Return to Transcripts main page
CNN Live Saturday
High Profile Cases Bring Lots Of Coverage
Aired January 10, 2004 - 14:21 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.
FREDIERICKA WHITFIELD, CNN ANCHOR: Lots of high-profile legal cases this week and this month for that matter: the Scott Peterson case and the admitted lottery liar just to name a few.
From Fort Lauderdale, Florida, attorney J. Albert Johnson, good to see you. And from Cleveland, Ohio, civil rights attorney Avery Friedman.
All right gentleman, let's begin with the Fastow case. The Enron case, beginning with the Fastow's. Lea as well as her husband, Andrew Fastow. Now apparently Lea the wife did not meet the deadline to plead guilty. Something that I suppose the prosecutors were hoping for so they might lead towards the direction of maybe getting a guilty plea or some sort of plea deal from Andrew Fastow. Al let me begin with you, how critical is her guilty plea or plea deal to the rest of the case?
J. ALBERT JOHNSON, ATTORNEY: Well, I don't think it's critical at all that the deadline was not met. The court will accept, of course a guilty plea any time up until the final jury verdict. So the pressure is on, and that is probably as the defense wants it to be. The pressure on the prosecution to come up with a deal that the defendant can live with.
WHITFIELD: And Avery, isn't the pressure on for prosecutors to try to get Andrew Fastow to have some sort of plea deal particularly because he is believed to be the real conduit in which to get to the heavy hitters of Enron, Ken Lay and Jeffery Skilling?
AVERY FRIEDMAN, CIVIL RIGHTS ATTORNEY: That's exactly right. In fact, the pressure really is on by working the kind of deal that I think may very well happen here. They want to get at the big fish. And that's really where the prosecution is gunning now.
Whether or not there are deadlines met, I agree with Al, I don't think that's significant. But the pressure is going to be on Lea to see if they can get that plea entered so they can get to the big guys.
WHITFIELD: All right, let's shift gears to the Scott Peterson case. They are hoping that this change of venue order coming from the court might stick. Jay, let me -- or Al, let me ask you, is this considerable defense victory if it is the case?
JOHNSON: I don't think it's a victory at all. The law of the United States of America as annunciated by the Supreme Court over and over and over again, directs judges when they perceive that a case has virulent, that is the word they use, virulent pretrial prejudicial publicity that a judge must do three things. One, he has to change the venue to a place where the publicity is less virulent, which is difficult to find such a place in this case with that kind of publicity.
Secondly, he must continue the case until the publicity has subsided. That's also difficult. Third, he has to sequester the jury. That's 50 years of court decisions that as annunciated by the Supreme Court since the case of Shepherd vs. Maxwell. The court has that obligation to make sure that the fair trial rules are met.
WHITFIELD: Well, Avery the same kind of argument is likely to be made in the Kobe Bryant case given the publicity of this huge celebrity. Not just in Colorado, but would there be another venue where perhaps it wouldn't have received just as much publicity?
FRIEDMAN: Actually, yes, I disagree with Al. I think this is a huge victory Fredricka, because what the defense did is pressure the prosecution into having a poll. And we all knew what the poll was going to show. That 40 percent of the people in Modesto felt that Peterson was guilty before there was a trial.
So Mark Geragos, counsel for the defendant, is laughing, sitting on his hands because this case is heading over to Los Angeles or San Francisco. And the same process will apply with equal force, in my judgment in the Kobe Bryant case.
WHITFIELD: So in some way do you see this kind of taints the view of the potential jurors, that it may show that the court has some compassion for people?
FRIEDMAN: No, I don't think it has anything to do with compassion at all.
JOHNSON: No.
FRIEDMAN: I think the issue here is that Geragos was successful in making the county spend thousands of dollars to have a poll, they fell right into his lap, and now because of the likelihood of a jury pool taint, it's going to get out of the jurisdiction. And it's a tremendous loss to the prosecution because their offices are in the same building as the judge there. And it is a tremendous inconvenience. A very serious victory.
WHITFIELD: All right, Al.
JOHNSON: Fredricka, I couldn't disagree more. If the judge had not changed the venue, then this case would have been instantly appealable. In other words any verdict, which would have been resulting from the trial, which took place in Modesto, would have been overturned by a court, an appellate court, and probably by the Supreme Court, because the rules are very, very strict in that regard.
WHITFIELD: Well Al, let me ask you, won't the same arguments be made for the Kobe Bryant case in Colorado?
JOHNSON: There is no question about it. The Kobe Bryant case is differed only in that some of the publicity in the Kobe Bryant case was created by he himself. And by his lawyers in placing him before the media, before the news cameras holding his wife's hand and admitting to the sexual dalliance (ph) that he admitted to.
WHITFIELD: Well, let me ask, Al too the other new caveat in all this, the size of Kobe Bryant's hands, and a measuring being taken of his hands to see if indeed he could have had his hand gripped around the neck of this alleged accuser at the same time be taking off her clothes.
