Return to Transcripts main page
In the Arena
Casey Anthony Found Not Guilty of Killing Daughter
Aired July 05, 2011 - 20:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
ELIOT SPITZER, CNN HOST: Good evening. Welcome to the program. I'm Eliot Spitzer.
Tonight's top story, the case which has transfixed many in this country came to a shocking conclusion today even if you were not paying close attention to the Casey Anthony murder trial. You may well have formed the opinion that many people held -- she did it. Casey Anthony killed her 2-year-old daughter, Caylee. There's just one problem -- the jury did not see it that way.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: As to the charge of first-degree murder, verdict as to count one, we, the jury, find the defendant not guilty. As to the charge of aggravated child abuse, verdict as to count two, we, the jury, find the defendant not guilty. As to the charge of aggravated manslaughter of a child, verdict as to count three, we, the jury, find the defendant not guilty.
(END OF VIDEO CLIP)
SPITZER: So not guilty on all the murder charges. Guilty only on four misdemeanors. We've just gotten this video in of defense attorneys celebrating their victory at a bar near the courthouse.
But let's be blunt. Many people who saw that verdict did not celebrate. Many are asking, what was the jury thinking? We've just heard from one of the alternate jurors, Russell Huekler, did not take part in deliberations. But he said he would have reached exactly the same conclusion the jury did.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
RUSSELL HUEKLER, ALTERNATE JUROR: The prosecution did not prove their case. The big question that was -- you know, was not answered, you know, how did, you know, Caylee die. I think there was probably a lot of discussion that it was probably a horrific accident that dad and Casey covered up and unfortunately did so. And it got away from them.
It was such a horrific accident. They didn't know how to deal with it. The family appeared to be very dysfunctional, and instead of admitting, you know, there was an accident, they chose to hide it for whatever reason.
(END OF VIDEO CLIP)
SPITZER: The Casey trial brought out the worst in many people. There were ugly scenes during the course of the trial as people actually got into shoving matches in their powerful desire to get a seat to watch the show.
And that's what it was to many people -- a show, a reality show on steroids. Did the media play a role on that? Casey Anthony's defense attorneys think so.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
CHENEY MASON, DEFENSE ATTORNEY: I hope that this is a lesson to those of you that have indulged in media assassination for three years, bias and prejudice and incompetent talking heads saying what would be and how to be.
I'm disgusted by some of the lawyers that have done this. And I can tell you that my colleagues from coast to coast and border to border have condemned this whole process of lawyers getting on television and talking about cases that they don't know a damn thing about, and don't have the experience to back up their words or the law to do it.
Now you've learned a lesson.
(END OF VIDEO CLIP)
SPITZER: Tough words for the media. Are we, the media, partially to blame? And exactly how did the defense pull off this upset?
We have an all-star legal team here tonight to answer those questions. But first here are the other stories I'll be drilling down on tonight.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SPITZER: In a town where everybody hates everybody, the last man everyone loves. Can Allan Simpson bring both sides of the budget battle t together before it's too late?
And mothers as murderers. Is it something that a jury just can't comprehend? Can anyone? Dr. Gail Saltz on why matricide is hard to accept and even harder to prove.
Then, the camera loves crime. Does the nonstop coverage of the Casey Anthony trial make the media the 13th juror?
(END OF VIDEO CLIP)
SPITZER: The 12 jurors inside the courtroom obviously saw things much differently than did the millions of Americans who watched it on TV.
CNN's Martin Savidge was inside that courtroom throughout the trial and today when the verdict was read. He joins us now from Orlando, Florida.
Martin, first of all, what explains in your mind the chasm between the generalized sense out there in the public that was watching this on TV that she of course was guilty and the quick 10 hours of deliberations leading to a not guilty verdict on the three most significant counts?
MARTIN SAVIDGE, CNN NATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: You know, Eliot, I wish I had an absolute answer on this. Many of us are still wondering and trying to decipher from that limited conversation you had with the alternate juror there as to what was really going on, where was the disconnect between what the public thought they knew and heard about this case, and what the jury heard and how they ruled.
One thing to keep in mind, of course, as you would know, is the fact that the jury was not bombarded with all of this for years as far as the last couple of weeks. They have not been inundated with the media attention. They haven't heard all the lawyers on TV, they haven't heard all the speculation, haven't heard the minutia that has been talked about on and on and on.
Instead they heard in a very non-emotional way and played out by the prosecution and by the defense two alternate versions of what happened. And it appears that they bought the defense's side of things.
Very amazing to watch the difference between those going into that courtroom and those coming out as the verdict was read. As they went in, Jeff Ashton, head of the prosecution, saw him, very pumped up, very excited. Clearly he thought short deliberation, it was going to go his way.
The defense team, when you're inside the courtroom, you looked at them, very subdued, very silent, sitting at their table, had very slight conversation with Casey, and it was clear they were trying to console her. That young woman was terrified.
Then the verdict is read and a complete about-face. Prosecution is devastated. Most in the court don't even say a word. And there you see a defense team that breaks down sobbing with raw emotion. Not elation. Sobbing, which was a clear indication that they probably did not expect it to go their way, but, in fact, it did -- Eliot.
SPITZER: Martin, one follow-up here. I was watching this in a newsroom setting and I can tell you there were gasps. People were shocked, amazed, falling off their chairs, couldn't quite comprehend what was going on.
