Return to Transcripts main page

CNN Newsroom

New Development in Nidal Hasan Case; New Development on Leah Remini, Church of Scientology; Many Want Google Glass Banned; "The Neighbors" Causes Controversy

Aired August 09, 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: We have stories to update you on right now. A nationwide manhunt for a suspected kidnapper of a 16-year-old girl and possibly her 8-year-old brother. Still watching that.

Also, in Massachusetts, jurors are still trying to decide the fate of the alleged mob boss, James "Whitey" Bulger. After so much coverage of this, he's accused in the death of 19 people.

Also in Texas, a brand-new development in the request of the stand-by attorneys of an Army major to actually change their role in the defense regarding the court-martial of Nidal Hasan at Ft. Hood, Texas. In that court-martial, his stand-by attorneys are now asking a higher court to allow them to alter this whole shattered attorney situation and their participation in the trial given that he's defending himself, and I think it's fair to say he's not doing a very good job of it, suggesting he's the shooter right off the bat. But if granted, it would override the rejection of their request just yesterday, kind of like a big appeal. As you probably already know, Hasan is acting as his own attorney and acting very strangely. This is a very serious case. He's accused of 13 murders, killing 13 people at Ft. Hood, Texas, four years ago.

Joining us to talk more about what it's like when you have a client defending himself and you have to sit there and watch it, is Defense Attorney Chris Haddad, who served as a defense attorney in a notorious murder trial in 2007 in which an accused killer represented himself and it didn't go well.

First of all, it's great to have you. You're a perfect guest to weigh in on what these attorneys at Ft. Hood are going through. Tell me in 10 seconds or so the crux of your case that you dealt with and what your client was like.

CHRIS HADDAD, CRIMINAL DEFENSE ATTORNEY: In my case, my client -- first of all, thank you for having me. It's a pleasure to be here. In my case, my client was charged with first-degree murder involving a shooting at a synagogue in Boca Raton, Florida. And he represented himself. The process unfolded and over the course of time, much like in the case in Ft. Hood, my client at the time chose to alter the case and defend himself.

BANFIELD: So I watched that case. I covered that case. And I had my mouth on the floor for most of it because your client was so intransigent in that proceeding that I foresaw it was going to be a mistrial. It was just so unusual. How is it that he wasn't even incompetent to stand trial and if you could translate to what you're seeing with Nidal Hasan. A lot of people are saying, how is it possible that he's not competent given that he doesn't seem to be able to assist in his defense?

HADDAD: Well, there are certainly quite a few parallels that can be seen in both cases, mental health aspects were front and center in the case in the case that I represented the defendant was evaluated extensively on the question of competency as well as sanity and much like the case with Mr. Hasan, the Ft. Hood case, where competency and insanity also were important issues in the case. In both cases, ultimately the trial court and then obviously in Mr. Hasan's case, the military tribunal has found that he has the ability to understand their proceedings, he's got a rational understanding of the case and therefore he meets the criteria for self-misrepresentation.

BANFIELD: How do you protect yourself as an attorney when you have a client running himself into the ground? Because it's your reputation, too. Your possible ineffective assistance as counsel that could be at risk. How do you protect yourself? How do these lawyers for Nidal Hasan protect themselves?

HADDAD: This is a death penalty case and the challenges that they are confronting are so difficult and so important. In terms of protecting one self, it always comes down to doing what's in the best interest of the client and in this case it seems like the judge has laid out the parameters and they are doing what ethnically they are supposed to do.

BANFIELD: It's good to see you again. It's been a long time since I was watching you in that courtroom, Chris.

Thanks for joining me today. I appreciate it.

HADDAD: Thank you, Ashleigh.

BANFIELD: I have new developments to tell you about. A famous starlet and a battle with the Church of Scientology. Officials are now questioning Leah Remini about a missing person's report that she filed, because it was a missing person who happened to be the wife of the founder of church. Was she missing or not? Details ahead.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

(MUSIC)

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BANFIELD: I can't wait until Dr. Sanjay Gupta's special. I'm just going to tell you that right now. We'll be watching wide-eyed.

I want to bring you new developments regarding Leah Remini and the Church of Scientology. Remini supposedly filed a report with the policy that Shelly Miscavige, wife of David Miscavige, head of the Church of Scientology, was missing. There's questions raised about who really filed that report and, of course, there's a whole question of the fact that Shelly wasn't really missing.

