Return to Transcripts main page
Live From...
Mistrial Declared in Tyco Case; Police Cast Doubt on Missing College Student's Kidnapping Story; Bomb Discovered, Deactivated on Spanish Train
Aired April 02, 2004 - 13:00 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.
KYRA PHILLIPS, ANCHOR: CNN's LIVE FROM starts right now.
Twelve months in the courtroom, 12 days in the jury room, all for nothing. As you know, if you've been watching CNN, the Tyco corruption case ended in a mistrial today, a turn of events the judge calls a shame.
Let's go right to CNN's Allan Chernoff, who's following the developments outside the courthouse, brings us new information now -- Allan.
ALLAN CHERNOFF, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Kyra, the judge and the attorneys involved have not revealed the exact reason for the mistrial.
But we understand from a single source familiar with the proceedings inside of the judge's chambers this morning, that, in fact there had been a coercive letter sent to controversial juror No. 4.
In the past 24 hours, the judge called in juror No. 4 to his chambers this morning. All the attorneys were present. The judge questioned that juror. And based upon her answers, we understand, that is the reason that the judge decided to declare a mistrial in this case.
The case of the U.S. -- rather, the New York state against Dennis Kozlowski and Mark Swartz, the former top two executives of Tyco International. They had been charged with stealing $600 million from the company.
Now, you'll recall, juror No. 4 is the juror who apparently made an OK sign to the defense table one week ago today. Since then, she has been the focus of quite a bit of controversy. Her name was identified over the weekend, over last weekend, by "The New York Post" and the "Wall Street Journal," also identified that she lived on the upper east side of Manhattan.
One newspaper, "The New York Times," even spoke with a doorman at the building, and the judge himself, Michael Obus did say in open court that "I'm very concerned about the impact that this may have on jury selection in the future."
Moments ago, Charles Stillman, the chief attorney for Mark Swartz, spoke before the media.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
CHARLES STILLMAN, SWARTZ'S ATTORNEY: The judge has scheduled to hear us again on May 7. And so we'll talk about a trial date back then. Yes.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Your expectation there will be a retrial or not?
STILLMAN: My expectation at this point is that there will be retrial, yes, sir.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
CHERNOFF: And Judge Michael Obus did say in open court that he expects that we'll be doing this again. So it does appear that this is going to start all over again.
Now, many critics have said that the district attorney's office here in New York spent too much time trying this case, confused the jurors. But it did seem over the past week that the jurors were focusing on some of the very key evidence, and it did seem that when we had come to the verge of a mistrial last Friday, it seemed now that we were actually close to getting a verdict.
But in spite of the jury's best efforts, it now appears that outside pressures, specifically on juror No. 4, that appears to have been the reason that the judge has now declared a mistrial.
And Kyra, we can also report to you that one of the jurors, when this announcement was being made in court, was actually crying -- Kyra.
PHILLIPS: And Allan, I'm getting word now from our producers that Miles is going to talk to a juror in just a second. Does that mean that there's no gag order that's been put on these jurors from this previous trial? And wouldn't that affect the new trial if, indeed, these jurors were allowed to talk?
CHERNOFF: Well, the plan has been that the jurors would be free to talk to the media, once the trial is concluded.
Now, of course, there's been extensive reporting, not only about the jury here, but about the trial itself, and it would not necessarily have an impact on a future trial.
It is true this has been such a high profile situation that it is difficult to find people who are perhaps not familiar with the incidents and with the allegations against Mr. Kozlowski and Mr. Swartz.
But even in the case of Martha Stewart, even higher profile, we were able to find jurors. The judge was very content with those jurors, and they were able to render a verdict, in that case, of course, against Martha Stewart.
PHILLIPS: Allan Chernoff, continuing to follow developments outside the courtroom there. We'll check in with you later. Thanks so much -- Miles.
MILES O'BRIEN, ANCHOR: And let's check in with one of the jurors.
Joining us on the line right now is Peter McEntegart. He's deliberated for 12 days. From the outside it sure seemed like a roller coaster. Mr. McIntyre, can you hear us all right?
PETER MCENTEGART, JUROR: I can, yes, and Pete is fine.
O'BRIEN: All right, Pete, thank you. Just give us a sense of -- first of all, your reaction on the announcement of the mistrial after all the effort that's been put into this trial.
MCENTEGART: Well, I mean, obviously, at this point -- I'm almost numb. I mean, I listen to -- I've been on hold the last few minutes and heard some of the reporting.