In the courtroom itself, put aside the prosecution and defense teams. Were people as astonished at the outcome as everybody else seems to have been?
SAVIDGE: Yes. I mean, from a couple of factors. You've got mainly media in there and then you had the public that is in there the gallery, as well. And then you had a lot of law enforcement, people who had previously testified in this case so tremendous interest. Every seat is filled. Everybody is silent. And then comes that verdict.
And you could just feel this instant inhaling of just all the air in the room being brought in by every lung as they were shocked to hear this turn of events. Not necessarily to say they were judgmental. They just did not expect it to be ruled that way.
The Anthonys immediately below me, George and Cindy, they bolted out of that room. They were not going to stay and remain for that. But clearly they released a statement later to say that they were relieved by the way things had turned out and they asked to be left alone.
So this was really a moment where not a summation but a courtroom animation felt this at the exact same time.
SPITZER: All right. Martin, thank you for that on that and in the courtroom analysis, what was going on.
All right. So how did the jury come to a not guilty verdict? And should it have been such a surprise?
We have assembled our own legal team to talk about the trial. Joining me now, Rikki Kleiman, criminal defense attorney, top-flight former prosecutor and TV host. Jeffrey Toobin, CNN senior legal analyst in from Los Angeles. Tom Mesereau, defense attorney, best known for successfully representing Michael Jackson.
Welcome to all of you.
Let me tell you, folks out there watching, if you ever need a lawyer, call one of these three. They are the best.
JEFFREY TOOBIN, CNN SENIOR LEGAL ANALYST: Not me.
SPITZER: Not you, Jeff. All right.
(CROSSTALK)
RIKKI KLEIMAN, CRIMINAL DEFENSE ATTORNEY & FORMER PROSECUTOR: I'd love to try a case with Tom, though, I have to say.
SPITZER: All right. Rikki, let me start with you. Were you surprised? And if not, what did the prosecution do wrong and why didn't it answer the questions?
KLEIMAN: I was not surprised at the verdict when it was only 11 hours over this very short period of time after a long trial, because there was not enough time, if it was going to be a guilty verdict, for them to go through all the degrees of homicide.
So in this short a period of time -- I consider 11 hours short -- that it had to be a not guilty verdict. So the verdict did not surprise me.
What the public doesn't understand and what Tom Mesereau is going to echo without a doubt in my mind is this. It's called the burden of proof. It is proof beyond a reasonable doubt. You may think she's guilty. You may believe she's guilty. You may think she is probably the most guilty person on earth. But if you cannot prove her guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, you lose.
Here we didn't know where she -- where Caylee died, how she died, when she died. That the jury believed the case was not proven. It does not mean she's innocent. It just wasn't proven.
SPITZER: All right. You make a powerful case that in a circumstantial case, which this was, nobody saw what happened. Nobody could give you a precise articulation of what happened.
Tom, I'm going to give you your chance either to echo what Rikki said or else build on it. What would you have done differently? I know you're the defense attorney par excellence. As the prosecutor, what would you have done differently to try to answer those questions?
TOM MESEREAU, FORMER DEFENSE ATTORNEY FOR MICHAEL JACKSON: Well, first of all, I want to commend the defense team. These lawyers did a great job. Their team did a great job. They were vilified by these immature legal pundits throughout the trial.
And I thought, and my law firm partner Susan, you thought that Mr. Baez and Mr. Mason were doing an outstanding job. They were prepared, they were comfortable, they were passionate, they really went for it and they deserve all the credit in the world.
Second of all, I think -- in my experience, the more intelligent the prosecutor, which means the higher their IQ and intelligence, the lower their EQ and emotions. Prosecutors tend to be very deficient when it comes to understanding the emotions of the courtroom.
And I saw these tortured, pained, you know, just terribly tragic parents being dragged back and forth to the witness stand by the prosecutors, and then the defense lawyers did the same thing. I remember saying to Susan you -- I said, you know, this jury is not going to want to torture these parents any more if they don't have to.
And I think the prosecutors made a terrible mistake the way they handled these parents. I they just neglected the fact that jurors might feel sorry for them on some level, conscious or unconscious. And emotionally the defense grabbed the courtroom. They convinced these jurors that they should look for reasons to acquit, and that's exactly what happened.
SPITZER: Jeff, I'm going to get to you in one second. But you're my CNN colleague. I cut you off for 10 seconds.
Rikki, I want to ask you this question, because you referred right at the top here properly to the burden of proof, beyond a reasonable doubt. Of course words we all can recite. None of us really knows quite what it means, I think we can admit.
But how would you as a prosecutor have tried the case differently, knowing you couldn't put anybody at the crime scene, couldn't quite answer how Caylee died? How would you have tried it differently to overcome that burden of proof?
KLEIMAN: Well, the problem the prosecution had is the facts that it was dealt. No one could overcome the fact that no one knew how this child died, when this child died, or where.
The problem I say if I had been the prosecutor is I would have never made this a death case. Those stakes were too high. You had seven women on this jury, and they're looking at a young mother. And they have to think that if they convict her of the top count, then they have to think about life or death.
I think it might have been a different case if she were simply charged with aggravated manslaughter.
SPITZER: Fascinating.