Nischelle Turner is here.

I'm glad you're here. I shook my head when I first read the story. Now I'm completely confused. What's going on?

NISCHELLE TURNER, CNN ENTERTAINMENT CORRESPONDENT: So moving parts to this one, Ashleigh. First of all, the Church of Scientology is lashing back out at Leah Remini. She cut the ties with the church in July. There are reports that she filed a missing person's report for the wife of the head of the Church of Scientology. They did receive a missing person's report for her this week but they are not saying who filed it. We reached out to Leah Remini but she has not commented on whether she's the person who did this. Earlier this morning, a commander of the LAPD said they followed up on this report, and that Shelly is fine, that detectives had a face-to-face with her and she's not being held against her will. So this case is closed at this point.

Now, she has reportedly not been seen in public for several years, Ashleigh, and Leah Remini's sister said that her sister's problems with scientology started when she asked David about his wife's whereabouts at the wedding of Tom Cruise and Katie Holmes. So that's where this fracturing started and then Leah decided in July to leave the church.

BANFIELD: This is crazy. From what I've gathered, Leah was friendly with Mrs. Miscavige and was concerned about not having seen or heard from her. I think my bigger question is, case closed or not, are police potentially thinking about going after Leah Remini? Are they worried that this is nuisance or mischief or is it really going to go away, all but the battle between the church and Miss Remini?

TURNER: That's a good question. If she had a concern because she had not seen her for several years in public, if she had a concern about the wellbeing of Mrs. Miscavige, then it's within her rights to file a missing person's report. But the Church of Scientology says it's nonsense. They've released a statement saying, in part -- and I'm going to quote from their statement, saying "this entire episode was nothing more than a publicity stunt for Ms. Remini. Rather than move on with her life and career, Mrs. Remini has aligned herself with a handful of untrustworthy, lunatic tabloid sources that obsessively harass the church to advance their selfish agendas." Those are pretty strong words.

We should also say, Ashleigh, that Leah Remini's husband and mother are still members of the Church of Scientology. She is the only one, along with her sister, who left the church.

BANFIELD: That is odd. It's an unusual story and there are many unusual stories, I have to be honest, Nischelle.

TURNER: I hope I sorted it out a little bit for you. (LAUGHTER)

BANFIELD: You are amazing. I've got to be honest with you, no one else could.

Have a lovely weekend, Nischelle

TURNER: You, too.

BANFIELD: Thanks.

This looks like any other pair of glasses, but with Google Glasses you can Facebook and tweet and find a restaurant in a jiffy as you're walking around. So why would some people want them nowhere near their store shelves? We're going to tell you after the break.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BANFIELD: You've seen James Bond wear them and you've seen Tom Cruise in "Mission Impossible" wear them, and now thanks to Google, you, too, may be able to wear them, special glasses. I'm talking about a high- tech Google Glass product that can take pictures and video like you see in the images on your screen right now. You can actually look at your burger as you eat it. But even before this product hits the shelves, a lot of places are wanting to ban it outright.

Laurie Segall is live from New York.

Why? What seems to be the problem? Why would anybody ban such an incredibly cool thing?

LAURIE SEGALL, CNNMONEY, TECH CORRESPONDENT: It's so innovative. Why stop it? First of all, the number-one place, casinos, a lot of folks are worried that you can record so easily just by saying, "OK, glass, take a picture, record." A lot of casinos are nervous. They have been banned in Las Vegas casinos, Atlantic City casinos, Delaware casinos. I should mention, they are not banned from the hotels but they are banned from the floors because people are nervous that there can be cheating going on during gambling. You'll probably have to put them away if you want to play black jack.

And other places, I mean, you think about texting and driving and how distracting that is and how many states are trying to ban that. Well, imagine receiving text messages in your glasses. So proposed legislation that would ban Google Glass while driving would be West Virginia and Delaware. These glasses are really not even out to market yet but a lot of places are worried that this could be a distraction.

BANFIELD: And for anybody who thinks it's funky that they call it Google Glass, that it's actually Google Glasses, I have an answer to that.

(LAUGHTER)

It's kind of weird but they are Google Glasses. Laurie, thank you. Appreciate it.

SEGALL: Thank you.

BANFIELD: OK. A photographer says it is art. His neighbors say it's a huge invasion of their privacy because he took secret pictures of them, and then he displayed them and sold them, and they went to the judge and said no and the judge said yeah. Weird. We'll explain that in a moment.