And frankly, some of that stuff was news to me and filled in some of the pictures. We don't have -- we don't see everything that you folks see outside. And obviously, vice versa.
But it's just so frustrating, because literally, we virtually had a verdict yesterday afternoon. We were leaving and someone said, you know, "Why don't we stay an extra half hour, because we were that close."
And then to come in this morning, and we thought it would be another ten -- well, nothing takes ten minutes in this trial. But half hour, an hour, and we would have been done. And we literally were not allowed to deliberate today at all.
And when the judge came in -- I did have one question. I said, "If we had given you a verdict at the end of yesterday, would it have stood? And would you have accepted it?"
And he said yes.
So it's just -- it's just very frustrating on so many levels.
O'BRIEN: Can you tell us what verdict you feel you were close to arriving at?
MCENTEGART: Well, this obviously was a very complicated case. And there were a number of charges. There were 24 against each defendant. So that's essentially -- there's 48 verdicts.
So it's not like -- when I said we were reaching a verdict -- there was one verdict that was guilty or not guilty. And since we didn't hand it in, I mean, essentially there is no verdict and nothing was official until we handed it out.
But the -- at least -- I mean, it would not have been all one way or another. And I know that personally I feel that the -- the evidence, particularly on the three of the four bonuses and also the Frank Walsh payment and the last two charges, the conspiracy and the Martin Act, the securities act.
To me, I felt this was very clear, that the prosecution had proved those points beyond a reasonable doubt. And, you know, we were very close, I think on those, to a guilty verdict.
But obviously, we didn't get there since there was a mistrial before that. And I would say, the vast majority -- trying to think, maybe even all the other ones, we were very close or basically there, on the other direction, in terms of not guilty.
So it certainly wasn't all one or another, but, you know, we really had tried to hammer things out. And obviously, we had some hiccups along the way, which apparently were astonishingly well documented outside the courtroom, which is another thing obviously I'm frustrated about today.
Because it sounds, you know, like this mistrial, in the end -- I mean, we were -- obviously, we were begging for a mistrial last week. And they said no. We went back in and tried to work it out.
And then today, the mistrial came because of something that happened outside the courtroom.
O'BRIEN: Well, Peter...
MCENTEGART: I'm sorry.
O'BRIEN: Take me back to a week ago, when the word came out that the jury was hopelessly deadlocked. You felt that one juror was not deliberating in good faith, and somehow the jury was able to pick up the pieces from that moment.
How did you even get back to deliberating?
MCENTEGART: That's a great question. I'm not sure I even know the answer.
I mean, you know, Thursday, we wanted out. Friday, we wanted out. We really thought at one point, the last letter that we had sent, that it was over. And we were already exchanging, you know, phone numbers for our upcoming jury reunion.
But on the weekend, frankly, you know it seems things got even worse. So we're supposed to avoid media coverage as much as humanly possible, I think is the way the judge put it. But it's hard to walk down a street in New York and not see the front page of a paper.
So I came in Monday, and I think all of us felt that -- you know, it was -- it was over. There was nothing more to say.
But one juror, who, you know, came back with a very different attitude then he or she had had the week before, and we got the ball rolling again. And then there was still so much work to do because we hadn't gotten through all the charges. And it was a remarkably complex -- and frankly too complex from the prosecution's sake, case. So you know, just the fact that we were back on track didn't mean that we could do it in a day or two, and unfortunately, we didn't do it in four days. And as it turned out, we needed to. We literally, within minutes -- that's -- it's difficult for me right now to -- to think about all the impact.
O'BRIEN: We all had this sense of this one juror versus 11. What was that like and what -- what was motivating that one juror to be so convinced of her cause, if you will?
MCENTEGART: That's -- that's a question that we all, you know, wrestled with. And -- I don't know. We went back and forth -- I mean certainly there was a point in last week when 11 of us felt that the 12th juror was not negotiating -- not negotiating, I'm sorry, but deliberating in good faith.
Because he or she had had the exact same view on all 48 separate verdicts as she or he had the very minute we started deliberating. And like we didn't even need to be there. We felt, you know, that basically the verdict was being hijacked. That it all had to match up to what this person thought.
And we, you know, expressed those views, and things got very heated. And then there was a turnaround.
But, you know, I -- I don't know. I certainly had theories and -- and this juror did -- I believe that she believed she was acting in good faith. And certainly, she expressed that often. Other people find it hard to believe at that point.