Jeff, you've been making that point all day. The error you think was making it a death penalty case.
TOOBIN: No -- see? Rikki is my former law professor. So no wonder --
SPITZER: And you studied well.
TOOBIN: I completely agree with her.
KLEIMAN: Gosh, Jeffrey, you've made me so old.
TOOBIN: No, no. You were a child as a professor. But this was overcharged.
KLEIMAN: Yes.
TOOBIN: I mean prosecutors don't -- they didn't have the evidence to get a jury to say this is a potential execution case. This case was hard enough to get a lesser verdict, a manslaughter verdict. But an intentional murder verdict on this evidence with this much mystery about how Caylee died? With this much mystery about why this woman who was in the eyes of many witnesses a good mother? Why she would torture and then murder her daughter intentionally?
It just -- there wasn't just no evidence to support that.
SPITZER: But here's the thing. They didn't -- and this comes back to your point, Rikki. And Tom, I want you to weigh in on this.
There doesn't seem to have been, given the duration of the deliberations, much time for the jury to consider lesser offenses, the second and third counts, which would not have been death penalty cases.
Tom, why did they not stumble or did not spend more time on those? And does it come back to your point, perhaps, the jury lost emotional contact with the prosecution and that was the critical point where the prosecutors just kind of lost the jury along the way somewhere? MESEREAU: Well, very often jurors are elated when they don't have to convict, particularly in serious cases like this. I think they were sequestered. They were uncomfortable. They were very, attentive to what happened. They were under oath, unlike so many other, you know, pundits and critics.
They looked at all this evidence and looked at these witnesses and fell (ph) them, and listened to them, you know, six to eight hours a day. And they probably went into that jury room and nobody wanted to convict.
That's probably what happened. So they talked to each other about what they really felt had happened in the courtroom, and they discovered very quickly none of us want to convict if we don't have to.
So they convicted her on the misdemeanor. She clearly lied to the police. And they decided to go not guilty on the rest, and they probably are relieved that they did that.
SPITZER: Well, look, there is an alternate theory, you can dismiss it out of hand, but it was what was articulated by the alternate juror who said, look, they caught -- got caught up in this horrific accident, she lied about that, and that explains the lies. But doesn't --
(CROSSTALK)
SPITZER: But wait, Rikki, jump in. Rikki, jump in.
KLEIMAN: We're all in this. We're all in this. Because you have to remember that that was the defense theory of the case.
SPITZER: Right.
KLEIMAN: One thing I will say, good or bad performance, things that Jose Baez did that made people upset when they were commenting on it that made others think that he shouldn't be trying the case, we can put all that aside. Jose Baez's closing argument gave them the reason. And basically what he was saying was you cannot believe George Anthony and that they didn't believe George Anthony.
SPITZER: Right.
KLEIMAN: And what they -- he said basically was this -- you know, let's look. It's a terrible accident that spun out of control. And when they had that theory that made sense to the jurors.
SPITZER: OK. So is it to the point or is it the case, Jeff, as a former prosecutor, that if any one piece of the prosecution case is not credible, the entire prosecution case crumbles and then you cannot satisfy the burden of proof?
TOOBIN: Not necessarily. I mean, in a long trial there are going to be good days and bad days for each side. I mean I do think the prosecution, in addition to overcharging the case, made some mistakes in overtrying the case. For example, putting on evidence that the trunk smelled like death. What ridiculous --
KLEIMAN: Which the alternate juror did not accept.
TOOBIN: Right.
(CROSSTALK)
SPITZER: Right. Well, this comes out --
TOOBIN: I hesitate to call it junk science, but it was awfully close to junk science. But no -- you can't prove that a trunk smells like death. And I think when you put on evidence like that you say to -- the jurors say to themselves, like, this is the best you got?
KLEIMAN: Well, but they did it because they didn't have the core.
TOOBIN: And I think that's --
KLEIMAN: Because they couldn't have the core. Because the only person who may know what happened to this child may be Casey Anthony, and it may be, I guess, if you have a second person, it may be her father. But they weren't telling.
SPITZER: But, Tom, let me come back to a bizarre counterpoint, perhaps. In the O.J. Simpson case you may remember O.J. -- we all remember, I suppose. O.J. made a big flourish of saying, I'm going to find the guy who really did this to sort of reinforce the notion that he was supposedly innocent.
Here there wasn't any sort of barricade created. There was no alternate theory that was presented to the general public. It was just kind of nibbling away at the prosecution case. So it's not terribly emotionally satisfying.
I mean, Tom, but they won. How did they do that?
MESEREAU: Well, first of all, I think this defense team focused on the courtroom, not the media. You know, the media likes to think that they're going to influence these verdicts. And look at the history. Blake's acquitted, Simpson is acquitted, Jackson is acquitted, Caylee Anthony is -- Casey Anthony is acquitted.
I mean, the media has power and they have influence but not to the extent that they're going to tell our juries what to do. Juries are sworn in. They're there every day. They see every bit of testimony. They have to deliberate. And it's an entirely different process.
I think this defense team focused on the courtroom and not the media. By comparison, in the Scott Peterson case, they didn't have -- they couldn't prove time of death, cause of death, manner of death, but I don't think the defense was focused. The defense lawyer did not have a lot of experience in capital cases, and he didn't bring an expert like Cheney Mason in to sit there with him while the case was tried. This was won for many reasons, including this was a defense team that focused on where you win the case.
