehicle and jump out and go to beating on you.

CABELL: Again, this is a case where the camera gives only a partial picture, no sound and no background.

This Oklahoma City tape from July 8, shows an officer using his nightstick to subdue a much larger suspect. Oklahoma City Police and the FBI are now investigating the arrest.

Are these videos unfair snapshots of the reality of police work taken out of context? or are they tools that can help weed out some bad officers? Perhaps they're both.

Brian Cabell, CNN, Atlanta.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

CHUNG: Joining me now are a former police officer, now a criminal defense attorney, Mark Seiden in Miami, and here in New York we have James Curtis, a former prosecutor who now anchors COURT TV's trial coverage.

Thank you, gentlemen, for being with us.

MARK SEIDEN, FORMER POLICE OFFICER: Thank you.

JAMES CURTIS, FORMER PROSECUTOR: Thank you for having us, Connie.

CHUNG: Mr. Seiden, as a former police officer, do you think that those were examples of using reasonable or excessive force?

SEIDEN: I think have you to look at them one by one. The case in New Mexico where the girl was in the cell, I think that was entirely inappropriate and I think the action of suspending the officer is appropriate. I don't think there is any reason to use force in that particular case. But the others, yes. In the others, I believe that there was. For instance, the Georgia case, the carjacker. Carjacking is another term for armed robbery. This person robbed someone of their car at weapon-point and was fleeing from the police. The police had every reason to believe that he was armed and dangerous. We don't know what else happened on the tape. If this individual had a gun or had a knife or some weapon in his waistband, which we don't know, I think the officers were entirely justified in doing what they did. In fact, if he was armed, legally, they could have shot him.

CHUNG: All right. Mr. Curtis, I know you have one more, but basically, you're saying it was reasonable? correct?

SEIDEN: Yes, I think what I'm saying is this, Connie. Before we say reasonable, I think in a carjacking, use of force is reasonable. In this case, we do not have a complete video. We just have a snippet and it's unfair to judge based on that tiny piece of tape.

CHUNG: All right, let me go to Mr. Curtis, I saw you nodding but I also saw you shaking your head.

CURTIS: Yes.

CHUNG: Which do you think are excessive?

CURTIS: Which was I nodding for? Well, I don't think that -- first of all, I think the thing that Mark points out that is legitimate is the idea that you need to take a complete look at the set of circumstances. It is very difficult and, indeed, to some extent, Connie, it's unfair to make a judgment based on the little bit that we've seen. However, having that, the idea is inescapable that these two individuals, the first two that Mark talked about, appear to be under the control of the police at the time they were beat on by the cops. And to that extent, if control is the issue, that is what the cops are working for. They need to stop hitting people when they have that control.

CHUNG: So all of those were cases, as far as you are concerned, of police brutality?

CURTIS: Well, I wouldn't go that far, Connie, but I would certainly say that it seems to be you can make an argument for the fact that the conduct, the force that was used, was excessive at that point. But I would be open to some further investigation.

CHUNG: Mr. Seiden, if a suspect punches a police officer, is that officer allowed to have a breaking point and respond? or is he supposed to simply control his anger?

SEIDEN: Police officers are not supposed to turn the other cheek. They are legally entitled to use equal or greater force in subduing someone. And when someone strikes a police officer in this state, that is a felony. So I think that in those instances when force is used against an officer, they have a right to respond with force. But there is something that was mentioned about control that I'd like to bring up, Connie. In one particular case, it was the Oklahoma City case, showing the individual on the ground being hit by the officer with a nightstick. If you look at that tape again, you will see that that man's hand has a handcuff on it, but he only has one hand handcuffed, which means that something happened before this tape was run.

CHUNG: Yes, but what about his arms up? as if, why are you hitting me? what am I doing wrong here?

SEIDEN: Well, he's not following verbal commands, apparently, because the officers were apparently trying to arrest him. They managed to get one handcuff on. Something happened that we didn't see on this tape, and he has broken away from them. And what they're doing is, if he refuses to follow a verbal command, they're entitled to use force, use their sticks on his thighs and buttocks and calves to get him to comply.