But things sort of turned around this past week, and we were -- you know, we -- we were getting close -- and I do think the person was -- you know -- it was just generally -- my theory -- and she doesn't think this -- I'm sorry, he or she doesn't this -- but perhaps this person was so emotionally invested, not inside the jury room and it sounds like outside the jury room, on a particular view, it's very difficult emotionally to change. But we were getting there.
Just on a particular few counts where I thought the evidence -- where we thought the evidence was very clear. So -- I don't know, it certainly was sort of a roller coaster. But unfortunately, without one of those protective bars. And today's last move still has me, frankly, pretty shook up.
O'BRIEN: Peter McEntegart, a juror on this trial, thank you very much. We appreciate your time. And best to you.
Let's talk some more about the case with legal expert Paul Kellen. He's a former New York City prosecutor and a criminal defense attorney.
Paul, good to have you with us.
PAUL KELLEN, CRIMINAL DEFENSE ATTORNEY: Nice to be here.
O'BRIEN: I hope you were able to hear the juror just now. KELLEN: Yes, I heard the entire interview. Fascinating interview, Miles.
O'BRIEN: What are your thoughts? This jury room, I mean, I keep thinking of "12 Angry Men," 12 angry men and women in this case: 11 versus 1. Near a mistrial a week ago. And now at this point a mistrial.
Are there any fingers to be pointed here?
KELLEN: Well, it's -- I think the primary finger's got to be pointed at the press, frankly. You have "the Wall Street Journal," who publicly identified juror No. 4.
That was followed by a series of articles in the "New York Post" publicly identifying her and depicting her in courtroom sketches.
That was followed, we understand, by telephone calls to the juror's telephone number, and then "The New York Times" actually sent a reporter to interview her doorman.
So I think once the press publicly identified a juror, that gave the public, the angry public, an opportunity to put pressure on that individual juror. And I think that's what led to this mistrial.
You know, traditionally, the press does not identify individual jurors. There's no law against it. It's permitted under the First Amendment. But it's always been sort of an unwritten rule that we do not do that as members of the press.
And this, now, is a classic example of what can happen. You've got a case that went on for six months. I think 47 witnesses, 700 exhibits, and 12 days of jury deliberation, and we're going to have to start over again.
O'BRIEN: Well, and I guess the real tragedy in all this is we just heard Pete McEntegart say they had really gotten there, or were very close. He said nothing happens quickly, but perhaps within another hour of discussion they could have dotted their "I's," crossed their "T's."
And yet out of the blue, this juror gets some threatening mail, which, as you point out, probably wouldn't have gotten if her name wasn't in the papers.
KELLEN: Well, Dennis Kozlowski and Mark Swartz must be breathing a sigh of relief. Because it sounds from that juror interview that if they had entered a verdict yesterday, it would have been a guilty verdict.
By the way, Miles, he mentioned a couple of the counts. He was talking about the Martin Act count, which is a very serious count. It's something that has to do with what we call enterprise corruption.
And he was also talking about the Walsh payment. Now that was a payment of approximately $20 million. That, by the way, could lead to a sentence of 25 years in prison.
So we're talking about very serious counts which, from the interview with this juror, it sounds like the jury was about to hand down a guilty verdict. So the defendants really have been saved by this letter being sent to the juror overnight and disrupting the entire process.
O'BRIEN: Wow. I'm sure that they'll be talking about this in law schools for quite some time to come. Paul Kellen. And for that matter, journalism schools. Lots of issues to contend with. Paul, don't go too far away, because we're still kind of covering this as this unfolds.
Let's go back to Allan Chernoff, who's out in front of the courthouse, has a few more details for us -- Allan.
CHERNOFF: Miles, district attorney Morgenthau has just released a statement saying that he believes this is very unfortunate that a mistrial has been declared and adding that the district attorney intends to seek a new trial against Mr. Kozlowski and Swartz as soon as possible.
Now Kozlowski and Swartz have been charged with looting their company, Tyco International, of $600 million: $170 million in cash, $430 million through illicit stock sales. They were each facing 24 criminal counts, 13 of them grand larceny. And each of them had been facing as much as 30 years in prison.
But according to a single source that we've had who is familiar with the proceedings inside of the judge's chambers this morning, we understand that juror No. 4, the controversial juror who had apparently made that OK sign one week ago today, that she had received a coercive letter.
