Return to Transcripts main page
CNN Crossfire
Jury Recommends Death Penalty for Peterson
Aired December 14, 2004 - 16:30 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.
ANNOUNCER: CROSSFIRE. On the left, James Carville and Paul Begala. On the right, Robert Novak and Tucker Carlson. In the CROSSFIRE:
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: We the jury in the above entitled cause affix the penalty at death, dated December 13, 2004.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
ANNOUNCER: A California jury says Scott Peterson should die for killing his wife and unborn son. But will he ever face the executioner? If so, how long will the process take? After the decision, some celebrate the verdict outside the courtroom while others denounce capital punishment. Is the death penalty cruel and unusual or is it a fair sentence for those who kill? Today on CROSSFIRE. Live from the George Washington University, James Carville and Robert Novak.
ROBERT NOVAK, CO-HOST: Welcome to CROSSFIRE. Scott Peterson's fate is decided. Unless the judge overrules the jury, the death penalty awaits the convicted killer.
JAMES CARVILLE, CO-HOST: And as Peterson prepares for death row the debater of the death penalty rage on. We've got a lot to debate straight ahead. But first, the best little political briefing in television, our CROSSFIRE political alert.
Many of you have heard me criticize our secretary of defense Ronald T. Dumsfeld and his buffonic undersecretary Paul Stupidwitz. Mr. Novak will probably going histrionics about how I can't say that about the secretary of defense. Well, I've said it before and I'll say it again, it looks like I have a little company, Republican company at that. Make that heroic Republican company in the person of Senator John McCain who says he has no confidence in Dumsfeld. Congratulations and welcome to the team, we know you are a man who will speak up just as you have spoken up on President Bush's deficit- busting job shrinking tax cuts. Thank you, sir. Mr. McCain. Welcome aboard.
NOVAK: I'll tell you again, James, you have demeaned yourself and you have this Dumsfeld and Stupidwitz. That's juvenile, the kind of stuff you do in third grade, not on national television program. Secondly, senator -- Secretary Rumsfeld is sometimes unartful in the way he puts things, one thing he's right about and McCain is reducing troops. We don't need more troops there, we need less troops. And I have said a long time ago we've got to get those troops out of there. They're hurting us all ...
CARVILLE: We need less tax cuts for the wealthy and more armor for troops. Less tax cuts for the oinking piglets sitting there, more armor for the troops.
NOVAK: I thought we were talking at the ...
CARVILLE: I am. But Rumsfeld has the biggest administration. Rumsfeld can't get the armor there.
NOVAK: He's not secretary of treasury. I'll explain it to you later.
Bill Clinton concluded his presidency on an infamous note with several questionable pardons, including his political supporter fugitive billionaire Marc Rich. Rich had fled the United States 17 years earlier when indicted for racketeering, tax invasion and other crimes. Now a Manhattan grand jury investigating the United Nations oil for food scandal wants rich to come home from Switzerland to testify. He's suspected of helping broker Saddam Hussein's conspiracy to trade oil for money for support at the U.N. A congressional committee says U.S. intelligence was aware of Rich's dealings with Saddam when President Clinton issued his pardon. The big question, did Bill Clinton know about it? Maybe the former president should be subpoenaed as well.
CARVILLE: Did you get that story out of the "New York Post"?
NOVAK: And the "Washington Times."
CARVILLE: Oh, wow. If you want to clear out the "New York Post," throw a bar of soap in the newsroom. They all run from that. They'll move on. They'll move (UNINTELLIGIBLE) out and all that crowd. I don't know Marc Rich. This administration, any time it wants to sue Marc Rich civilly, that was left in there when President Clinton did it. Why haven't they sued him civilly?
NOVAK: You're twisting it ...
CARVILLE: Sue him civilly, he's got assets here in the United States.
NOVAK: Aren't you ashamed of your president's pardons.
CARVILLE: My president never started a war and never bankrupted the country. Two things he never did that the administration did.
All right. This one's going to be a little difficult. It was hard enough praising the pro-war "Washington Post" editorial page in its role in helping to bring to light the absolutely disgusting and putrid behavior, of Republican lobbyists Jack Abramoff and Mike Scanlon and the vile sleaze bucket Republican Congressman Bob Ney of Ohio in their shaking down Native Americans in a cash for legislation scandal, but now I must take my hat off to the rabidly pro-war conservative "Weekly Standard" for telling the reader what a godawful scandal this is. Fred Hyatt, editor of "The Washington Post" editorial page and Bill Kristol, editor of the "Weekly Standard," congratulations on your publications. You're doing good work in this area.
NOVAK: Well, let me add another congratulations, and that's to you for being fair-minded on this. And I think now you ought to start reading the "Weekly Standard," read about the importance of tax cuts, of smaller government, of economic freedom for individuals. It might make you a more perceptive political analyst on this program.