CURTIS: And that's the problem. And Mark, I think, is exactly right with respect to that issue, and I'll agree with him on that point. However, the other two tapes, both the young lady in the jail cell and the young man who apparently got hit by the vehicle, those people, they weren't going anywhere, Connie. They were not going to be able to mount any significant force against those police officers. From what we can see with respect to the young man who got hit who was accused of the carjacking, we couldn't see anything in his hands. His legs were broken, from what we understand. And all that is to be done now is to secure him, not beat him. So that is a big question mark.

CHUNG: And just to clarify that first videotape that you were watching in which the man is being beaten with the baton, that, that you felt, was OK, even though his arms were up like this and saying, what are you doing to me?

CURTIS: Well, no, I think that that is a very, very close question. I think Mark is right, even though it pains me to agree with you, Mark, but on this point, I must yield that he was...

SEIDEN: It's about time you agree with me on something, James.

CURTIS: Well, you know, even a blind squirrel finds a nut, Mark, but don't get carried away. The idea is that as Mark quickly points out, this man is not complying. He is clearly bigger than both of these officers and that is the issue with respect to looking at the entirety of the incident. Something did happen. There was one handcuff on, we can only assume that he began to resist such that now he is sitting up as opposed to complying with what the officers wanted him to do.

CHUNG: All right. Before I go back to you, Mr. Seiden, I just want to ask Mr. Curtis one more question about the whole idea of having the suspect punch a police officer. Is the police officer clearly not allowed to snap? What if he does snap?

CURTIS: Well, he's not allowed to snap. That is ridiculous. The idea is that these police officers are allowed simply to use the amount of force that is necessary to control the situation. Snapping is an emotional reaction. Will it happen? sure, it's going to happen. Is it allowed? no. They are expected perhaps unreasonably in some circumstances, but the training and the fact that there are officers around him to give him backup and support, all goes to the fact that they are supposed to maintain control of themselves and of the situation.

CHUNG: Mr. Seiden, Mr. Curtis just brought up the whole idea of other officers being there. Do you find that there is sort of a pack mentality among police officers? In other words, if one is doing something, there is that blue wall of silence and there is support for whoever it is who is doing something that might be crossing the line?

SEIDEN: There is absolutely no pack mentality, Connie. What happens...

CURTIS: Oh...

SEIDEN: Well, I didn't interrupt you, Mr. Curtis.

CURTIS: I just laughed. Excuse me, Mark. I just laughed. Go ahead. Please.

SEIDEN: You're excused, now please be quiet.

CURTIS: Oh, Mark.

SEIDEN: As far as I'm concerned, when a police officer is in a situation where force is being used against him, he has a right to respond with equal force or greater force. Other officers may assist and certainly will assist in subduing the subject, but usually the more officers you have in the mix, the tougher it is to subdue the subject because there is too many hands and too many bodies.

CURTIS: And the problem with that, Connie, is it ignores the idea that in each of these situations that we've heard about, so far, there has been an accompanying false police report, that is a report that has ignored or at least downplayed to the level of criminal conduct, the accompanying force and simply essentially ignored what happened in that incident. And that's the problem.

SEIDEN: Well, there have been no false police reports in this case that I'm aware of.

CHUNG: I am wondering, in the Donovan Jackson case in Inglewood, of course, everyone is wondering what the other police officers said in their reports.

Go ahead, Mr. Seiden, the last 30 seconds.

SEIDEN: We don't have any reports in any of these cases you've showed us tonight, Connie. We have snippets of film. And again, as far as that carjacker is concerned...

CURTIS: Well, Mark, that's not quite accurate.

SEIDEN: Please don't interrupt me.

CURTIS: Well, I don't want to have you mislead these fine viewers of CNN and Connie's show. It's not accurate.

SEIDEN: I didn't interrupt you, now please be quiet. Connie, as far as I'm concerned, the situation with -- it may be funny for someone with no police experience to laugh.

CURTIS: Oh, see, there you go, it doesn't matter about police experience. People have to make judgments about this. You're going there again, Mark.

SEIDEN: The brave men and women that risk their lives every night so we can sleep in our beds.

CHUNG: Gentlemen, you know I have to ask you to stop because we're going to have to continue this another time. Thank you, Mark Seiden, thank you James Curtis for being with us tonight.

CURTIS: Connie, it's a pleasure.

