Return to Transcripts main page

CNN Live Saturday

Interviews With David Rimmer, Dr. Robert Gordon

Aired September 07, 2002 - 12:05   ET

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

FREDRICKA WHITFIELD, CNN ANCHOR: One man killed and two trials for murder. An unusual legal proceeding has come to an end with the conviction of two young boys in Florida. Alex and Derek King were found guilty of murdering their father while he slept, and then the kids burned down the house. There was quite a different outcome in the trial of the man the boys tried to blame for the killing. CNN's Mark Potter has the latest on the cases and the convictions. Hi there, Mark.
MARK POTTER, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Hi, Fredricka. Well, even though the verdicts are in now, the boys are convicted and Ricky Chavis, the man they accused of killing their father, has been found not guilty, the controversy over this case certainly continues. Legal experts criticized the prosecutor for holding two separate trials in the same case, one for Alex and Derek King, another for Ricky Chavis. Even the jurors in the King case, that's the case involving the two boys, are upset. They say that they believed that Chavis actually committed the murder and that the boys only helped him by letting him in the door and then standing by. That explains why they were convicted of second-degree murder without a weapon, not first-degree murder. The jury foreperson says that because the trials were separate, justice was not complete.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

LYNNE SCHWARZ, JUROR: I think that we all were wishing that it could have all been one trial, because I think you would have gotten more facts and you would have been able to make a better decision -- not that you would base your decision on -- it's just with all the facts together and in one place, I think you would have been able to look down and say yes, this is what happened. Because I don't think we knew what they knew in the Chavis trial and they didn't know what we knew.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

POTTER: Lynne Schwarz is the jury foreperson you just heard from said if Chavis had been the third defendant in their trial, he most certainly would have been convicted.

Now with us is David Rimmer, the prosecutor in both cases. You have been at the center of this controversy. I'd like to give you a chance to answer some of the questions. First of all, what is your thought on the jury's position in the boys trial that Chavis is actually responsible for the murder and committed the murder? DAVID RIMMER, PROSECUTOR: Well, I respect their, you know, their position, and I can see where they could, you know, infer that. I don't believe it happened that way. And I am not criticizing them for basing their verdict on that. But I just really don't believe that Chavis was there, but you see...

POTTER: You think he played any role?

RIMMER: Yeah, I do. And I believe that he was a principal, just like Alex, I argued that Alex was a principal and I believe that he was a principle.

POTTER: In what way?

RIMMER: I think he was the one that motivated the boys, that encouraged them, maybe even planted the idea in their mind. I certainly think he had something to do with it in that respect. However, in his trial, I was not allowed to argue that because the judge ruled that the evidence was not sufficient. And you know, again, I'm not criticizing the judge. I mean, the judge made a ruling that was probably correct. And that left me then with a position to argue that he was the actual perpetrator, which I did not do. That's why I told his jury, that's up to you to decide what to believe, and I left it up to them, because I couldn't argue principal.

POTTER: Now you heard the jury foreperson suggest that those -- all of that should have been brought together under one roof and you could have tried it all. Why couldn't that have been done?

RIMMER: Well, that would have been nice to do, but Chavis wouldn't agree to a joint trial, and to start with, the two boys were going to have separate trials, which they had a right to do. But then they decided to go ahead and have one trial. So yeah, ideally, that probably would have been the best scenario and then let the jury sort it all out. But you know, for legal reasons, really couldn't do that.

POTTER: Now, one of the legal experts that we heard from this morning criticized your office for by doing it this way, in effect, hedging your bets. How do you respond to that?

RIMMER: Well, no, I mean, you see, Chavis filed a demand for a speedy trial. And when he did that, that meant we had to bring him to trial within 60 days after he filed that demand. And the 60th day landed on the 26th of August, so he had to be tried then. We couldn't postpone his case, try the boys first, or vice versa. And for the very reason what I just heard the jury foreperson say, we sealed the verdicts because we didn't want each jury to know what the other jury had done, because that's improper, really.

POTTER: Very quickly, if you had to do it all over again with the benefit of 20/20 hindsight, would you do it this way?

RIMMER: I'd have to.

POTTER: You'd have to? You had no choice?

RIMMER: Right.

POTTER: David Rimmer, the prosecutor, thank you very much for your time. Thank you.