SPITZER: Jeff?
TOOBIN: Jurors are ordinary people. They understand the world in stories. Tom Mesereau tried the Michael Jackson case. I have never seen a case better defended than the job Mesereau did with Michael Jackson. And part of the reason was he had a story that Jackson was the victim of money-grubbing so-called victims. Now whether that's true or not is a separate story, but it was a way of understanding the case.
As we heard from this alternate juror, there was a way of understanding these facts that was very different from the one the prosecution presented. And that's how -- that's how you win a case, by giving the jury a way of understanding the facts that is different from what the prosecution --
SPITZER: Look, I think there's a reality. Unanswered questions are held against the prosecution, which properly has the burden of proof. Too many holes, too much Swiss cheese, even if logically you can get to a conviction, a prosecution is not going to win.
All right, Rikki Kleiman, Tom Mesereau, thanks for being with us. I hope some of you can hang around for a little bit and we can come back to you later in the show.
All right.
MESEREAU: Thank you.
SPITZER: Thank you very much.
All right. Next another aspect of this story. All murder trials are not created equal. Some become media sensations. Some do not. Why was Casey Anthony a lightning rod? When we come back.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
SPITZER: Following the verdict, one of Casey Anthony's defense attorneys gave a blistering criticism of the media coverage of her trial. Take a listen.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
MASON: I hope that this is a lesson to those of you having indulged in media assassination for three years, bias and prejudice, and incompetent talking heads saying what would be and how to be.
I'm disgusted by some of the lawyers who have done this, and I can tell you that my colleagues from coast to coast and border to border have condemned this whole process of lawyers getting on television and talking about cases that they don't know a damn thing about.
(END OF VIDEO CLIP)
SPITZER: Joining me now from Washington, D.C. to talk about how the media covers high-profile cases is Howard Kurtz, the host of CNN's "RELIABLE SOURCES," and here in the studio once again is Jeff Toobin, CNN senior legal analyst.
Howard, let me start with you. That was about as blistering a critique of the media as I can imagine. Was he right?
HOWARD KURTZ, HOST, CNN'S RELIABLE SOURCES: He was half right in the sense that, look, there obviously have been legal loud mouths who have gone on TV convicted Casey Anthony, maybe don't know what they're talking about.
But by and large the talking heads have not been incompetent. They have been detailing the avalanche of evidence against Casey Anthony but forgetting, as we do in this business, Eliot, all too often that there's a difference between somebody appearing guilty, where the evidence points them being guilty, and the prosecution going into a courtroom and proving that they're guilty, particularly in a murder case.
SPITZER: You know, Howard, that is a hugely important distinction.
And Jeff, I want to turn to you as the -- you know, the sophisticated lawyer in this. There is a presumption of innocence that attaches to any -- anybody in a criminal case in the United States in the courtroom. But it doesn't really attach outside the courtroom so were these so-called talking heads wrong to say, hey, you know what, she's guilty?
Is that a violation of her rights if they believe it, and is that somehow a violation of our sense of justice?
TOOBIN: I think cable news is evolving towards a more opinionated model, whether it's FOX and NBC on politics, where we -- you know, you know where they're coming from. Nancy Grace, who was the leader of the Casey Anthony coverage, was also very opinionated in her coverage.
But it is worth remembering for all that there was a lot of hostile coverage, what happened? She was acquitted. O.J. Simpson, acquitted. Michael Jackson, acquitted. William Kennedy Smith, acquitted.
All of these high-profile cases where the defense attorney says there's no way my client can get a fair trial, they all got acquitted. So all of the attention doesn't necessarily mean that the juries are automatically going to follow suit.
SPITZER: Right. But Howard, let me come back to you. That's because people in the real world and media commentators, lawyers who are fully aware of legal thresholds and legal standards, in the real world people don't live their lives by a standard of proof beyond a reasonable doubt. You make commonsense judgments. And Howard, so let me ask you. Is it wrong for people to say, hey, you know what, I've seen all the evidence? I don't know what reasonable doubt is. I don't know what beyond a reasonable doubt is. But I'm telling you if I had to make a sane judgment, I think so and so is guilty of the crimes charged.
KURTZ: Everybody in America is entitled to an opinion on this or any other case. Every lawyer, particularly those who go in front of a television camera, is certainly entitled to pop off. It's called free speech.
And this opinionated cable model that Jeffrey refers to, we're already there. I mean everybody want s to be Judge Judy. The problem I have is --
TOOBIN: Not me, but go ahead.
KURTZ: Compare Casey Anthony to cases that Jeff rattled off, you know, Michael Jackson, O.J. Simpson, they were already famous. Casey Anthony was not. Unfortunately, many children are killed each year in this country. It's television news and it's thirst for ratings and it's thirst for sensation.
It is hunger for soap opera that takes relatively unknown people -- the Laci Peterson case, the Natalee Holloway case, and now Casey Anthony -- and turns it into this spectacle that I feel is kind of merchandising tragedy.
SPITZER: Well let me ask both of you. Jeff, let me start with you. Do you think that the coverage affected the outcome? In other words, did the jurors aware that there was a camera in the courtroom, even though they were sequestered? Did the jurors' behavior somehow get affected through some feedback loop by the nature of the coverage even though supposedly they were not witness to it or didn't hear it?