CHUNG: Before we go to our break, we have some breaking news to tell you about. The Philadelphia girl who was kidnapped and appeared to be being held for ransom has been found. Police tell CNN 7-year- old Erica Pratt has been found alive. And CNN will bring you more details as we get them. We will be right back.

ANNOUNCER: Still ahead, he's the one man on the Hill you can always count on to speak his mind. Connie goes one-on-one with James Traficant. Will he be kicked out of Congress? CONNIE CHUNG TONIGHT returns in a moment.

CHUNG: We'll continue in a moment. But first, we go to Aaron Brown in New York for a look at tonight's developing stories to the minute.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

CHUNG: Tomorrow we may see something the nation has seen only once since the Civil War: Congress voting to expel one of its members -- one of its most colorful members.

Congressman James Traficant of Ohio has already been convicted on charges of bribery, fraud and tax evasion. But now one of the jurors has expressed doubt about his guilt, and a witness told the House Ethics Committee a government prosecutor pressured him to lie.

Traficant maintains he's done nothing illegal; that he's being punished for his unpopular stance and, perhaps, for the outspoken style that has brought him such notoriety over the last two decades, and which he has displayed throughout his current trials.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REP. JAMES TRAFICANT (D), OHIO: I'm not going to admit to crimes that I did not do, had no intent to ever commit a crime, and will do the time and expect a long time to try and shut me up.

Other than that, I'm feeling fine. If somebody in the audience has a cough drop, I would appreciate it. My throat is sore. I'm having some rectal disorders, as a matter of fact, as a result of this. My stomach is upset, and I am hard to live with.

You and I sex partners?

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: No.

TRAFICANT: Why not? I'm just kidding.

I am prepared to be beamed up.

I've been railroaded once, and I'll be damned if I'm going to be railroaded twice.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I think I've heard that several times.

(CROSSTALK)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Sit down. Sit down.

TRAFICANT: No one testified about any of this, any of these damn lying witnesses!

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Mr. Traficant, would you like the hearing closed?

TRAFICANT: No, not really.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I wouldn't think so, so sit down and let Mr. Lewis complete his testimony.

TRAFICANT: I want you to disregard all of what the opposing counsel has said. I think they're delusionary. I think they've had something funny for lunch in their meal. I think they should be handcuffed to a chain-link fence, flogged, and all of their hearsay evidence should be thrown the hell out. And if they lie again, I'm going to go over again and kick them in the crotch. Thank you very much.

I will take with me a file, chisel and knife. I'll try and get some major explosive, try and fight my way out. Then when I get out, I'll grab a sword like Maximus Meridius Domidius (ph), and as a gladiator, I'll stab people in the crotch.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CHUNG: Now, with Congress debating a vote on expulsion, and with his sentencing one week away, Congressman Traficant joins me from the heart of his district, Youngstown, Ohio.

Thank you so much for being with us, sir.

I want to start with the charges against you. There are 10 federal charges. I'd like to go through each one and have you respond.

First, racketeering: guilty or innocent?

TRAFICANT: Innocent.

CHUNG: Obstruction of justice: guilty or innocent?

TRAFICANT: Innocent.

CHUNG: Conspiracy to defraud the United States government: guilty or innocent?

TRAFICANT: Absolutely ridiculous. Innocent.

CHUNG: Seeking and receiving illegal gratuities?

TRAFICANT: Absolutely ridiculous. Innocent.

CHUNG: Filing false tax returns?

TRAFICANT: Beam me up.

CHUNG: All right. Conspiracy to violate the federal bribery statute?

TRAFICANT: I've committed no crimes.

Connie, it's good to see you back. Now you're on CNN. I think it's a fine station.

There was no physical evidence, no fingerprints. Every witness was subject to going to jail. Now a juror come out and said there's something very funny. The judge did not allow me to bring any witnesses, nine witnesses or 10 tapes that would have refuted this. And now I find out the judge, her husband, his law firm is associated with one of the key witnesses in my case, which is a violation of the law.

In addition to that, now a second juror, who sat through the whole trial except the last two days because of a loss in his family, is in the process right now of meeting with individuals, stating that when he left, it was his impression the prosecutor wanted him out, and that he felt that it was 50/50 innocent at that time, and he was leaning innocent, and also said that he was shocked when he heard the verdict.

