Return to Transcripts main page

Live From...

Look at Current Major Trials, Cases

Aired December 18, 2003 - 14:33   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: Padilla, Malvo, Ridgway, Jackson, and Hinckley. Not a law firm, but you're on the right track. Their suspects, defendants or convicts whose cases are competing for newsprint today and some air time. And so we turn to a couple of real lawyers to sort it all out and no billable hours as far as we know.
Karen Russell is a longtime friend of LIVE FROM. She joins us from Seattle. And from D.C., we welcome Pam Bethel. Good to have you both with us, ladies.

PAM BETHEL, ATTORNEY: Good to be here.

KAREN RUSSELL, ATTORNEY: Thank you, Miles.

O'BRIEN: It's good to have you with us. Jose Padilla, important ruling and big setback for the Bush administration's war on terror and their tactics. The basic gist of it is, an appeals court saying you cannot hold a U.S. citizen indefinitely despite the nature of the allegation.

Pam, let's start with you on this one. Does this seem like it is constitutionally built on a good foundation?

BETHEL: Oh, yes. I mean it was not unexpected by me that that would be the result. It's just welcoming to see the extent to which the court told the Bush administration that it was essentially wrong.

There are some fundamental precepts in criminal law and one is that as an American citizen, you're entitled to consult with a lawyer.

O'BRIEN: What are the implications of this then, Karen? Does this expand into others who might have been held, picked up, for example, in Afghanistan and being held at Guantanamo? Or is this very narrow and related to people who are U.S. citizens picked up in the United States?

RUSSELL: It's very narrow. I think the important thing is that the court said, Listen, President, you can't move unilaterally and just declare U.S. citizens enemy combatants. So that's pretty unique.

But they were careful in saying he was picked up on U.S. soil. So we don't expect this to necessarily apply to the other gentlemen who have been labeled enemy combatants.

O'BRIEN: So it's kind of an interesting little twist. Trying to get on a plane to go to Pakistan. Had he gotten on that plane, what -- put it this way. If the officialdom had really fully understood the implications, they might have wanted him to get on that plane and picked him up on the other end, right, Pam?

BETHEL: Well, maybe. But when they brought him back here to be tried, I still think that in the end his constitutional right to consult with a lawyer would have been sustained.

O'BRIEN: OK. Well, that's a fairly fundamental constitutional right. If he had been picked up in Pakistan, would it have been an entirely different story?

RUSSELL: I think it would have been a different story. But I also think we're seeing sort of a softening on the tough stance on all these guys down in Guantanamo Bay. We're seeing a shift in the way the administration is responding to the different countries and human rights activists around the world saying, Listen, you can't just hold these people indefinitely.

(CROSSTALK)

BETHEL: I was going to say, I think Karen is right. But I think that this -- I think that the politicians taking a look at this are going to have to re-adjust their policies and positions all across the board as it relates to the new-found vigilance against terrorism.

O'BRIEN: All right, let's talk about Michael Jackson. We're going to hear formally at least the charges. First of all do you expect to hear any surprises, Karen, coming out of this, or is this just what we've been reporting?

RUSSELL: You know, I think the biggest surprise will be if there's another child. That will be the most damaging. So it will be interesting to see. I mean the D.A. stood up and said, Is there anyone else out there who has allegations? So I think that would probably be the biggest bombshell. Although, you know, we haven't heard that rumor.

O'BRIEN: What are you been hearing, Pam?

(CROSSTALK)

BETHEL: I'm a little suspect of what's going on out there in that prosecutor's office. I've been a prosecutor. This is a little unusual.

I agree with Karen. If there's another child or children that would be unusual. I suspect we will see a lot of rehashing of some of the same things that's been in the rumor mill for months.

O'BRIEN: What's your take on it? This is as much as anything a PR battle as it is a legal battle. Those two can be at odds, can't they?

BETHEL: It's not supposed to be a PR battle.

(CROSSTALK) BETHEL: There's no question it has become that. And I think that the prosecutors an office has been losing in the past couple days.

(CROSSTALK)

RUSSELL: And they also brought on a PR firm. And it's interesting. I mean I think The prosecution will say, you know this is just in reaction. We have all these calls coming in...

BETHEL: Right.

RUSSELL: I'm sorry?

BETHEL: No, I said right.

RUSSELL: Yes, we have all these calls coming in, and so we need to be able to respond. Where the defense will say, You know what? This is proactive and they're using a PR firm to spin this, which is different.

I think we want the prosecutor to get to the truth of the matter, not necessarily be spinning these allegations. So that will be interesting to see what happens there.

O'BRIEN: And what about this whole notion that -- on a previous investigation, the allegation supposedly by the same family, and same young person, were unfounded? Is that really going to play in?

RUSSELL: It's all going to be about timing. You know, they're going to say that the -- the prosecution's going to say this was after that document that we saw from Smoking Gun.