And the boys are standing by now. They are in jail. They are awaiting their sentencing date of October 17, and the prosecutor has told us that they could face a sentence somewhere between 22 years and life. If they get the minimum and behave while in custody, they might get out in around 18 years, which would put them in their early 30's. Fredricka, back to you.

WHITFIELD: All right, Mark Potter, thank you very much.

Well, Wilbur King is the grandfather of the convicted boys, Derek and Alex. He appeared last night on CNN's "CONNIE CHUNG TONIGHT."

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

WILBUR KING, GRANDFATHER OF ALEX AND DEREK KING: The thing that struck me the most was their eyes. Their eyes were dead. There was no emotion. There was nothing but just -- just a blank look in their eyes, and when Alex was on the stand describing how his father was killed, there was no emotion, no sobs, no regret, and the only time that I saw him weep or cry was this afternoon when they said that he was guilty of first-degree murder (sic), then I saw him begin to wipe his eyes.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

WHITFIELD: Well, many legal experts were highly critical of the two-trial approach in the King murder case. They argued that at least one innocent person could have easily been convicted under the arrangement. Robert Gordon is a jury expert and a forensic psychologist. And he joins us now from Houston, Texas. Good to see you.

ROBERT GORDON, JURY EXPERT: Good to see you, Fredricka.

WHITFIELD: Well, we just heard from the prosecutor, he said they really wanted to explore their options, that's why they had two separate trials. Do you see this as a legal travesty? That instead of the prosecutors deciding on who to go after to prosecute, instead the prosecutors allowed the jurors to decide who done it?

GORDON: Yes. I see a travesty of justice in many respects. First of all, the ethical standards for prosecutors, whom I admire, are very clear. They must not seek conviction; they must seek justice. And it appears clear to me, based on what the jury has said, the justice was not done.

So here you have a group of people, six people who have to live with the fact that they have done something, unwittingly, to send two boys who perhaps were innocent, at least not the primary perpetrator of the crime, to a long-suffering period of years in prison.

WHITFIELD: And then following that conviction, a jury forewoman described her disappointment after hearing the verdict of Ricky Chavis, saying had we known what that verdict was, perhaps we would have rendered a different decision on the two boys.

GORDON: Having studied juries for more than 25 years, there's no doubt in my mind that that would have occurred, because what we're dealing with here clinically is what's called a false confession. And what these boys articulated in court had all the characteristics of a false confession.

Now, the jurors (sic) are innocent, however, is our system self- correcting sufficiently, just like in the first Rodney King trial, that when there's a travesty of justice, a miscarriage, that we have the courage, as we teach our children, to step forward, acknowledge that you made a mistake and do it again until you get it right.

WHITFIELD: So it sounds like you're saying not only was their confession manipulated, that perhaps the boys themselves, their actions were manipulated? Is that the way you see it?

GORDON: I am. I am not saying that their confession was manipulated, because I wasn't there, but I will tell you that the confession is absolutely consistent with what is called a false confession, which is monotonous and repetitive and redundant, and without emotion or affect.

WHITFIELD: Now, if they are sentenced the minimum of 22 years, as we heard Mark say, they would be in their 30's, if based on good behavior they were allowed to be released. What kind of state of mind are you expecting these two boys who would be, you know, grown men at that point to have, given that they have spent the majority of their lives incarcerated?

GORDON: No state of mind. These individuals would be mentally and emotionally numb, and they would not -- be possible for them to have a good life. Of course, they have been abused and distressed all of their life, so they will be on the periphery of those citizens which are among our lowliest. And the question for our society is, how do you treat our lowliest citizens? What do you do when you've made a mistake?

WHITFIELD: And how do you, if you can, rehabilitate?

GORDON: If you can, how can you rehabilitate? That is a great challenge for some very kind people to see that the exploitation, manipulation and abuse of these children does not continue when they are incarcerated.

WHITFIELD: Once sentenced, what kind of incarceration would these boys face, given that they are 13 and 14 years old? They wouldn't end up in a juvenile facility, and at the same time, it's hard to believe they would end up in a maximum security facility as well?

GORDON: I'm not an expert as a psychologist, I don't know. But I would tell you that they ought not to be in a prison facility at all. WHITFIELD: What would be your recommendation?

GORDON: That they be in a facility for rehabilitation of youngsters, that they be treated as juveniles, and that they have an opportunity to regain our society as valuable people.

WHITFIELD: All right, Dr. Bob Gordon, thank you very much for joining us. Appreciate it.

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