Let me tell you something: I had my hands tied behind my back. I wasn't allowed to present any evidence. And even the Ethics Committee held back my evidence.

But on the strength of one honest American...

CHUNG: No, they let you bring some of the people that you wanted to bring up at your trial.

TRAFICANT: Four people. Connie, I subpoenaed 11 and asked for 20 other witnesses. They allowed one subpoena, Richard Detour (ph), and then they capitulated to a couple more.

The bottom line is Richard Detour (ph) actually told them -- and I have Richard Detour (ph) on tape -- before he was indicted and before I was indicted, admitting the same thing: The prosecutor wanted him to say he overheard a conversation where I was being bribed, and he come right out and said, I will not lie.

And thank God for that in America.

Now, I have a couple of other witnesses.

CHUNG: And he's facing bribery charges as well.

Why don't we go on to the expulsion vote. Now, you have said that you wouldn't blame your colleagues if, indeed, they did expel you.

Why do you believe that?

TRAFICANT: Because the only evidence, like the jury, that they were able to get was the government's evidence. And if you look at it, if I can't -- if I have my hands tied behind my back and can't offer a defense, what else is there to decide?

But here's what's happening: Right now there's a movement in Congress to try and hold the Traficant vote off until September. But I was just notified that a member by the name of Loretta Sanchez is going to submit a privileged resolution which would force it on the floor this week.

The reason Loretta Sanchez is doing that is, if you recall, she was embroiled in an election with Bob Dornan that there was questionable illegal aliens that possibly voted in there. And I was the only Democrat that voted to, in fact, have a new election. I don't think illegal aliens should determine the outcome of a federal election. And Loretta Sanchez...

CHUNG: I think we're getting a little off-track here.

TRAFICANT: Hear me. I'm not getting off track. This is about expulsion.

Let Loretta Sanchez go forward, but listen to what Jim Traficant is saying: If you jump the fence illegal in America, you should be thrown the hell out, not made a citizen. And Congress set a bad precedent by not revisiting that election where illegal aliens voted and...

CHUNG: But we're talking about her, we're not talking about you.

TRAFICANT: Yes we are, but she's bringing the privileged resolution. And I'm tell you what: I'm sick and tired of Democrats for 50 years who put a government on our back that people fear.

And the only chance we got...

CHUNG: Let's talk about you, Congressman.

(CROSSTALK) TRAFICANT: ... put the country in order.

CHUNG: Wouldn't you prefer to talk about you?

TRAFICANT: Well go ahead and talk about me.

CHUNG: All right.

TRAFICANT: What is it you want to say, Connie?

CHUNG: Well, I want to know why you think you're going to be expelled.

TRAFICANT: Well, because the only evidence, really -- and it's overwhelming, you have a jury conviction -- and what else can the Congress do?

But keep this in mind. I may ask for an injunction in this process and I'm going to break this as news on your show. Adam Clayton Powell (ph), when they voted to vacate his seat from Congress and the Supreme Court overruled it, because he was elected by his electors, and there is a question whether or not the Congress can expel me. And I know that sounds very unusual, but don't be surprised if I don't come with some legal and political machinations that put the Congress on its heels. I'll say one other thing...

CHUNG: Congressman, you have also said that you were going to come dressed in denim, just like Willie Nelson, just like Will Smith. Is that what you're going to do?

TRAFICANT: In my closing arguments, the white outfit I had on was denim. I wore that white denim outfit for the many young people who follow me in Congress and were disappointed I didn't wear denim. I will probably make my speech on the House floor in some outfit. And being a fashion leader, Connie, you could expect anything.

CHUNG: Congressman, you have won nine terms to Congress. Isn't it time for you to go quietly in the night? You're running again.

TRAFICANT: Listen, I changed most of the IRS law with the help of Bill Archer from Texas. Now the burden of proof in the civil tax case is on the government. I stopped House foreclosures from 10,067 to 57 in the entire country with the help of Bill Archer, a Republican and the Republican party, and the Democrats wouldn't even listen to me. I've had tremendous success in changing the laws. And you know what? It's not time for me to go quietly in the night. I'm still a lion.

CHUNG: All right, congressman, you're still a lion.

All right. We'll be right back. We are going to continue our conversation in just a moment.