CARVILLE: I'll read it and I do. I'm willing to give these guys credit. This thing ought to cross party lines -- these people ought to be ...
NOVAK: You're right.
CARVILLE: Thank you.
NOVAK: Well, it's hell when we agree, ain't it? OK.
CARVILLE: Yeah.
NOVAK: All right. Everybody gives the Democratic Party advice these days, including some people at this table. But here's advice Democrats ought to be careful about, from Michael Moore of "Fahrenheit 9/11" fame. He says, get this, quote, "The days of trying to move the Democratic Party to the right are over. The country is moving in our direction, not to the right." Where was he election day? End quote. This from somebody whose propaganda films have backfired. The total gross for "Fahrenheit 9/11" was just under $120 million. The number for the "The Passion of the Christ" just over $370 million, more than all of Michael Moore's movies ever had grossed. Those numbers should say something to the Democrats.
CARVILLE: Well, again, I don't think Michael Moore is right in that, but it's fair to point out one is a documentary, top-grossing documentary of all times, the other was a regular feature film and it's kind of comparing apples to oranges. I think the Democratic Party needs to reexamine itself and come up with a rationale and narrative. Michael Moore is certainly a creative guy that's entitled to his opinion.
My wife's home county in Texas, Hill County, elected Republicans for the first time ever and the local Democrats said it was Michael Moore that elected the Republicans.
CARVILLE: Doubt that Michael Moore, no more than Jerry Falwell elects Democrats.
NOVAK: The Scott Peterson case has a lot of people talking about the death penalty again, including us. If a man's convicted of killing his wife and unborn son isn't worthy of a death sentence, is anybody? We'll debate the issue next.
And why is James Carville -- I love this -- hanging out with movie stars? I'll fill you in later on CROSSFIRE.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
CARVILLE: Welcome back to CROSSFIRE. Scott Peterson gets the death penalty. Was it -- is at this time right decision, is the death penalty fair? A lot of moral and ethical questions are tied up in this case. In the CROSSFIRE today, Joe DiGenova a former United States attorney and outstanding lawyer in Washington, D.C. and in New York another outstanding attorney, criminal defense attorney Mickey Sherman.
JOE DIGENOVA, FORMER PROSECUTOR: Thank you.
NOVAK: Mr. Sherman, a lot of people I've talked to really don't like the death penalty say, hey, you know, this guy's so bad, this crime was so terrible that I think I might want to make an exception. And let me just play for you a little interview by Richelle, she was one of the jurors. Let's see what she said about this case.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
RICHELLE NICE, PETERSON JUROR: Scott Peterson was Laci's husband, Connor's daddy. Someone who should have -- the one person that should have protected them. And for him to have done that, that's it.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
NOVAK: It's hard to say this guy doesn't deserve to be executed, isn't it?
MICKEY SHERMAN, CRIMINAL DEFENSE ATTORNEY: I'm sorry?
NOVAK: It's hard to say that this guy doesn't deserve to be executed.
SHERMAN: No, he deserves to be punished. There's no question. What he did was horrific and disgusting. But if you look at the dealt row inmates in California, you're not going to find many first offenders and you're only going to find people who have demonstrated history of violence towards their wives or towards the general public. This is an aberration. And I'm not trying to defend what he did. What he did, as I say, is disgusting. By the same token, death penalty cases and there's death penalty cases. I'm not condoning domestic violence but generally first-time offenders do not face the death penalty. The problem here is that we hate this guy so much, for good reason, that we want to kill the guy, and we're all watching.
NOVAK: Isn't this worse than a crime of violence? Some guy gets drunk and in a rage kills his wife? This guy planned it. I mean, this is, to me, much worse than a crime of passion. Isn't it?
SHERMAN: Well, but that's why he was convicted of murder and premeditated murder. That doesn't mean he should face the ultimate penalty. Again, you have to look at what they do in California, what they do in other states. Traditionally if it's a first offense, even if it's premeditated, with the exception of perhaps that David Westerfield character in San Diego who was such a creep, he was a first offender. Beyond that, most people, the great majority of people have demonstrated histories of violence. That's just not present here. I think it's the media-ization of this case, it's us, the media who are focused on this and the public who can't get enough of it that has made us all say, wait a second, this guy disgusting, we've got to kill him.
CARVILLE: Joe, hey if you have a death penalty, I tend to agree with Bob more, if he don't get it, why in the hell have it. Someone go to question of why have it? Since 1978, 117 people have been let off death row. "The Stanford Law Journal" estimates there have been 23 innocent people. What is an acceptable ratio of innocent people to die to get to a person like Scott Peterson?