And that she was then questioned about that letter by the judge and, based upon her answers, the judge then declared a mistrial.
Miles, you said this certainly will be an important case for the media. And frankly, it does bring to mind some of the events of the recently concluded Martha Stewart case, because in that trial, Judge Miriam Cederbaum had banned the news media from the voir dire, the interviewing of the potential jurors, prior to even the selection of a jury.
And this was very controversial. A consortium of news media organizations had appealed the judge's decision, and she was actually overturned on appeal.
But now it seems that perhaps one can argue the judge had some legitimate concerns, because she said she was highly concerned about Martha Stewart getting a fair trial. She did not want the news media to know the names of those jurors in that specific case -- Miles.
O'BRIEN: CNN's Allan Chernoff on the courthouse steps.
And worth pointing out to our viewers, it is CNN's policy, and in this case, we followed it, not to release the names of those jurors. We didn't do it, and we still haven't even mentioned her name on our air. And as the story unfolds, perhaps that will change. But nevertheless that is our policy here.
Back with more of CNN's LIVE FROM in just a moment.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
(AUDIO GAP)
JONATHAN FREED, CNN CORRESPONDENT: ... wanted to be alone. Now, fast forward, almost two hours later. We have just within the last 30 minutes or so received word there is going to be a second news conference here today with Madison police. And it is unclear exactly what it's going to be about.
However, polices did say last time that they would only come out again today if there would be another significant development in the case.
So this could go in a number of ways. But let's hear what the police had to say earlier when they were explaining why and how Audrey Seiler had arrived at the point where she changed her story.
PHILLIPS: OK, Jonathan, let's talk about this composite that has been released. Audrey Seiler saying the composite that was put out was not of this abduction in the marsh area, now saying that that wasn't true.
Is this composite still valid, I guess you could say, with the other part of her story, where she says she was abducted at a different time downtown?
FREED: Well, that's right. What the police said is that they went on to clarify, and they said that the sketch -- they said that the sketch that was drawn up yesterday and released yesterday -- that Audrey claims that she was still abducted by that person at knife point, but that it just happened in another part of the city and not from her apartment.
And here is what police were saying earlier.
(BEGIN VIDO CLIP)
ASST. CHIEF NOBLE WRAY, MADISON, WISCONSIN, POLICE: She was presented with these confirmed inconsistencies that resulted in Audrey admitting that, in fact, she had not been abducted at her apartment at all. Audrey stated that she just wanted to quote/unquote "be alone."
However, Audrey is now reporting that the suspect depicted in the sketch which was made available last night -- that her -- the sketch -- that the sketch -- abducted her from a different location in the city at knifepoint.
(END VIDEO CLIP) FREED: So Kyra, the sense here in Madison, Wisconsin, is that we are looking at this developing story through the looking glass, because it certainly seems to be becoming curiouser and curiouser as the days wear on -- Kyra.
PHILLIPS: Jonathan Freed, thank you.
Joining us with more information and insights on the Seiler case is former D.C. police detective, also former FBI counterterrorism agent, CNN's Mike Brooks.
OK. You and I were together when this story was unfolding. Breaking news. What, we were on the air for about four hours.
MIKE BROOKS, CNN ANALYST: Almost, yes.
PHILLIPS: And we saw that the dog, the canine, the search dog they had out there kept getting distracted. Well, you and I brought up the point that could this be a hoax? Is it possible that no one is out there?
BROOKS: Exactly. We said she could be the victim of a random act of violence. She could have -- it could have been a planned kidnapping, or she could have left of her own accord.
Chief Wray said in the press conference earlier that there were inconsistencies in her statements, in witness statements and in evidence. But he didn't say whether or not there was evidence found or there weren't any evidence found.
So, you know, this is very, very confusing. I'll be anxious to see what they say in the next press conference, if they're just coming back to clarify what they said, to say that basically the composite, they're still looking for that.
But Kyra, we know that they would be remiss if they did not continue the investigation. As they said, it's still an ongoing investigation. They would be remiss if they didn't go back and, again, question her on this composite, maybe even offer her a polygraph.
If they believe that there is still someone out there in the community that's a danger to the community, they would be remiss if they didn't keep the investigation going, looking for this white male with the knit stocking cap that she said attacked her in another part of the city.
PHILLIPS: All right. If it turns out that all of this, everything that she's saying, it's all a bunch of lies, how can she be held accountable?
I mean, you're talking about a lot of police officers, a lot of money, a lot of cost involved in a search for a number of days. And you know, taking for -- what she said as truth.