TRAFICANT: You mean you're going to continue with me?

CHUNG: Yes. Is that all right? TRAFICANT: You're going to give me more time?

CHUNG: Yes.

TRAFICANT: You're out of control, Chung.

CHUNG: You are.

TRAFICANT: But you're very pretty and I will stay and I will wait for you to return.

CHUNG: Thank you. We will be right back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

CHUNG: We are back with Ohio Congressman James Traficant. He has been convicted of bribery, fraud and tax evasion, and he's facing the possibility that his fellow members of Congress are about to vote to expel him. Congressman, you say...

TRAFICANT: Don't call me names, Connie.

CHUNG: Congressman is not a bad name, is it?

TRAFICANT: Let me tell you what. I'm so disappointed in Congress. They have become an advisory board and let the executive branch, especially the Justice Department and the IRS, run the damn nation and everybody is afraid of them.

And you know what? I think I'm a microcosm of this case that an American has finally said, hey, I had it, go ahead and put me in jail. But somewhere down the line, the truth is going to come out and the American people are going to take their government back. And I think the Republicans have the best chance of doing that, and they better take a look at reforming the power that exists there. And these federal judges for lifetime terms, they're afraid of the Justice Department and the IRS. What a mess on our hands.

CHUNG: Congressman, how are you going to campaign from jail?

TRAFICANT: How am I going to campaign from jail?

CHUNG: Yes.

TRAFICANT: Well, let me tell you what. I may be the first American in history to win an election from jail. They may expel me and they may have me back the next week. And so help me God, if that happens, if they think I have been a loudmouth in the last so many years, get ready for Jim Traficant because I've held nothing back. When I brought John Deminge (ph) home from Israel, who was not Ivan the Terrible, that really hurt...

CHUNG: Congressman, you know what? You're not answering the question. Can I just ask you if you win...

TRAFICANT: I am answering the question and I think you should give me the opportunity to answer it. One of the problems I had is I accused Janet Reno of being a traitor, committing treason. And my investigation started with a judge who was nominated by Clinton and approved by Janet Reno. I'll tell you what, I'll be damned because I think a Chinese missile is going to visit America, and that Red Chinese Army money, I'm the only one that asked for an investigation. The Republicans...

CHUNG: Congressman...

TRAFICANT: ... one of their most favorite nation trade status passed, they laid off. The Democrats want to protect...

CHUNG: Congressman, how are you going to represent your constituents if you're in prison?

TRAFICANT: Connie, why don't you let me answer the question, will you? That's one of my problems. I've been targeted. The only American in history to ever to beat the Justice Department in a RICO case. They would build a monument to one guy said to me if they could get something on me. They pressured people to lie.

Well, I'm going to tell you what. I'm not going to take it. I'm not going to take it! Now, go ahead and put me in jail, but I'm going to tell you what, if I get one more affidavit, those suckers are going to be in jail. Hear me! They are going to go to jail, prosecutors, judges, because I've had it and I'm not going to be pushed around.

CHUNG: Congressman, there have been people who believe in some way or another that your behavior has been a bit erratic and I'm wondering what your wife and your daughters think.

TRAFICANT: They said I'm erratic?

CHUNG: Well, they've been watching the ethics committee hearings...

TRAFICANT: I'm not erratic, Connie. I'm mad. What was that?

CHUNG: They've been watching the ethics committee hearings and noticing your behavior. What I'm wondering is how your wife and your daughters view your behavior.

TRAFICANT: You know, you get married for better, for worse. There is better and there is worse. That is part of the deal. I wasn't erratic at that hearing. You know what? I didn't realize that when I was off the table, that I had a mic on me that was picking up my conversations.

I did make light of the fact, and sometimes I am basically unconscious of the fact that I am wired because I just try and be myself. I do sometimes make comments that maybe I should not make. If I've offended anybody, I apologize.

But the one time about the crotch, I've got to explain. You've known when you have a person that has tons of mics in their face, that sometimes they have boom mics about eight feet long. This one guy was kneeling down, had a boom mic that actually hit me in the thigh. And I told him get your boom mic out of my crotch. Now, I'm not ashamed of saying that.

Now, I've had people putting mics in my face, people misquoting me, taking my statements and putting them in context with a different question.