DIGENOVA: I don't think there's any acceptable ratio of innocent people to die ever. And I think that's why for those of us who believe in the death penalty and serious about having it applied fairly, a number of things have to happen. Number one, there has to be a major overhaul of defense attorney representation in this country to make sure that people who are charged with death eligible sentences the get proper representation. Second of all, every state in the union should have a statute requiring if there's any scientific evidence of innocence it can be produced any time after conviction to free somebody. Scott Peterson, however, was convicted under a statue in California which permits the death penalty in circumstances like this. It does not require a violent history or anything like that.
CARVILLE: We know that innocent people -- I'm saying what's acceptable ratio of innocent ...
DIGENOVA: To me there is no acceptable ratio.
CARVILLE: There's nothing that -- the argument is, which seems to me to make sense is, you can't fix it after you kill somebody.
DIGENOVA: That's an argument not to have a death penalty. And what needs to happen is that type of argument needs to be made in every state legislature in country. The Congress decided there is a federal death penalty the several states that don't have the death penalty, like the District of Columbia. So that's a local question. If people don't want to have a death penalty in their state, they should in the have a death penalty in their state.
NOVAK: Mickey Sherman, a lot of the experts on television really just gave Mark Geragos the attorney for -- how he didn't show up for the trial verdict, he said he would show -- what did he say stone cold innocence ...
SHERMAN: Stone cold innocence.
NOVAK: But at least one juror thought he was a pretty good attorney. Let's listen to what the juror said about him.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) GREG BERATLIS, PETERSON JUROR: I believe Mark Geragos did a very good job. I don't -- I don't -- I don't think he did anything that took away from it. Like I said, I just went by the evidence.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
NOVAK: What do you think? Do you think he hurt the defendant or do you think he did a good job?
SHERMAN: I think he did a good job. What a classy presentation by the juror, by the way. In fact, all the jurors who have spoken. I've got to tell you, I'm not just guessing, I was there on three different occasions, sat in the courtroom for a couple of days so when I talked about this thing I would have some intelligent basis. And Mark Geragos is a friend of mine. By the same token, he did a damn good job. On the state's case, he cross-examined the witnesses extraordinarily effectively. Unfortunately, when it came to his case a lot of his witnesses did not do as well as he would have hoped. You can't necessarily lay that at the feet of the lawyer. We can't put the words in the people's mouth of draw them out. All we can do is do our damnedest. Another problem is we are dealt the hands that are dealt. We are given the hands that are dealt. He had a crappy case. He just had a crappy case.
DIGENOVA: I certainly agree that lawyers are given a case. But I do think that Mark Geragos made some terrible mistakes in this case. Number one, when you use that phrase stone cold innocent it had an eerie and haunting feeling about it as it was used. It sounded like something the prosecution may have said. In addition, he promised a great deal in his opening statement, which he did not produce. Finally, he was not present for the verdict. And I must tell you, his absence at the verdict was a signal to the jury, it was actually one of the things that should never happen in any criminal case, let alone in a death penalty case.
NOVAK: Mickey, what do you think of being absent from the verdict?
SHERMAN: I absolutely believe it had nothing to do with his wanting to let down anybody or be embarrassed to be there. Let me tell you something, we criminal defense lawyers, we want to be there at the end, if we win, we want to gloat, if we lose, we want to be there to comfort our client.
DIGENOVA: Why wasn't he there?
SHERMAN: I think he was held to another court. Sometimes when you -- Any criminal defense lawyer is going to have more than one big case going at the same time. And judges get annoyed when you say i can't be there because I'm trying the big case, the one that's on TV. And they say, no, I want you here in LA., you've got to be at my case. Somebody else can be there. Mark Geragos made a judgment that the verdict was not going to come in, a judgment which all of us with the media and all the pundits, we agreed with as well. Lo and behold it came in, he was paying attention to another case and all of a sudden he doesn't care. He's a lousy lawyer. CARVILLE: Mark Geragos has a lot of big wins, he's a great lawyer, defend himself pretty good enough. Let me go to Jerry Kilgore, who is a Republican attorney general, running against Timothy Cain, he said, quote, "Mr. Cain not only opposes the death penalty but actually represented death row inmates." It turns out he was appointed to represent people. Do you think that's a fair charge to level against a candidate for office that was a lawyer that he actually represented people on death row?
DIGENOVA: No, I do not. I disagree with that Republican candidate for governor. I think lawyers represent all types of clients. It's their duty to do so, especially if they're appointed by the court. I just differ with Mr. Kilgore on that question.
CARVILLE: Thank you.
NOVAK: Mickey, I've been hearing for ages that opinion by the American people on death sentences has changed, there's less support for the death penalty. Gallup Poll up in new jersey, polling on this since the Depression, in 1930s. And the thing never changes. Now, let me show you the last simple question, not with all of this complicated thing, do you prefer life without parole or something, but just same simple question. Do you support the death penalty for murder convictions? Favor, 71 percent. Oppose, 26 percent. That's a landslide. I mean, American people favor the death penalty and I don't understand why we can't just live with that and not have these complicated appeal things that keep somebody alive for years on death row.