I also have a reminder to you to watch "Weed," a fascinating documentary with our chief medical correspondent, and all-around famous person, Dr. Sanjay Gupta. It airs on CNN Sunday at 8:00 and 11:00 p.m. eastern time.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BANFIELD: I want to show you a couple of photographs and get your feedback on them. I know you can't talk to me but just try. These are people in their apartments in New York going about their daily lives and they are being photographed by a telephoto lens. A guy in another building was taking pictures of them. I know. It seems creepy. Here is where it gets weirder. He put them on display in an art show called "The Neighbors." People in those photos were not happy. And one family said we're taking this to the judge. They sued and they lost. The judge said, sorry, this is art.

I want to bring back defense attorney, Danny Cevallos, and criminal defense attorney and former prosecutor, Jeff Gold.

Danny, I'm going to start with you.

What? Are you kidding me? This is art? These are private photos of people in their private moments. How could this be art and how could this be fair?

DANNY CEVALLOS, CRIMINAL DEFENSE ATTORNEY: Here is the court's logic. It's a well-founded rule that privacy rights yield to First Amendment rights when it comes to matters that are newsworthy. It's why you can show a picture of Brad Pitt on the news but you can't use it later on in a book and make money. Newsworthy events trump privacy rights.

Then, in reading this opinion, you look for that kink missing in the logic armor. The judge says these people in their homes are culture attractions and they are newsworthy events. That's the leap that will confound a lot of people. Because it's a newsworthy event, it can be shown over their objections.

(LAUGHTER)

BANFIELD: You lost me on the newsworthiness of somebody having breakfast or a nap.

(CROSSTALK)

BANFIELD: Jeff, I want you to jump in. In some of those photos, children were shown. Their faces were shown. No only were they shown in the gallery, they were used in promotional material. That's where I wonder if appropriation of someone's image for promotional and money making matters is legal or fair or really downright immoral.

JEFF GOLD, CRIMINAL DEFENSE ATTORNEY & FORMER PROSECUTOR: That's right. Certainly let's take it to the logical extreme. If you took pictures of naked kids it would be child porn. That's not this. Taking pictures of a kid in mall, kids at a birthday party. We're going through the window. Almost like a peeping tom. I'm going to say these rights of privacy which were asserted by these alleged victims had good basis in the law and the judge, while he ruled against them, actually said one of his considerations was that the artist agreed to pull down the pictures from the website and to take them off of display. There were good rights here and with good reason because it creeps you out.

(LAUGHTER)

BANFIELD: That's the story of the week, creeps you out.

Danny Cevallos and Jeff Gold, thanks very much.

My final thought coming up right after the break.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BANFIELD: I think it's no secret there are circumstances that look like the third world that exists right here in the United States of America, but if Martha Ryan gets her way, that's going to end. Have a listen to this.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Years ago my, daughter and I were homeless. My main priority was to get high. Then I got pregnant again, and I was like, what am I doing, I need to change.

MARTHA RYAN, CNN HERO: I have never met a woman who wanted to hurt her unborn baby but I met a lot of women that did not want to do the right thing. The common denominator is poverty. Poverty is an accident of birth.

Pregnancy is a wonderful window of opportunity. A mother can turn her life around.

My name is Martha Ryan, and I help expecting mothers break the cycle of poverty for good.

You can't just be saved. You have to do the work yourself.

I learned early on that prenatal care alone is not enough.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: We need a place to stay as soon as possible.

RYAN: We'll help you with housing as well.

These women needed help with complex issues, and now we serve the entire family.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Thank you so much.

RYAN: You're so welcome.

Given opportunities, nothing stops them.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Getting over my addiction wasn't the hardest part.

I love you.

Getting my kids stable, finding my confidence.

Smaller circles.

I work here now. I am so happy to be able to relay the things I've learned to moms. This program gave me the tools and I found myself worth.

RYAN: We are investing in people.

Believe in yourself and take one day at a time.

Their ability to change their lives, now that is inspiring.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

BANFIELD: Those babies are so cute. Martha Ryan, you're my hero.

Thank you for watching, everyone. I'm Ashleigh Banfield in New York, with this tip for this weekend, close your blinds. I'll see you on Monday with our brand new show.

AROUND THE WORLD starts now.