BETHEL: Well, they may say that, but that's got to be -- you know, that would be fodder in any defense lawyer's hand, to be able to cross examine whoever's going to testify, the parent. And even -- you have to be softer with a child. But there are some basic concerns here that, look this is about the money.

O'BRIEN: All right, let's -- on the final point, very sad moments that we've been sharing with people today, from Seattle, Washington. Gary Ridgway who has admitted to being the single worst serial killer in U.S. history. Now if that isn't the poster child for the death penalty, I don't know what is.

The question here is, is it right for prosecutors to use the death penalty as a chip to get somebody to plea like this thus removing the death penalty from the picture? Was this the right path to go? Let's start with you, Pam.

BETHEL: I think that this prosecutor probably had to make the most serious and difficult decision of his professional life.

Look, what he was balancing against not sending him to death was the closure that having this guy disclose where all these bodies are and his participation in the death and/or missing of so many young women, that's got -- that had to be a gruesome decision for that prosecutor to make.

And I'm not going to second-guess and criticize him for having made the decision he did.

O'BRIEN: Karen, this is your hometown. What are people thinking about this plea bargain deal?

RUSSELL: Yes, it's so heartbreaking. I've been listening to the stories all morning. You have to hope that because these people finally know what happened to their daughters that there's just a little bit of comfort they can find in this deal.

I'm actually opposed to the death penalty. And so for people who are opposed to the death penalty this is actually a very important thing for Washington state because this really, I think, signals the end of the death penalty in my state.

O'BRIEN: Really?

RUSSELL: Well, yes. We have this thing...

O'BRIEN: In other words, if you can't execute this guy, who can you execute?

RUSSELL: Exactly. And under state law, you have to compare other crimes. If I were defending someone who had killed one person, the logical thing would be to say, Look at Gary Ridgway. If you didn't put him to death, why would you put my client to death?

BETHEL: But that was a plea, Karen. And you can do things in pleas you can't do if you take somebody to trial and the go the full blow.

I don't know what the sentiment in Washington is, but I think that I would be reluctant as a defense lawyer to want to analogize my client to him in anyway because it's just of gruesome things he's been accused of doing.

RUSSELL: It's a good point, but it's not going to stop people from firing up that appeal.

O'BRIEN: All right, we have to leave it there. Ladies, thank you very much for your time today. Pam Bethel and Karen Russell, on our legal roundtable. And we'll see you again soon, we hope.

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 December 18, 2003 - 14:33   ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
MILES O'BRIEN, CNN ANCHOR: Padilla, Malvo, Ridgway, Jackson, and Hinckley. Not a law firm, but you're on the right track. Their suspects, defendants or convicts whose cases are competing for newsprint today and some air time. And so we turn to a couple of real lawyers to sort it all out and no billable hours as far as we know.
Karen Russell is a longtime friend of LIVE FROM. She joins us from Seattle. And from D.C., we welcome Pam Bethel. Good to have you both with us, ladies.

PAM BETHEL, ATTORNEY: Good to be here.

KAREN RUSSELL, ATTORNEY: Thank you, Miles.

O'BRIEN: It's good to have you with us. Jose Padilla, important ruling and big setback for the Bush administration's war on terror and their tactics. The basic gist of it is, an appeals court saying you cannot hold a U.S. citizen indefinitely despite the nature of the allegation.

Pam, let's start with you on this one. Does this seem like it is constitutionally built on a good foundation?

BETHEL: Oh, yes. I mean it was not unexpected by me that that would be the result. It's just welcoming to see the extent to which the court told the Bush administration that it was essentially wrong.

There are some fundamental precepts in criminal law and one is that as an American citizen, you're entitled to consult with a lawyer.

O'BRIEN: What are the implications of this then, Karen? Does this expand into others who might have been held, picked up, for example, in Afghanistan and being held at Guantanamo? Or is this very narrow and related to people who are U.S. citizens picked up in the United States?

RUSSELL: It's very narrow. I think the important thing is that the court said, Listen, President, you can't move unilaterally and just declare U.S. citizens enemy combatants. So that's pretty unique.

But they were careful in saying he was picked up on U.S. soil. So we don't expect this to necessarily apply to the other gentlemen who have been labeled enemy combatants.

O'BRIEN: So it's kind of an interesting little twist. Trying to get on a plane to go to Pakistan. Had he gotten on that plane, what -- put it this way. If the officialdom had really fully understood the implications, they might have wanted him to get on that plane and picked him up on the other end, right, Pam?

BETHEL: Well, maybe. But when they brought him back here to be tried, I still think that in the end his constitutional right to consult with a lawyer would have been sustained.

O'BRIEN: OK. Well, that's a fairly fundamental constitutional right. If he had been picked up in Pakistan, would it have been an entirely different story?