SHERMAN: Because the system is so fallible. As someone pointed out, we want scientific proof. We had a woman down, where was it, Oklahoma, medical examiner who was falsifying the test, the DNA, the blood, the semen and people were on death row when they absolutely had no business being there. That's the problem. When you have human beings involved, you have mistakes. And the system is not perfect. As Mr. Carville points out, what's the price we're willing to pay, one dead guy, two dead guys in order to preserve the death penalty? The other issue is that public, very rightfully, doesn't trust the criminal justice system or the corrections system in each state to keep people there for life without parole. Very justifiably they think if they give them that option, that 14, 26, 13 years from now, they're going to let them out. Leopold and Loeb, perfect example.
NOVAK: We're going to take a break.
Next in rapid fire, will Scott Peterson ever be put to death or will he die on death row?
But first, is your stay prepared for a bioterror, Wolf Blitzer has some answers just ahead.
And later on CROSSFIRE, What do actor Jude Law and James Carville have in common? That's a good question.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK) WOLF BLITZER, CNN HOST: I'm Wolf Blitzer in Washington. Coming up at the top of the hour, more violence in Baghdad today. But the Iraqi government plans to begin war crimes trials next week.
A report says only half a dozen states are really prepared for a bioterror attack. Is your state one of them?
And do you have any trouble getting a good night's sleep? That could be a symptom of a very serious health problem. All those stories and much more minutes away on WOLF BLITZER REPORTS. Now back to CROSSFIRE.
CARVILLE: Welcome back. It's time for "rapidfire" where the questions come hot and fast in the CROSSFIRE. Joe DiGenova a former United States attorney in Washington, DC and in New York, criminal defense attorney, Mickey Sherman.
NOVAK: Mr. Sherman, how long is Scott Peterson going to be on death row? Will he die on death row even though he's a relatively young man?
SHERMAN: I think he probably will die on death row rather of natural causes of inmate or self inflicted. I think the average years is between 22 or 29 years is average years sitting on death row. I think takes five years in California before you even get a lawyer to do the appeal. There's something wrong with that system.
CARVILLE: Mr. DiGenova, do you favor the death penalty because these people deserve to die or for deterrent or alleged deterrent?
DIGENOVA: I favor the death penalty to be imposed of individual cases because of the crime committed by that person. Not for the deterrent value, because that's not the issue. The issue is punishment and retribution, not deterrence.
NOVAK: Mr. Sherman, do you think -- you were talking at first- time offenders. Adolf Eichmann is a Nazi executioner responsible for more a million deaths. Do you think he deserved the death penalty which the Israelis gave him?
SHERMAN: In a heartbeat. You know, that's a different league. I see the hypocrisy in my answer. I'm one of those people what said we should abolish the death penalty right after we killed Timothy McVeigh. It's a difficult issue because there are some people, Allen Davis, the demon who killed Marc Klaas's daughter, there are some people you can't justify not killing. But the problem that James Carville points out is in the mix when we kill the real bad people we're going to kill somebody innocent. Is that worth the price?
CARVILLE: Mr. DiGenova, the things you're recommending would be quite expensive, wouldn't they?
DIGENOVA: You mean good lawyers and scientific testing?
CARVILLE: Yes.
DIGENOVA: Of course they would be expensive but no more expensive than keeping people in prison for life.
NOVAK: Thank you very much. Mickey Sherman, Joe DiGenova.
Next on CROSSFIRE why would a galaxy of movie stars go to Louisiana to hang out with our own James Carville?
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
NOVAK: My co-host here on CROSSFIRE, the honorable James Carville is spending lots of time these days with some box office superstars. He is executive producer of the new move "All the King's Men." It's a remake of a 1949 classic based on the life of legendary Louisiana politician Huey P. Long, the Kingfish. The movie certainly has starpower. The cast includes Jude Law and Sean Penn plus there is Meryl Streep and Kate Winslet. Just one question, James. Why don't you ask me to be in the movie? I'll be happy to play the assassin?
CARVILLE: Bob, actually Patricia Clarkson -- Meryl Streep decided not to play so we got the great Patricia Clarkson. And I have a role for you and I want to show you what it is and it's been in a previous movie but if they make a remake of this movie I guarantee you it's time for you.
NOVAK: I work very cheap. Just on scale.
CARVILLE: There you go. (UNINTELLIGIBLE) from Mr. Novak, right? From the left I'm James Carville. That's it for CROSSFIRE.
NOVAK: From the right I'm Robert Novak. Join us again next time for another edition of CROSSFIRE. WOLF BLITZER REPORTS starts right now.