BROOKS: A lot of resources went into this particular case. And we go back to February 1, where she said that she was assaulted by an unknown assailant near her apartment that came up from behind her.
Now, we've got to take a look at that case, too. Is that going to be unfounded, or are they going ahead with that investigation?
But there is a city statute and there is also a state statue dealing with obstruction of an officer in an official investigation.
I spoke with a lieutenant from the Madison Police Department today, and he said that that is one charge that they have as a city ordinance. They have a very similar state charge that's a Class A misdemeanor. Both of them would be misdemeanors.
But it would be up to the district attorney to decide exactly what charges, if any, would be brought against her for making this story up.
PHILLIPS: This could be someone that may just be looking for a little attention.
BROOKS: It could be. And early on in the investigation, it was asked whether or not she had any problems, and they said that she was not depressed. There could be other things going on we don't know about. Maybe the police can help clarify that at the 1:30 news conference.
PHILLIPS: Again, we're going to dip into that 1:30 news conference, bring it to our viewers live.
Mike Brooks, thanks so much.
We'll take a quick break. More LIVE FROM right after this.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
O'BRIEN: Let's go to Spain now, where some sharp eyes saved lives. Railway workers credited today with spotting a bomb packed with more than 20 pounds of explosives on a so-called bullet train south of Madrid.
CNN Madrid bureau chief Al Goodman tells us a little more about it. He joins us now via videophone -- Al.
AL GOODMAN, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Hello, Miles.
There was a powerful bomb on these bullet train tracks right behind me earlier this day.
And discovery of that bomb by the railway workers prompted the suspension of service on that very busy line between Madrid and the beautiful city of Seville in southern Spain.
That is an extremely busy line. All of that service has been cut off.
Now, the interior minister said that the bomb contained 12 kilos, or as you said, 26 pounds of explosives. He said it was attached to a detonator and to a very long cable. So clearly, someone was try to cause havoc.
And now that they have deactivated this bomb, the interior minister has come back to say that the type of explosive they found, Miles, was same type used in the Madrid commuter train bombing three weeks ago that killed 190 people and wounded more than 1800.
Now, Islamic terrorists are blamed for that bombing. There have been a number of arrests and a number of people charged, including 11 Moroccans already in that case. There's been no claim of responsibility for this.
But this has all prompted the interior ministry, defense ministry, to hold an emergency meeting this day in the capital and promise beefed up security on the rail lines, the interior minister promising to check every kilometer of this high speed train line between Madrid and Seville. That's 417 kilometers or 260 miles.
We can tell you just in the last few minutes, a number of civil guard officers have been swarming back around this area. They say it's part of the investigation -- Miles.
O'BRIEN: Al, the train would have been going very fast in this part of track, as I understand it. How would this particular device had -- how would it have been detonated if it had remained there?
GOODMAN: Well, this train line, this bullet line between Madrid and Seville, is probably the most prestigious train line in the whole nation. The train travels at 300 kilometers, or 186 miles an hour. I've been on it many times. It is a wonderful ride.
Now the bomb was placed right on -- right beside one of the rail lines, behind it. And because of this very long cable that would have put the bombers able to detonate it by remote control through that cable, if we were to understand it would have caused some damage to the track as the train was passing by.
The train is a multicar train, going very fast. Could it derail the train? It could have caused serious deaths and damages there, just three weeks after the commuter train bombings in Madrid about an hour's drive north of here, which has left this nation very, very shaken -- Miles.
O'BRIEN: CNN's Al Goodman, just south of Madrid, thank you very much.
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 April 2, 2004 - 13:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
KYRA PHILLIPS, ANCHOR: CNN's LIVE FROM starts right now.
Twelve months in the courtroom, 12 days in the jury room, all for nothing. As you know, if you've been watching CNN, the Tyco corruption case ended in a mistrial today, a turn of events the judge calls a shame.
Let's go right to CNN's Allan Chernoff, who's following the developments outside the courthouse, brings us new information now -- Allan.
ALLAN CHERNOFF, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Kyra, the judge and the attorneys involved have not revealed the exact reason for the mistrial.
But we understand from a single source familiar with the proceedings inside of the judge's chambers this morning, that, in fact there had been a coercive letter sent to controversial juror No. 4.
In the past 24 hours, the judge called in juror No. 4 to his chambers this morning. All the attorneys were present. The judge questioned that juror. And based upon her answers, we understand, that is the reason that the judge decided to declare a mistrial in this case.