TOOBIN: I think not. I don't know for sure because I haven't spoken to the jurors. But most of the coverage has been very hostile to Casey Anthony, and they wound up acquitting her.
I think where the influence may have been is in the prosecution's decision to make this a death penalty case, which always seemed like a wrong decision to me, given the strength of the evidence, given the absence of a cause of death, a time of death. To make this a death penalty case sounded to me like the prosecutors had been spending too much time listening to people on cable news being outraged about the case rather than evaluating the evidence in the cold light of reality. And I think that was where the media influence was more than in how the jurors behaved.
SPITZER: Howard, let me come back to you. Do you think the jury was affected by the nature of this TV coverage?
KURTZ: I have to say probably not, because they came back so quickly with the not guilty verdict despite you have to say the overwhelming tone of the coverage has been that Casey Anthony must be guilty, not sympathetic to her, and, you know, most people in America will probably still believe that, you know, who killed this poor 2- year-old child if it wasn't her mother?
There's no other sort of plausible theory of it. But this is great for television, which has sort of feasted off this case for three years now, because now everybody will argue about this, why did she really get off, why did she get off? For a long time and it will extend the life of this story.
SPITZER: Howard, I'm going to do something you may think is unfair. You watched a lot of the coverage of the trial. You watched probably some of the trial live. I presume that's the case?
KURTZ: Yes.
SPITZER: Do you think she's guilty?
KURTZ: I would have to say without putting myself in the role of a juror, I had to sift through the evidence, I didn't do that, I was doing other things and I have a life, I would say the overwhelming evidence is that she is probably guilty. But there's a difference between me as a -- you know, somebody sitting on the outside saying I think she's probably guilty, and the responsibility, especially in a death penalty case, that a juror has to say, did the prosecution case feel this case beyond a reasonable doubt where I feel comfortable voting guilty and this woman may go to the death chamber?
SPITZER: Clearly both pieces of your answer are correct. I'm interested and curious about your commonsense judgment, obviously the distinction you draw between common sense judgment and how you evaluate sitting in the jury box, totally different.
But, Jeff, I want to ask you. You're the prosecutor, you're the hard and sophisticated lawyer. Your view. You watched the case, parts of it. Was she guilty?
TOOBIN: Of intentional murder? I don't think they made that case nearly. The -- you know, could I come up with a scenario where she killed her daughter perhaps accidentally, perhaps, you know, she was involved in covering it up afterwards, sure.
But if I were a juror, asked whether this was an intentional murder case, I certainly would have done the same thing the jury did.
SPITZER: All right. Howard Kurtz, Jeff Toobin, thank you so much for being here.
KURTZ: Thank you.
SPITZER: We'll be back with more on the Casey Anthony story. It's not the first time a mother was accused of killing her child, but this case became an American obsession. Dr. Gail Saltz on the horror and fascination of the story. Stay with us.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
SPITZER: Back to our coverage of today's shocking Casey Anthony verdict. Anthony's acquittal on charges she killed her 2-year-old daughter Caylee hasn't ended the underlying question that riveted America to the case, namely, how could it even be conceivable that a mother could kill her 2-year-old child?
For answer we turn to our resident psychiatrist, Dr. Gail Saltz.
Welcome back to the show.
DR. GAIL SALTZ, PSYCHIATRIST: Thank you.
SPITZER: So first, why the obsessive quality of our desire to sort of watch this case day after day?
SALTZ: We are voyeurs at heart and watching a train wreck is unfortunately very appealing to us. So the combination of matricide, the idea that a woman could kill her child, then you had sexual abuse, you know, then you had infidelity.
You kind of had every horrific thing that could possibly happen within a family all being touted at once. I think that was our fascination. I think at the same time, because we were identified with the various players in this.
We are very upset about this verdict not only because we think it was maybe the wrong verdict, but because we didn't get closure.
SPITZER: OK, we'll come back to closure in a second. You said something. This is really a reality show, but we all think reality shows are staged and there's something false about them.
SALTZ: Correct.
SPITZER: This one was absolutely real and it was a game show at the same time. We got to predict or figure out where they going to prove case.
SALTZ: It was who done it that felt more enjoyable because we thought we knew who done it. I think that particularly the idea that a woman can kill her child that is exceptionally riveting to us.
One, of course, it's horrifying. Our mother is supposed to be the one who would lay down her life for us, nurture us, sustain us, and make us grow up. And the idea you could take that life is completely horrific.
I think that was a big piece of it and I think it's additionally our ambivalence about being mothers, which is normal, that all women have some feelings of, you know, I wish I could go to a bar.
I wish I didn't have to deal with this. So seeing those pictures of her return to her partying state stirred in us those ambivalent feelings we have as mothers that, of course, we're not going to act on, but reminded us that we have those feelings.
SPITZER: Is that perhaps why it was so hard to get a conviction? That first notion you raised, which is mothers are so different, they nurture, they take care, they protect. SALTZ: Yes.
SPITZER: Since there was no clear motive given, the notion that anybody, no matter how dark her character was at the end of -- the portrayal in this trial, somehow the jury couldn't get its arms around the fact she might have done this.