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 December 14, 2004 - 16:30 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
ANNOUNCER: CROSSFIRE. On the left, James Carville and Paul Begala. On the right, Robert Novak and Tucker Carlson. In the CROSSFIRE:
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: We the jury in the above entitled cause affix the penalty at death, dated December 13, 2004.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
ANNOUNCER: A California jury says Scott Peterson should die for killing his wife and unborn son. But will he ever face the executioner? If so, how long will the process take? After the decision, some celebrate the verdict outside the courtroom while others denounce capital punishment. Is the death penalty cruel and unusual or is it a fair sentence for those who kill? Today on CROSSFIRE. Live from the George Washington University, James Carville and Robert Novak.
ROBERT NOVAK, CO-HOST: Welcome to CROSSFIRE. Scott Peterson's fate is decided. Unless the judge overrules the jury, the death penalty awaits the convicted killer.
JAMES CARVILLE, CO-HOST: And as Peterson prepares for death row the debater of the death penalty rage on. We've got a lot to debate straight ahead. But first, the best little political briefing in television, our CROSSFIRE political alert.
Many of you have heard me criticize our secretary of defense Ronald T. Dumsfeld and his buffonic undersecretary Paul Stupidwitz. Mr. Novak will probably going histrionics about how I can't say that about the secretary of defense. Well, I've said it before and I'll say it again, it looks like I have a little company, Republican company at that. Make that heroic Republican company in the person of Senator John McCain who says he has no confidence in Dumsfeld. Congratulations and welcome to the team, we know you are a man who will speak up just as you have spoken up on President Bush's deficit- busting job shrinking tax cuts. Thank you, sir. Mr. McCain. Welcome aboard.
NOVAK: I'll tell you again, James, you have demeaned yourself and you have this Dumsfeld and Stupidwitz. That's juvenile, the kind of stuff you do in third grade, not on national television program. Secondly, senator -- Secretary Rumsfeld is sometimes unartful in the way he puts things, one thing he's right about and McCain is reducing troops. We don't need more troops there, we need less troops. And I have said a long time ago we've got to get those troops out of there. They're hurting us all ...
CARVILLE: We need less tax cuts for the wealthy and more armor for troops. Less tax cuts for the oinking piglets sitting there, more armor for the troops.
NOVAK: I thought we were talking at the ...
CARVILLE: I am. But Rumsfeld has the biggest administration. Rumsfeld can't get the armor there.
NOVAK: He's not secretary of treasury. I'll explain it to you later.
Bill Clinton concluded his presidency on an infamous note with several questionable pardons, including his political supporter fugitive billionaire Marc Rich. Rich had fled the United States 17 years earlier when indicted for racketeering, tax invasion and other crimes. Now a Manhattan grand jury investigating the United Nations oil for food scandal wants rich to come home from Switzerland to testify. He's suspected of helping broker Saddam Hussein's conspiracy to trade oil for money for support at the U.N. A congressional committee says U.S. intelligence was aware of Rich's dealings with Saddam when President Clinton issued his pardon. The big question, did Bill Clinton know about it? Maybe the former president should be subpoenaed as well.
CARVILLE: Did you get that story out of the "New York Post"?
NOVAK: And the "Washington Times."
CARVILLE: Oh, wow. If you want to clear out the "New York Post," throw a bar of soap in the newsroom. They all run from that. They'll move on. They'll move (UNINTELLIGIBLE) out and all that crowd. I don't know Marc Rich. This administration, any time it wants to sue Marc Rich civilly, that was left in there when President Clinton did it. Why haven't they sued him civilly?
NOVAK: You're twisting it ...
CARVILLE: Sue him civilly, he's got assets here in the United States.
NOVAK: Aren't you ashamed of your president's pardons.
CARVILLE: My president never started a war and never bankrupted the country. Two things he never did that the administration did.
All right. This one's going to be a little difficult. It was hard enough praising the pro-war "Washington Post" editorial page in its role in helping to bring to light the absolutely disgusting and putrid behavior, of Republican lobbyists Jack Abramoff and Mike Scanlon and the vile sleaze bucket Republican Congressman Bob Ney of Ohio in their shaking down Native Americans in a cash for legislation scandal, but now I must take my hat off to the rabidly pro-war conservative "Weekly Standard" for telling the reader what a godawful scandal this is. Fred Hyatt, editor of "The Washington Post" editorial page and Bill Kristol, editor of the "Weekly Standard," congratulations on your publications. You're doing good work in this area.
NOVAK: Well, let me add another congratulations, and that's to you for being fair-minded on this. And I think now you ought to start reading the "Weekly Standard," read about the importance of tax cuts, of smaller government, of economic freedom for individuals. It might make you a more perceptive political analyst on this program.
CARVILLE: I'll read it and I do. I'm willing to give these guys credit. This thing ought to cross party lines -- these people ought to be ...