JOHNSON: The question is going to be, as it was from the very beginning, was there consensual sex? And if, in fact, the jury believes Kobe Bryant, and he must testify, by the way, and if in fact, they believe that it was consensual, then the case is over.
If on the other hand they believe the complaining witness, the young lady in this case, then that's a question of credibility, which is going to be decided. So, all of this forensic business about measurement of the hands and the blood stains and all that stuff in my opinion is going to be of no value whatsoever.
WHITFIELD: Now Avery, you are shaking your head, I will let you disagree really quickly, because I do want to get in one last case before I let you guys go.
FRIEDMAN: The bottom line is that the big issue coming up is that there's a secret tape recording by the sheriff's department. There is going to be a hearing in the next 30 days and that ruling, if that tape gets in, and their incriminating statements, will have a profound effect on the case. We have to get to that before we get to the trial.
WHITFIELD: All right gentleman, the Alicia Battle case, the lottery case. Now she's facing up to six months in prison. Is this a pretty harsh potential sentence and a pretty harsh way in which to deal with this woman, who in the end admits she made a terrible mistake -- Al.
JOHNSON: No question in my mind it's a complete waste of judicial resources to prosecute this woman. The fact of the matter is that she admitted that she was overwhelmed by a desire to win a lot of money for her family, and incidentally for police officers as she said.
The fact of the matter is that this case ought not to go forward. She ought not to be prosecuted. You must always temper justice with compassion. This case screams for that kind of thing. She ought not to be prosecuted.
WHITFIELD: All right, Avery real quick.
FRIEDMAN: Man, he missed the boat. This is a convicted felon in the past. It was a scam, she knew it. The lawyer may have known it. She deserves the maximum. She's going to jail.
JOHNSON: No way, any way. There is no way... FRIEDMAN: Absolutely, that is what is going to happen.
JOHNSON: There's no way any judge...
FRIEDMAN: We'll check back.
WHITFIELD: Well then it sort of begs the question what about her attorney, if her attorney was in any way an accomplice or kind of...
FRIEDMAN: The attorney is now facing contempt charges. He told a judge that he was unavailable and in fact he was available.
WHITFIELD: All right guys. Sorry I have to cut you off now we are out of time.
J. Albert Johnson, and Avery Friedman thanks very much gentleman for joining us.
FRIEDMAN: Nice to see you again.
JOHNSON: Thank you.
WHITFIELD: Nice, spirited debate, appreciate it.
Our Web site is your legal link to the high profile cases making headlines. Log on to cnn.com/law for the latest developments as well as legal opinions and analysis.
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 January 10, 2004 - 14:21 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
FREDIERICKA WHITFIELD, CNN ANCHOR: Lots of high-profile legal cases this week and this month for that matter: the Scott Peterson case and the admitted lottery liar just to name a few.
From Fort Lauderdale, Florida, attorney J. Albert Johnson, good to see you. And from Cleveland, Ohio, civil rights attorney Avery Friedman.
All right gentleman, let's begin with the Fastow case. The Enron case, beginning with the Fastow's. Lea as well as her husband, Andrew Fastow. Now apparently Lea the wife did not meet the deadline to plead guilty. Something that I suppose the prosecutors were hoping for so they might lead towards the direction of maybe getting a guilty plea or some sort of plea deal from Andrew Fastow. Al let me begin with you, how critical is her guilty plea or plea deal to the rest of the case?
J. ALBERT JOHNSON, ATTORNEY: Well, I don't think it's critical at all that the deadline was not met. The court will accept, of course a guilty plea any time up until the final jury verdict. So the pressure is on, and that is probably as the defense wants it to be. The pressure on the prosecution to come up with a deal that the defendant can live with.
WHITFIELD: And Avery, isn't the pressure on for prosecutors to try to get Andrew Fastow to have some sort of plea deal particularly because he is believed to be the real conduit in which to get to the heavy hitters of Enron, Ken Lay and Jeffery Skilling?
AVERY FRIEDMAN, CIVIL RIGHTS ATTORNEY: That's exactly right. In fact, the pressure really is on by working the kind of deal that I think may very well happen here. They want to get at the big fish. And that's really where the prosecution is gunning now.
Whether or not there are deadlines met, I agree with Al, I don't think that's significant. But the pressure is going to be on Lea to see if they can get that plea entered so they can get to the big guys.
WHITFIELD: All right, let's shift gears to the Scott Peterson case. They are hoping that this change of venue order coming from the court might stick. Jay, let me -- or Al, let me ask you, is this considerable defense victory if it is the case?
JOHNSON: I don't think it's a victory at all. The law of the United States of America as annunciated by the Supreme Court over and over and over again, directs judges when they perceive that a case has virulent, that is the word they use, virulent pretrial prejudicial publicity that a judge must do three things. One, he has to change the venue to a place where the publicity is less virulent, which is difficult to find such a place in this case with that kind of publicity.
Secondly, he must continue the case until the publicity has subsided. That's also difficult. Third, he has to sequester the jury. That's 50 years of court decisions that as annunciated by the Supreme Court since the case of Shepherd vs. Maxwell. The court has that obligation to make sure that the fair trial rules are met.