SALTZ: I think the wish for there to be disbelief that a mother could be capable of that is there. And so if any window is opened, a juror may potentially take it.
I think in addition, when you bring a person -- when you are a juror, your headset is so different from the public that is out there able to make the armchair predictions. I think the juror that's tasked with the idea that this person in front of you, you may put to death, that is -- makes you identify with the person you're going to convict.
And that makes the task so much more weighty and a wish to find your way out because no one wants to feel responsible for putting someone to death if they can say there's any doubt at all.
SPITZER: Error one that I hear many people agreeing upon is making this a capital case. It sounds to me as though you, if you had given counsel to the prosecution, would have said you cannot get a conviction in this case unless you overcome that presumption of sainthood that we imbue mothers with. And you have to take that apart piece by piece. Without a motive, you may not be able to do it.
SALTZ: I think to some degree there needs to be such a clear-cut motive and maybe even a reference -- look, the mothers who have been convicted have generally been found to be insane, have found to be -- the Andrea Yates, the idea that you could only do this if you're crazy, really crazy.
SPITZER: Right.
SALTZ: But there have been cases of mothers who have done it who are not psychiatrically ill. They're just so few and far between and people don't want to believe you're capable of killing your child unless you're psychiatrically ill.
SPITZER: OK, let me ask you this hard question. You're in the world of psychiatry where you try to rationalize, figure out, understand the human brain. Does that make it harder for you to find guilt and to ascribe guilt?
SALTZ: No. I think that, you know, people, first of all, sociopathy is real. There are people who do out of narcissism and a lack of empathy and truly missing a super ego, missing their moral compass, really could commit a completely heinous crime.
No, I think it can be there. But what I do know about the human mind is one can so circumscribe, so be in denial and compartmentalize and do heinous things and lie to themselves and say I didn't do this, justify it to themselves. I mean, we do see this all the time. SPITZER: All right, Dr. Gail Saltz, thanks as always for your insights.
All right, the key to Casey being found not guilty may lie in the prosecution's inability to prove exactly how her daughter died. We'll hear from our crack legal team when we return.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
SPITZER: Continuing our coverage of the Casey Anthony verdict. Let's bring back our all-star legal team. Welcome back to Rikki Klieman, criminal defense attorney and top-flight former prosecutor, CNN's senior legal analyst Jeff Toobin, and from Los Angeles, Tom Mesereau, defense attorney who successfully defended Michael Jackson.
Welcome to all three of you. All right, let me begin with you, Rikki. Is it fair to say maybe you can get a conviction in a murder case without a body as some prosecutor have done, but not without a clear motive?
RIKKI KLEIMAN, CRIMINAL DEFENSE ATTORNEY AND FORMER PROSECUTOR: I don't think that's quite it. I don't think you need to prove motive. I mean, we know legally you don't need to prove motive. The prosecution certainly argued motive. They argued their version of motive.
And the defense argued their version of accident. I think that the prosecution's version of motive was very acceptable to a jury. It just didn't happen to coordinate with the fact that so many other facts were missing or that facts were ambiguous. They couldn't pin the tail on the donkey.
SPITZER: Tom Mesereau, what's your take on this? Was there enough ambiguity about motive even if there was no real viable alternative somehow that was a downfall of the case?
TOM MESEREAU, FORMER DEFENSE ATTORNEY FOR MICHAEL JACKSON: Well, remember in the Scott Peterson death penalty case the theory of motive was that this guy didn't want parental responsibilities, wanted to go out and womanize and party.
They couldn't prove time of death, cause of death, place of death. They convicted him and gave him the death penalty. So it certainly can be done. I think in this case in an odd way both the prosecution and the defense were able to humanize the defendant in a way, which made her more capable of being acquitted.
I mean, I think the motive that she wanted to party and she wanted to get a tattoo sort of looked silly. In the Scott Peterson case, it looked very nefarious. In this particular case, she looked silly, she looked immature.
The defense were able to show she came from a very dysfunctional, conflicted family where people tell all kinds of stories all the time. And I think in a way she became, you know, at least in an unconscious way much more capable of being acquitted in the jury's eyes than, say, Scott Peterson was, who the defense could not humanize and, in my opinion, did not defend very well.
SPITZER: Jeff, Tom is seeing that all the flaws that the prosecution thought would coalesce into an argument for motive and hence guilt in a way made people feel sorry and say she's a flawed character, but not murder.
JEFFREY TOOBIN, CNN'S SENIOR LEGAL ANALYST: Well, maybe. What we're talking about now is if this verdict were a foregone conclusion. There was some really bad evidence against this woman.
I mean, what mother waits 30 days to report a 2-year-old missing? I mean, most parents freak out if a 2-year-old leaves their sight, a month?
I mean, that is a horrendous, horrendous fact that, I mean, under certain circumstances you get a conviction on that alone. So yes, there were some -- you can see why the jury reached its result, but you can also see why the prosecution brought this case.
KLEIMAN: Absolutely, absolutely. In the 31 days alone for certain jurors maybe other jurors might have been enough. But if you look at what this jury did, I'm not saying another 12 people would have necessarily come to the same conclusion.
But what this jury did certainly was supported by what they had in front of them. And I don't want to denigrate in any way this jury's verdict because that alternate juror, there's not one question that I've seen tossed at him that he has not been able to answer.