NOVAK: You're right.
CARVILLE: Thank you.
NOVAK: Well, it's hell when we agree, ain't it? OK.
CARVILLE: Yeah.
NOVAK: All right. Everybody gives the Democratic Party advice these days, including some people at this table. But here's advice Democrats ought to be careful about, from Michael Moore of "Fahrenheit 9/11" fame. He says, get this, quote, "The days of trying to move the Democratic Party to the right are over. The country is moving in our direction, not to the right." Where was he election day? End quote. This from somebody whose propaganda films have backfired. The total gross for "Fahrenheit 9/11" was just under $120 million. The number for the "The Passion of the Christ" just over $370 million, more than all of Michael Moore's movies ever had grossed. Those numbers should say something to the Democrats.
CARVILLE: Well, again, I don't think Michael Moore is right in that, but it's fair to point out one is a documentary, top-grossing documentary of all times, the other was a regular feature film and it's kind of comparing apples to oranges. I think the Democratic Party needs to reexamine itself and come up with a rationale and narrative. Michael Moore is certainly a creative guy that's entitled to his opinion.
My wife's home county in Texas, Hill County, elected Republicans for the first time ever and the local Democrats said it was Michael Moore that elected the Republicans.
CARVILLE: Doubt that Michael Moore, no more than Jerry Falwell elects Democrats.
NOVAK: The Scott Peterson case has a lot of people talking about the death penalty again, including us. If a man's convicted of killing his wife and unborn son isn't worthy of a death sentence, is anybody? We'll debate the issue next.
And why is James Carville -- I love this -- hanging out with movie stars? I'll fill you in later on CROSSFIRE.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
CARVILLE: Welcome back to CROSSFIRE. Scott Peterson gets the death penalty. Was it -- is at this time right decision, is the death penalty fair? A lot of moral and ethical questions are tied up in this case. In the CROSSFIRE today, Joe DiGenova a former United States attorney and outstanding lawyer in Washington, D.C. and in New York another outstanding attorney, criminal defense attorney Mickey Sherman.
JOE DIGENOVA, FORMER PROSECUTOR: Thank you.
NOVAK: Mr. Sherman, a lot of people I've talked to really don't like the death penalty say, hey, you know, this guy's so bad, this crime was so terrible that I think I might want to make an exception. And let me just play for you a little interview by Richelle, she was one of the jurors. Let's see what she said about this case.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
RICHELLE NICE, PETERSON JUROR: Scott Peterson was Laci's husband, Connor's daddy. Someone who should have -- the one person that should have protected them. And for him to have done that, that's it.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
NOVAK: It's hard to say this guy doesn't deserve to be executed, isn't it?
MICKEY SHERMAN, CRIMINAL DEFENSE ATTORNEY: I'm sorry?
NOVAK: It's hard to say that this guy doesn't deserve to be executed.
SHERMAN: No, he deserves to be punished. There's no question. What he did was horrific and disgusting. But if you look at the dealt row inmates in California, you're not going to find many first offenders and you're only going to find people who have demonstrated history of violence towards their wives or towards the general public. This is an aberration. And I'm not trying to defend what he did. What he did, as I say, is disgusting. By the same token, death penalty cases and there's death penalty cases. I'm not condoning domestic violence but generally first-time offenders do not face the death penalty. The problem here is that we hate this guy so much, for good reason, that we want to kill the guy, and we're all watching.
NOVAK: Isn't this worse than a crime of violence? Some guy gets drunk and in a rage kills his wife? This guy planned it. I mean, this is, to me, much worse than a crime of passion. Isn't it?
SHERMAN: Well, but that's why he was convicted of murder and premeditated murder. That doesn't mean he should face the ultimate penalty. Again, you have to look at what they do in California, what they do in other states. Traditionally if it's a first offense, even if it's premeditated, with the exception of perhaps that David Westerfield character in San Diego who was such a creep, he was a first offender. Beyond that, most people, the great majority of people have demonstrated histories of violence. That's just not present here. I think it's the media-ization of this case, it's us, the media who are focused on this and the public who can't get enough of it that has made us all say, wait a second, this guy disgusting, we've got to kill him.
CARVILLE: Joe, hey if you have a death penalty, I tend to agree with Bob more, if he don't get it, why in the hell have it. Someone go to question of why have it? Since 1978, 117 people have been let off death row. "The Stanford Law Journal" estimates there have been 23 innocent people. What is an acceptable ratio of innocent people to die to get to a person like Scott Peterson?
DIGENOVA: I don't think there's any acceptable ratio of innocent people to die ever. And I think that's why for those of us who believe in the death penalty and serious about having it applied fairly, a number of things have to happen. Number one, there has to be a major overhaul of defense attorney representation in this country to make sure that people who are charged with death eligible sentences the get proper representation. Second of all, every state in the union should have a statute requiring if there's any scientific evidence of innocence it can be produced any time after conviction to free somebody. Scott Peterson, however, was convicted under a statue in California which permits the death penalty in circumstances like this. It does not require a violent history or anything like that.