RUSSELL: I think it would have been a different story. But I also think we're seeing sort of a softening on the tough stance on all these guys down in Guantanamo Bay. We're seeing a shift in the way the administration is responding to the different countries and human rights activists around the world saying, Listen, you can't just hold these people indefinitely.

(CROSSTALK)

BETHEL: I was going to say, I think Karen is right. But I think that this -- I think that the politicians taking a look at this are going to have to re-adjust their policies and positions all across the board as it relates to the new-found vigilance against terrorism.

O'BRIEN: All right, let's talk about Michael Jackson. We're going to hear formally at least the charges. First of all do you expect to hear any surprises, Karen, coming out of this, or is this just what we've been reporting?

RUSSELL: You know, I think the biggest surprise will be if there's another child. That will be the most damaging. So it will be interesting to see. I mean the D.A. stood up and said, Is there anyone else out there who has allegations? So I think that would probably be the biggest bombshell. Although, you know, we haven't heard that rumor.

O'BRIEN: What are you been hearing, Pam?

(CROSSTALK)

BETHEL: I'm a little suspect of what's going on out there in that prosecutor's office. I've been a prosecutor. This is a little unusual.

I agree with Karen. If there's another child or children that would be unusual. I suspect we will see a lot of rehashing of some of the same things that's been in the rumor mill for months.

O'BRIEN: What's your take on it? This is as much as anything a PR battle as it is a legal battle. Those two can be at odds, can't they?

BETHEL: It's not supposed to be a PR battle.

(CROSSTALK) BETHEL: There's no question it has become that. And I think that the prosecutors an office has been losing in the past couple days.

(CROSSTALK)

RUSSELL: And they also brought on a PR firm. And it's interesting. I mean I think The prosecution will say, you know this is just in reaction. We have all these calls coming in...

BETHEL: Right.

RUSSELL: I'm sorry?

BETHEL: No, I said right.

RUSSELL: Yes, we have all these calls coming in, and so we need to be able to respond. Where the defense will say, You know what? This is proactive and they're using a PR firm to spin this, which is different.

I think we want the prosecutor to get to the truth of the matter, not necessarily be spinning these allegations. So that will be interesting to see what happens there.

O'BRIEN: And what about this whole notion that -- on a previous investigation, the allegation supposedly by the same family, and same young person, were unfounded? Is that really going to play in?

RUSSELL: It's all going to be about timing. You know, they're going to say that the -- the prosecution's going to say this was after that document that we saw from Smoking Gun.

BETHEL: Well, they may say that, but that's got to be -- you know, that would be fodder in any defense lawyer's hand, to be able to cross examine whoever's going to testify, the parent. And even -- you have to be softer with a child. But there are some basic concerns here that, look this is about the money.

O'BRIEN: All right, let's -- on the final point, very sad moments that we've been sharing with people today, from Seattle, Washington. Gary Ridgway who has admitted to being the single worst serial killer in U.S. history. Now if that isn't the poster child for the death penalty, I don't know what is.

The question here is, is it right for prosecutors to use the death penalty as a chip to get somebody to plea like this thus removing the death penalty from the picture? Was this the right path to go? Let's start with you, Pam.

BETHEL: I think that this prosecutor probably had to make the most serious and difficult decision of his professional life.

Look, what he was balancing against not sending him to death was the closure that having this guy disclose where all these bodies are and his participation in the death and/or missing of so many young women, that's got -- that had to be a gruesome decision for that prosecutor to make.

And I'm not going to second-guess and criticize him for having made the decision he did.

O'BRIEN: Karen, this is your hometown. What are people thinking about this plea bargain deal?

RUSSELL: Yes, it's so heartbreaking. I've been listening to the stories all morning. You have to hope that because these people finally know what happened to their daughters that there's just a little bit of comfort they can find in this deal.

I'm actually opposed to the death penalty. And so for people who are opposed to the death penalty this is actually a very important thing for Washington state because this really, I think, signals the end of the death penalty in my state.

O'BRIEN: Really?

RUSSELL: Well, yes. We have this thing...

O'BRIEN: In other words, if you can't execute this guy, who can you execute?

RUSSELL: Exactly. And under state law, you have to compare other crimes. If I were defending someone who had killed one person, the logical thing would be to say, Look at Gary Ridgway. If you didn't put him to death, why would you put my client to death?

BETHEL: But that was a plea, Karen. And you can do things in pleas you can't do if you take somebody to trial and the go the full blow.

I don't know what the sentiment in Washington is, but I think that I would be reluctant as a defense lawyer to want to analogize my client to him in anyway because it's just of gruesome things he's been accused of doing.

RUSSELL: It's a good point, but it's not going to stop people from firing up that appeal.

O'BRIEN: All right, we have to leave it there. Ladies, thank you very much for your time today. Pam Bethel and Karen Russell, on our legal roundtable. And we'll see you again soon, we hope.

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