He's answered each one articulately with thought, with deliberation. He would have been a great juror. He agrees with what the jury did.
SPITZER: Look, I have enormous confidence what juries do. They are attentive. They do their best. They try very hard no matter how often they're denigrated.
Tom, I want to switch the topic a little bit, the role of cameras in the courtroom. We get obsessed by it. Networks have been created around it. Tom, do you think it's a good idea or a bad idea? Does it serve justice rather than the public's prurient interests in seeing stories like this play out?
MESEREAU: As a defense lawyer, I can tell you it depends on the case. In the Robert Blake case, we had a three-week televised preliminary hearing and I wanted cameras because I thought it would help our case.
In the Michael Jackson trial, I was against cameras because I thought it would hurt our position. From my point of view, it depends on, you know, the situation, which involves a lot of different factors.
Generally speaking, I think the public is better served with cameras because these are supposed to be public trials. They're really not because courtrooms are too small. Given modern technology, I see nothing wrong with the public looking into a courtroom and seeing what goes on.
SPITZER: Rikki, let me come to you. Does the fact that cameras are in the courtroom or in some courtrooms educate the public, make us a better -- appreciate what this illusory notion of reasonable doubt really means, how to piece evidence together into that jigsaw puzzle that sometimes gets a conviction, sometimes not?
KLEIMAN: Well, I certainly hope so, considering all of the years that I spent at court TV, that I believe in transparency. But I do have to add this.
What happened in this case, which is why the vast majority of the public is not only upset and thinks that the verdict was wrong, but they are truly emotionally angry. And what it is this. The jurors took an oath. They took an oath to try the case on the facts and to be dispassionate.
The lawyers take an oath. We try to have rules in a courtroom. One of the rules is proof beyond a reasonable doubt. The public is emotionally connected because of the camera in this courtroom. They are not dispassionate, which is why they would not be the right jurors in this case.
SPITZER: Rikki, a fascinating point. You're giving the jury credit, and I hope it's correct, for being dispassionate and not emotional, as they are charged over and over again by the judge, every jury is. Rikki Kleiman, Tom Mesereau, Jeff Toobin, again, fascinating stuff. Thanks for being with us tonight.
There's another big story tonight. The deadline is looming on the debt ceiling.
Up next, the man famous for crossing the aisle in Washington is here with his thoughts on how to get a solution to this ticking time bomb.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
SPITZER: These days it seems like everybody in Washington hates everybody else. I can think of only one man who stands apart from the circle of nastiness, one man who everybody likes.
I'm talking about former Senator Alan Simpson. He's one half of the team that President Obama appointed to solve the deficit mess, the Bowles-Simpson Commission. I'll be talking to him in a moment.
But first ongoing drama he's tried to fix, the looming threat of the debt ceiling. If we don't raise it in three weeks' time, the economy could crash back into recession or worse. Listen to what President Obama said today.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
BARACK OBAMA, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: It's my hope that everybody's going to leave their ultimatums at the door, that we'll all leave our political rhetoric at the door, and that we're going to do what's best for our economy and do what's best for our people.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
SPITZER: House Speaker John Boehner fired back with this and I quote, "Such discussions will be fruitless unless the president recognizes economic and legislative reality."
It's time to turn to the voice of sanity. By that, I mean Senator Alan Simpson. Senator, welcome back to the program.
ALAN SIMPSON (R), FORMER SENATOR: Well, if you read my e-mail, you wouldn't think everybody loved me, I can tell you that. Some classics there. I wouldn't want to share them with the general readers.
SPITZER: That may be, but we love you and anybody who listens to you loves you. So let me go at it this way. You are the master -- you're the master at reading Washington tea leaves.
Behind the rhetoric, the back and forth that we just saw with President Obama and Speaker Boehner, is there any progress being made? How do you crystallize this? What do you think?
SIMPSON: I think it's what we call out here in the west a chicken dance. You get out there and you fly all over the joint and puff out your chest and blow hard and see if you can attract one of the chickens on the other side.
I don't know who they're trying to attract here. But this is just part of the ritual as I see, because Joe Biden is still in the room. You got to pray for Joe Biden. Joe Biden is in that room. Got six, maybe five, whatever it is. If those guys come out with something, present it to the president, take it to the Congress, something's going to happen.
If Joe can't come out of there and they do this absurd situation, absolutely stupefying when they say to get rid of a tax expenditure, which is nothing more than a tax earmark, which is nothing more than spending by another name, which is much like the ethanol they shot over the ridge the other day, 6 billion, if they say that getting rid of one of those is a tax increase, that is absolutely stupefying. That's no-brainer.
SPITZER: Well, look, let me sort of try to translate a little bit so everybody understands. One of the big controversies has been that the president and his colleagues and the Democratic Party are saying close a lot of tax loopholes.
And what you're saying is a lot of folks in the Republican Party are saying, closing loopholes is the same thing as increasing taxes. You seem to be siding with the president on this and no surprise because your report said close all these loopholes and that's the way to nirvana and closing this deficit.
SIMPSON: That's right. That's what I'm saying, 34 Republicans voted the other day to get rid of the tax loophole for ethanol. I call that getting in the game.
SPITZER: You lead me right into a quotation of yours. It says -- and this is you -- if there's anybody in America who wants to solve this son of a bitch, show me your favorite sacred cow and shoot it. Give me some cows that have to be shot.