CARVILLE: We know that innocent people -- I'm saying what's acceptable ratio of innocent ...
DIGENOVA: To me there is no acceptable ratio.
CARVILLE: There's nothing that -- the argument is, which seems to me to make sense is, you can't fix it after you kill somebody.
DIGENOVA: That's an argument not to have a death penalty. And what needs to happen is that type of argument needs to be made in every state legislature in country. The Congress decided there is a federal death penalty the several states that don't have the death penalty, like the District of Columbia. So that's a local question. If people don't want to have a death penalty in their state, they should in the have a death penalty in their state.
NOVAK: Mickey Sherman, a lot of the experts on television really just gave Mark Geragos the attorney for -- how he didn't show up for the trial verdict, he said he would show -- what did he say stone cold innocence ...
SHERMAN: Stone cold innocence.
NOVAK: But at least one juror thought he was a pretty good attorney. Let's listen to what the juror said about him.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) GREG BERATLIS, PETERSON JUROR: I believe Mark Geragos did a very good job. I don't -- I don't -- I don't think he did anything that took away from it. Like I said, I just went by the evidence.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
NOVAK: What do you think? Do you think he hurt the defendant or do you think he did a good job?
SHERMAN: I think he did a good job. What a classy presentation by the juror, by the way. In fact, all the jurors who have spoken. I've got to tell you, I'm not just guessing, I was there on three different occasions, sat in the courtroom for a couple of days so when I talked about this thing I would have some intelligent basis. And Mark Geragos is a friend of mine. By the same token, he did a damn good job. On the state's case, he cross-examined the witnesses extraordinarily effectively. Unfortunately, when it came to his case a lot of his witnesses did not do as well as he would have hoped. You can't necessarily lay that at the feet of the lawyer. We can't put the words in the people's mouth of draw them out. All we can do is do our damnedest. Another problem is we are dealt the hands that are dealt. We are given the hands that are dealt. He had a crappy case. He just had a crappy case.
DIGENOVA: I certainly agree that lawyers are given a case. But I do think that Mark Geragos made some terrible mistakes in this case. Number one, when you use that phrase stone cold innocent it had an eerie and haunting feeling about it as it was used. It sounded like something the prosecution may have said. In addition, he promised a great deal in his opening statement, which he did not produce. Finally, he was not present for the verdict. And I must tell you, his absence at the verdict was a signal to the jury, it was actually one of the things that should never happen in any criminal case, let alone in a death penalty case.
NOVAK: Mickey, what do you think of being absent from the verdict?
SHERMAN: I absolutely believe it had nothing to do with his wanting to let down anybody or be embarrassed to be there. Let me tell you something, we criminal defense lawyers, we want to be there at the end, if we win, we want to gloat, if we lose, we want to be there to comfort our client.
DIGENOVA: Why wasn't he there?
SHERMAN: I think he was held to another court. Sometimes when you -- Any criminal defense lawyer is going to have more than one big case going at the same time. And judges get annoyed when you say i can't be there because I'm trying the big case, the one that's on TV. And they say, no, I want you here in LA., you've got to be at my case. Somebody else can be there. Mark Geragos made a judgment that the verdict was not going to come in, a judgment which all of us with the media and all the pundits, we agreed with as well. Lo and behold it came in, he was paying attention to another case and all of a sudden he doesn't care. He's a lousy lawyer. CARVILLE: Mark Geragos has a lot of big wins, he's a great lawyer, defend himself pretty good enough. Let me go to Jerry Kilgore, who is a Republican attorney general, running against Timothy Cain, he said, quote, "Mr. Cain not only opposes the death penalty but actually represented death row inmates." It turns out he was appointed to represent people. Do you think that's a fair charge to level against a candidate for office that was a lawyer that he actually represented people on death row?
DIGENOVA: No, I do not. I disagree with that Republican candidate for governor. I think lawyers represent all types of clients. It's their duty to do so, especially if they're appointed by the court. I just differ with Mr. Kilgore on that question.
CARVILLE: Thank you.
NOVAK: Mickey, I've been hearing for ages that opinion by the American people on death sentences has changed, there's less support for the death penalty. Gallup Poll up in new jersey, polling on this since the Depression, in 1930s. And the thing never changes. Now, let me show you the last simple question, not with all of this complicated thing, do you prefer life without parole or something, but just same simple question. Do you support the death penalty for murder convictions? Favor, 71 percent. Oppose, 26 percent. That's a landslide. I mean, American people favor the death penalty and I don't understand why we can't just live with that and not have these complicated appeal things that keep somebody alive for years on death row.