Look, I've been through the mill. But I'm going to tell you what: I am not going to be intimidated. I'm going to fight like a junkyard dog. And when this is over, don't count me out.

But let me tell you something: Why do Americans fear our government? Why does the IRS come in and testify to Congress, if we don't have the element of fear, we're not going to collect taxes.

My God, this is the United States of America.

CHUNG: You know, when you were...

TRAFICANT: Why should we -- we're the government! We're the government!

CHUNG: When you were talking to reporters, and you could see them laughing, your timing...

TRAFICANT: Who was laughing?

CHUNG: When you were talking to reporters -- I think you might have watched it just before we started.

TRAFICANT: Naturally, they were laughing. I jack a lot of reporters around, quite frankly, because many of these reporters basically put me down in the paper, try and make fun of me. And you know what? I treat them about the same way.

But I'm being very serious now when I make this point: Why should an American have to fear their government? Well, Jim Traficant is saying, you don't have to. And I'll tell you what, I'm going to lead that charge, and I'm going to change that, whether I'm in jail or not.

Now, about the election, I'm running. And I wouldn't be surprised if I'm elected from a jail cell because people know I got railroaded back here.

CHUNG: And how are you going to campaign from jail?

(CROSSTALK)

TRAFICANT: They didn't even have anybody from my area -- hear me. Hear me.

They didn't even have anybody on my jury from my area. Not just because they don't know me, but they would have known the veracity of these witnesses who lied through their teeth.

CHUNG: Congressman... TRAFICANT: What a hell of a mess. Hear me: no fingerprints...

(CROSSTALK)

TRAFICANT: No fingerprints, no physical evidence at all. No tapes, no wire taps.

Now, if you believe that, Connie, then believe me, I got some swamp land somewhere in Florida I want to sell you.

CHUNG: All right, one final question.

TRAFICANT: One final question?

CHUNG: Yes.

TRAFICANT: It better be good, you little TV vixen, I'm upset.

(LAUGHTER)

TRAFICANT: I even got you.

CHUNG: You sure did.

Are you ready for the final question?

TRAFICANT: I like doing your show. In fact, I like you.

You better make it a softball, or I'm going to come to Washington and...

CHUNG: OK, here it comes. Are you ready?

TRAFICANT: Go ahead.

CHUNG: That is one heck of a haircut. Can you tell me about it?

TRAFICANT: You know what, I cut my hair with a weed-whacker. I'm just a son of a truck driver. Forget this Congress business, I'm just a regular guy.

And you know what? Look at my wide-bottom pants, my boots and my skinny ties, and I certainly haven't changed. I don't have a three- piece suit on with my hands in my lapel trying to act like JFK with my fly open.

I'm the same guy that went down there, and I'm going to be the same guy. And I'm proud of the $1.3 billion I brought back to my district.

And I want you your help. I want your help to get the message out to the American people that we don't need to fear our government, and we should take it back.

CHUNG: Congressman, thank you so much for being with us.

We'll be right back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

CHUNG: We'll end tonight with a happy ending.

Remember our interview with Danica Cordell-Reeh? She had hired a nanny for her 5-year-old twins. Not just any nanny, but Michelle Padilla, who had written a book about how to find a great nanny and keep her.

Now, unfortunately Cordell-Reeh didn't think she was a great nanny, and fired her. Then the unthinkable happened: The nanny went to the authorities and accused Cordell-Reeh of sexually abusing her kids. The courts took the twins away from their mother and turned them over to her estranged husband. Her visits with the children had to be monitored. Danica Cordell-Reeh went to court and sued.

Now here's the follow-up: After a five-day trial, the case was settled. Cordell-Reeh will share custody with her estranged husband, and no more monitored visits. Cordell-Reeh's attorney says she's happy because the kids are no longer in the middle of an ugly fight. And he adds Danica and her estranged husband are talking to each other again.

Tomorrow: What exactly happens in those air traffic control towers at airports around the country? You won't believe what goes on.

To get a preview of our program every day, sign up for our daily e-mail by logging on to cnn.com/connie.

And coming up next on "LARRY KING LIVE," the latest on Pamela Anderson.

Thank you for joining us. And for all of us at CNN, good night, and see you tomorrow.

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