WHITFIELD: Well, Avery the same kind of argument is likely to be made in the Kobe Bryant case given the publicity of this huge celebrity. Not just in Colorado, but would there be another venue where perhaps it wouldn't have received just as much publicity?
FRIEDMAN: Actually, yes, I disagree with Al. I think this is a huge victory Fredricka, because what the defense did is pressure the prosecution into having a poll. And we all knew what the poll was going to show. That 40 percent of the people in Modesto felt that Peterson was guilty before there was a trial.
So Mark Geragos, counsel for the defendant, is laughing, sitting on his hands because this case is heading over to Los Angeles or San Francisco. And the same process will apply with equal force, in my judgment in the Kobe Bryant case.
WHITFIELD: So in some way do you see this kind of taints the view of the potential jurors, that it may show that the court has some compassion for people?
FRIEDMAN: No, I don't think it has anything to do with compassion at all.
JOHNSON: No.
FRIEDMAN: I think the issue here is that Geragos was successful in making the county spend thousands of dollars to have a poll, they fell right into his lap, and now because of the likelihood of a jury pool taint, it's going to get out of the jurisdiction. And it's a tremendous loss to the prosecution because their offices are in the same building as the judge there. And it is a tremendous inconvenience. A very serious victory.
WHITFIELD: All right, Al.
JOHNSON: Fredricka, I couldn't disagree more. If the judge had not changed the venue, then this case would have been instantly appealable. In other words any verdict, which would have been resulting from the trial, which took place in Modesto, would have been overturned by a court, an appellate court, and probably by the Supreme Court, because the rules are very, very strict in that regard.
WHITFIELD: Well Al, let me ask you, won't the same arguments be made for the Kobe Bryant case in Colorado?
JOHNSON: There is no question about it. The Kobe Bryant case is differed only in that some of the publicity in the Kobe Bryant case was created by he himself. And by his lawyers in placing him before the media, before the news cameras holding his wife's hand and admitting to the sexual dalliance (ph) that he admitted to.
WHITFIELD: Well, let me ask, Al too the other new caveat in all this, the size of Kobe Bryant's hands, and a measuring being taken of his hands to see if indeed he could have had his hand gripped around the neck of this alleged accuser at the same time be taking off her clothes.
JOHNSON: The question is going to be, as it was from the very beginning, was there consensual sex? And if, in fact, the jury believes Kobe Bryant, and he must testify, by the way, and if in fact, they believe that it was consensual, then the case is over.
If on the other hand they believe the complaining witness, the young lady in this case, then that's a question of credibility, which is going to be decided. So, all of this forensic business about measurement of the hands and the blood stains and all that stuff in my opinion is going to be of no value whatsoever.
WHITFIELD: Now Avery, you are shaking your head, I will let you disagree really quickly, because I do want to get in one last case before I let you guys go.
FRIEDMAN: The bottom line is that the big issue coming up is that there's a secret tape recording by the sheriff's department. There is going to be a hearing in the next 30 days and that ruling, if that tape gets in, and their incriminating statements, will have a profound effect on the case. We have to get to that before we get to the trial.
WHITFIELD: All right gentleman, the Alicia Battle case, the lottery case. Now she's facing up to six months in prison. Is this a pretty harsh potential sentence and a pretty harsh way in which to deal with this woman, who in the end admits she made a terrible mistake -- Al.
JOHNSON: No question in my mind it's a complete waste of judicial resources to prosecute this woman. The fact of the matter is that she admitted that she was overwhelmed by a desire to win a lot of money for her family, and incidentally for police officers as she said.
The fact of the matter is that this case ought not to go forward. She ought not to be prosecuted. You must always temper justice with compassion. This case screams for that kind of thing. She ought not to be prosecuted.
WHITFIELD: All right, Avery real quick.
FRIEDMAN: Man, he missed the boat. This is a convicted felon in the past. It was a scam, she knew it. The lawyer may have known it. She deserves the maximum. She's going to jail.
JOHNSON: No way, any way. There is no way... FRIEDMAN: Absolutely, that is what is going to happen.
JOHNSON: There's no way any judge...
FRIEDMAN: We'll check back.
WHITFIELD: Well then it sort of begs the question what about her attorney, if her attorney was in any way an accomplice or kind of...
FRIEDMAN: The attorney is now facing contempt charges. He told a judge that he was unavailable and in fact he was available.
WHITFIELD: All right guys. Sorry I have to cut you off now we are out of time.
J. Albert Johnson, and Avery Friedman thanks very much gentleman for joining us.
FRIEDMAN: Nice to see you again.
JOHNSON: Thank you.
WHITFIELD: Nice, spirited debate, appreciate it.
Our Web site is your legal link to the high profile cases making headlines. Log on to cnn.com/law for the latest developments as well as legal opinions and analysis.
TO ORDER A VIDEO OF THIS TRANSCRIPT, PLEASE CALL 800-CNN-NEWS OR USE OUR SECURE ONLINE ORDER FORM LOCATED AT www.fdch.com
