Return to Transcripts main page
Live From...
Interview With Bruce Baron
Aired November 11, 2003 - 13:09 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.
MILES O'BRIEN, CNN ANCHOR: The verdict comes as a shocker to many in the legal community as we alluded to. Joining us from New York with some reaction, criminal defense attorney Bruce Baron. Bruce, good to have you with us.
BRUCE BARON, CRIMINAL DEFENSE ATTY.: Thanks, Miles. You too.
O'BRIEN: All right, the jury did not have a lesser charge as an option on the menu if you will. Was that a mistake on the part of the prosecution?
BARON: It was a big mistake. Certainly They could have charged him obstruction of justice, tampering with evidence. As the testimony came out, Miles, during the trial that he, in fact, left the apartment and came back the next day to discard the body.
But bear in mind one thing, that doesn't mean he can still not be charged federally with obstruction of justice and tampering of evidence.
O'BRIEN: All right. Let's dissect the trial here. Was this a case where prosecution attorneys made a big mistake only or was this a cracker jack defense team that Mr. Durst was able to hire?
BARON: I think it's a little bit of each. But realistically as we all thought as we watched this trial, certainly it was a slam dunk. We can say that there's no such thing as a slam dunk case for prosecution anymore.
Certainly the jury bought into the self-defense theory of this case. There was testimony that he had thrown him out of his apartment prior, that the victim had shot up the apartment prior. So there was a belief, in fact, by Durst's testimony that this was sort of a self- defense situation. And the defense attorneys were excellent in taking away in the minds of the jurors what happened after the actual event.
But what's interesting to know, Miles, as we saw from these prior jurors is that this system, although we're all in shock with the verdict, is really a fantastic system. You have these two jurors that you just saw on the television basically showing you that they put aside their own feels, emotions and beliefs for the jury system to work.
And, in fact, it really did in this particular case, based upon the lack of evidence that the prosecutors had.
O'BRIEN: Well, now, in the case of Durst here, there's so much more to the story which he was never on trial for. The mysterious death of a former wife of his. There's a missing person in his trail who might have been involved somehow or another in aiding prosecutors in all of this.
Given all of that, what happens to Durst next? Are there active investigations still under way against him?
BARON: I'm certain that we will not see the last of him, despite this victory for him. I understand authorities have a number of cases or investigations in the rafters.
And certainly, let's not forget that he took the stand in this particular case, which, of course, was a good move under the circumstances because it was self-defense. But anything he may have said in this trial can be used in subsequent trials or investigations.
O'BRIEN: So he is likely to face other legal action down the road, do you think?
BARON: I wouldn't be surprised if we see a federal obstruction of justice and witness tampering or evidence tampering, I should say, charges brought against him shortly.
O'BRIEN: All right, thank you very much. Appreciate you that. Mr. Baron, always a pleasure having you with us.
BARON: My pleasure. Thank you.
O'BRIEN: And you get the award for best dressed attorney.
TO ORDER A VIDEO OF THIS TRANSCRIPT, PLEASE CALL 800-CNN-NEWS OR USE OUR SECURE ONLINE ORDER FORM LOCATED AT www.fdch.com
u
Aired November 11, 2003 - 13:09 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
MILES O'BRIEN, CNN ANCHOR: The verdict comes as a shocker to many in the legal community as we alluded to. Joining us from New York with some reaction, criminal defense attorney Bruce Baron. Bruce, good to have you with us.
BRUCE BARON, CRIMINAL DEFENSE ATTY.: Thanks, Miles. You too.
O'BRIEN: All right, the jury did not have a lesser charge as an option on the menu if you will. Was that a mistake on the part of the prosecution?
BARON: It was a big mistake. Certainly They could have charged him obstruction of justice, tampering with evidence. As the testimony came out, Miles, during the trial that he, in fact, left the apartment and came back the next day to discard the body.
But bear in mind one thing, that doesn't mean he can still not be charged federally with obstruction of justice and tampering of evidence.
O'BRIEN: All right. Let's dissect the trial here. Was this a case where prosecution attorneys made a big mistake only or was this a cracker jack defense team that Mr. Durst was able to hire?
BARON: I think it's a little bit of each. But realistically as we all thought as we watched this trial, certainly it was a slam dunk. We can say that there's no such thing as a slam dunk case for prosecution anymore.
Certainly the jury bought into the self-defense theory of this case. There was testimony that he had thrown him out of his apartment prior, that the victim had shot up the apartment prior. So there was a belief, in fact, by Durst's testimony that this was sort of a self- defense situation. And the defense attorneys were excellent in taking away in the minds of the jurors what happened after the actual event.
But what's interesting to know, Miles, as we saw from these prior jurors is that this system, although we're all in shock with the verdict, is really a fantastic system. You have these two jurors that you just saw on the television basically showing you that they put aside their own feels, emotions and beliefs for the jury system to work.
And, in fact, it really did in this particular case, based upon the lack of evidence that the prosecutors had.
O'BRIEN: Well, now, in the case of Durst here, there's so much more to the story which he was never on trial for. The mysterious death of a former wife of his. There's a missing person in his trail who might have been involved somehow or another in aiding prosecutors in all of this.
Given all of that, what happens to Durst next? Are there active investigations still under way against him?
BARON: I'm certain that we will not see the last of him, despite this victory for him. I understand authorities have a number of cases or investigations in the rafters.
And certainly, let's not forget that he took the stand in this particular case, which, of course, was a good move under the circumstances because it was self-defense. But anything he may have said in this trial can be used in subsequent trials or investigations.
O'BRIEN: So he is likely to face other legal action down the road, do you think?
BARON: I wouldn't be surprised if we see a federal obstruction of justice and witness tampering or evidence tampering, I should say, charges brought against him shortly.
O'BRIEN: All right, thank you very much. Appreciate you that. Mr. Baron, always a pleasure having you with us.
BARON: My pleasure. Thank you.
O'BRIEN: And you get the award for best dressed attorney.
TO ORDER A VIDEO OF THIS TRANSCRIPT, PLEASE CALL 800-CNN-NEWS OR USE OUR SECURE ONLINE ORDER FORM LOCATED AT www.fdch.com
u