SHERMAN: Because the system is so fallible. As someone pointed out, we want scientific proof. We had a woman down, where was it, Oklahoma, medical examiner who was falsifying the test, the DNA, the blood, the semen and people were on death row when they absolutely had no business being there. That's the problem. When you have human beings involved, you have mistakes. And the system is not perfect. As Mr. Carville points out, what's the price we're willing to pay, one dead guy, two dead guys in order to preserve the death penalty? The other issue is that public, very rightfully, doesn't trust the criminal justice system or the corrections system in each state to keep people there for life without parole. Very justifiably they think if they give them that option, that 14, 26, 13 years from now, they're going to let them out. Leopold and Loeb, perfect example.
NOVAK: We're going to take a break.
Next in rapid fire, will Scott Peterson ever be put to death or will he die on death row?
But first, is your stay prepared for a bioterror, Wolf Blitzer has some answers just ahead.
And later on CROSSFIRE, What do actor Jude Law and James Carville have in common? That's a good question.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK) WOLF BLITZER, CNN HOST: I'm Wolf Blitzer in Washington. Coming up at the top of the hour, more violence in Baghdad today. But the Iraqi government plans to begin war crimes trials next week.
A report says only half a dozen states are really prepared for a bioterror attack. Is your state one of them?
And do you have any trouble getting a good night's sleep? That could be a symptom of a very serious health problem. All those stories and much more minutes away on WOLF BLITZER REPORTS. Now back to CROSSFIRE.
CARVILLE: Welcome back. It's time for "rapidfire" where the questions come hot and fast in the CROSSFIRE. Joe DiGenova a former United States attorney in Washington, DC and in New York, criminal defense attorney, Mickey Sherman.
NOVAK: Mr. Sherman, how long is Scott Peterson going to be on death row? Will he die on death row even though he's a relatively young man?
SHERMAN: I think he probably will die on death row rather of natural causes of inmate or self inflicted. I think the average years is between 22 or 29 years is average years sitting on death row. I think takes five years in California before you even get a lawyer to do the appeal. There's something wrong with that system.
CARVILLE: Mr. DiGenova, do you favor the death penalty because these people deserve to die or for deterrent or alleged deterrent?
DIGENOVA: I favor the death penalty to be imposed of individual cases because of the crime committed by that person. Not for the deterrent value, because that's not the issue. The issue is punishment and retribution, not deterrence.
NOVAK: Mr. Sherman, do you think -- you were talking at first- time offenders. Adolf Eichmann is a Nazi executioner responsible for more a million deaths. Do you think he deserved the death penalty which the Israelis gave him?
SHERMAN: In a heartbeat. You know, that's a different league. I see the hypocrisy in my answer. I'm one of those people what said we should abolish the death penalty right after we killed Timothy McVeigh. It's a difficult issue because there are some people, Allen Davis, the demon who killed Marc Klaas's daughter, there are some people you can't justify not killing. But the problem that James Carville points out is in the mix when we kill the real bad people we're going to kill somebody innocent. Is that worth the price?
CARVILLE: Mr. DiGenova, the things you're recommending would be quite expensive, wouldn't they?
DIGENOVA: You mean good lawyers and scientific testing?
CARVILLE: Yes.
DIGENOVA: Of course they would be expensive but no more expensive than keeping people in prison for life.
NOVAK: Thank you very much. Mickey Sherman, Joe DiGenova.
Next on CROSSFIRE why would a galaxy of movie stars go to Louisiana to hang out with our own James Carville?
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
NOVAK: My co-host here on CROSSFIRE, the honorable James Carville is spending lots of time these days with some box office superstars. He is executive producer of the new move "All the King's Men." It's a remake of a 1949 classic based on the life of legendary Louisiana politician Huey P. Long, the Kingfish. The movie certainly has starpower. The cast includes Jude Law and Sean Penn plus there is Meryl Streep and Kate Winslet. Just one question, James. Why don't you ask me to be in the movie? I'll be happy to play the assassin?
CARVILLE: Bob, actually Patricia Clarkson -- Meryl Streep decided not to play so we got the great Patricia Clarkson. And I have a role for you and I want to show you what it is and it's been in a previous movie but if they make a remake of this movie I guarantee you it's time for you.
NOVAK: I work very cheap. Just on scale.
CARVILLE: There you go. (UNINTELLIGIBLE) from Mr. Novak, right? From the left I'm James Carville. That's it for CROSSFIRE.
NOVAK: From the right I'm Robert Novak. Join us again next time for another edition of CROSSFIRE. WOLF BLITZER REPORTS starts right now.
TO ORDER A VIDEO OF THIS TRANSCRIPT, PLEASE CALL 800-CNN-NEWS OR USE OUR SECURE ONLINE ORDER FORM LOCATED AT www.fdch.com