SIMPSON: Well, they have to be mine. I'm here in cowboy country. This state, Wyoming, my state, my native state, is the largest producer of coal in the world. If it were a nation, it would be the largest coal producer.
We're in oil and tight gas and oil shale beyond that, and -- and a non-fossil fuel. This is nuts. If we're going to get -- there are 180 of these babies. If they say get rid of them, we'll give the people what they've been shrieking for.
Broaden the base of the taxes, lower the rates, take spending out of the tax code. That's what they've been shrieking for. That's what our report does. I always say to people, when everything else fails, read the damn report.
Here we are right now in this ghastly situation pushing, pushing, pushing, both sides battling into the vapors. I tell you, the people of America are sick and tired of it.
SPITZER: Well, I'll say two things.
SIMPSON: Didn't answer your --
SPITZER: No, that answers it head on. It sure did. You point out your own cows ready to be shot, and I admire you for that. I'm going to say two things, one, Alan Simpson for president, and two, I think your report was right on the money. It is the framework we need. I think that's the honesty people want to hear these days.
SIMPSON: It's out there. It is the framework. And you know very well that the Republicans are looking at it, that fine group of six, and the Dems and the Republicans and Joe. They're all looking at it.
There's nowhere else to go. If you hear another guy get up and say we can get this done without touching Medicare, Medicaid, defense or the solvency of Social Security, stick your finger down your throat and head out the door.
SPITZER: All right. I'm not going to do that on live TV, but you're exactly right. I want to come back to another point. There was a Republican study group that came out with a proposal that was 85 percent cuts in spending, 15 percent revenue increases through loophole closings.
That was a Republican study group. The president's plan and your proposal are really in that framework. Now, why is it, then -- explain the politics of it. As soon as the president proposes it, you guys proposed it. The leaders in the Republican Party on the Hill seem to be running away from it. I don't quite know why they done know how to declare victory and say yes.
SIMPSON: Well, take a look at David Brooks' column today in "The New York Times." That is one of the most brilliant columns called a no-brainer.
SPITZER: You referred to David Brooks' column in today's "New York Times." David Brooks by all accounts a conservative. I'm with you. A spectacular column. I want to quote the last passage to you. I happen to have it right here in front of me. How about that?
It says if responsible Republicans don't take control, independents will conclude that Republican fanaticism caused this default. They will conclude that Republicans are not fit to govern and they will be right. Do you agree with David Brooks and that conclusion?
SIMPSON: I do. I was with him here recently at the Aspen Festival, bright guy, thoughtful person. But, you know, really, I know these wonderful Republican colleagues and Democrat colleagues.
How could they ever get to a point where some guy is pulling out a sheet of paper that they signed when everything was roses in America and now we're headed for the bow wows and he's standing throughout shrill on the edge of the Hill saying you're going to be cremated?
The worst thing that will happen to you of course is you will not be re-elected. By God, if that's the talisman of your whole life, should have quit long ago.
SPITZER: All right, as always, Alan Simpson, truth teller and everybody does love you and should read your report. I'm supporting you for president. All right, thanks for joining us.
SIMPSON: King, if I could be king.
SPITZER: We'll give you that, too. He is a national treasure, indeed. Alan Simpson, always great to have in the show.
Up ahead, the next development in the Casey Anthony trial when we come back.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
SPITZER: This morning Casey Anthony woke up facing the possibility of the death penalty. Tonight, she goes to sleep hoping she'll be out of jail very soon.
David Mattingly has been following this case and joins us now from outside the courthouse. David, the judge set Thursday for sentencing. What is likely to happen?
DAVID MATTINGLY, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Well, the last thing we saw in court today was Casey Anthony getting fingerprinted as part of a normal procedure because she was found guilty of those four misdemeanor charges of lying to investigators.
Each of those counts carries a maximum one-year penalty and a $1,000 fine. We're going to wait to see what the judge does here because she's already served three years in jail waiting for this trial to be completed.
So it's possible she could get time served and walk out free on Thursday after that sentencing, or she could be facing a little more jail time. It's going to be all up to the judge here.
SPITZER: You know, David, I hate to play technical lawyer, but for the judge to keep her in, he would have to run those sentences consecutively. I don't know Florida law sufficiently to know whether or not he can even do that.
But normally when you have cases and counts that emerge out of one set of events those convictions would have the sentences run concurrently, so she may have already exhausted the time she can serve. Has anybody down there at the courthouse answered the question whether, in fact, it could go up to four year, could they run concurrently?
MATTINGLY: No. After the proceeding today, in fact, there was like this cone of silence descended upon the courthouse. There was no one associated with this trial talking except for the attorneys themselves, not speculating at all on what might happen on Thursday. They were just so happy to see their client walking out of there, escaping the death penalty that was facing her.
SPITZER: You know, David, it's interesting because one of the reactions I heard after the verdict was announced was why didn't the lawyers ask that she be released immediately on the theory, as you just said, that with only four misdemeanors, a maximum of four years.
She's already served three plus, she almost has to get out anyway. David Mattingly, thank you so much for joining us tonight. Stay with CNN tonight for our continued coverage of the Casey Anthony verdict. Good night from New York, "PIERS MORGAN TONIGHT" starts right now.