The case of the U.S. -- rather, the New York state against Dennis Kozlowski and Mark Swartz, the former top two executives of Tyco International. They had been charged with stealing $600 million from the company.
Now, you'll recall, juror No. 4 is the juror who apparently made an OK sign to the defense table one week ago today. Since then, she has been the focus of quite a bit of controversy. Her name was identified over the weekend, over last weekend, by "The New York Post" and the "Wall Street Journal," also identified that she lived on the upper east side of Manhattan.
One newspaper, "The New York Times," even spoke with a doorman at the building, and the judge himself, Michael Obus did say in open court that "I'm very concerned about the impact that this may have on jury selection in the future."
Moments ago, Charles Stillman, the chief attorney for Mark Swartz, spoke before the media.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
CHARLES STILLMAN, SWARTZ'S ATTORNEY: The judge has scheduled to hear us again on May 7. And so we'll talk about a trial date back then. Yes.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Your expectation there will be a retrial or not?
STILLMAN: My expectation at this point is that there will be retrial, yes, sir.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
CHERNOFF: And Judge Michael Obus did say in open court that he expects that we'll be doing this again. So it does appear that this is going to start all over again.
Now, many critics have said that the district attorney's office here in New York spent too much time trying this case, confused the jurors. But it did seem over the past week that the jurors were focusing on some of the very key evidence, and it did seem that when we had come to the verge of a mistrial last Friday, it seemed now that we were actually close to getting a verdict.
But in spite of the jury's best efforts, it now appears that outside pressures, specifically on juror No. 4, that appears to have been the reason that the judge has now declared a mistrial.
And Kyra, we can also report to you that one of the jurors, when this announcement was being made in court, was actually crying -- Kyra.
PHILLIPS: And Allan, I'm getting word now from our producers that Miles is going to talk to a juror in just a second. Does that mean that there's no gag order that's been put on these jurors from this previous trial? And wouldn't that affect the new trial if, indeed, these jurors were allowed to talk?
CHERNOFF: Well, the plan has been that the jurors would be free to talk to the media, once the trial is concluded.
Now, of course, there's been extensive reporting, not only about the jury here, but about the trial itself, and it would not necessarily have an impact on a future trial.
It is true this has been such a high profile situation that it is difficult to find people who are perhaps not familiar with the incidents and with the allegations against Mr. Kozlowski and Mr. Swartz.
But even in the case of Martha Stewart, even higher profile, we were able to find jurors. The judge was very content with those jurors, and they were able to render a verdict, in that case, of course, against Martha Stewart.
PHILLIPS: Allan Chernoff, continuing to follow developments outside the courtroom there. We'll check in with you later. Thanks so much -- Miles.
MILES O'BRIEN, ANCHOR: And let's check in with one of the jurors.
Joining us on the line right now is Peter McEntegart. He's deliberated for 12 days. From the outside it sure seemed like a roller coaster. Mr. McIntyre, can you hear us all right?
PETER MCENTEGART, JUROR: I can, yes, and Pete is fine.
O'BRIEN: All right, Pete, thank you. Just give us a sense of -- first of all, your reaction on the announcement of the mistrial after all the effort that's been put into this trial.
MCENTEGART: Well, I mean, obviously, at this point -- I'm almost numb. I mean, I listen to -- I've been on hold the last few minutes and heard some of the reporting.
And frankly, some of that stuff was news to me and filled in some of the pictures. We don't have -- we don't see everything that you folks see outside. And obviously, vice versa.
But it's just so frustrating, because literally, we virtually had a verdict yesterday afternoon. We were leaving and someone said, you know, "Why don't we stay an extra half hour, because we were that close."
And then to come in this morning, and we thought it would be another ten -- well, nothing takes ten minutes in this trial. But half hour, an hour, and we would have been done. And we literally were not allowed to deliberate today at all.
And when the judge came in -- I did have one question. I said, "If we had given you a verdict at the end of yesterday, would it have stood? And would you have accepted it?"
And he said yes.
So it's just -- it's just very frustrating on so many levels.
O'BRIEN: Can you tell us what verdict you feel you were close to arriving at?
MCENTEGART: Well, this obviously was a very complicated case. And there were a number of charges. There were 24 against each defendant. So that's essentially -- there's 48 verdicts.
So it's not like -- when I said we were reaching a verdict -- there was one verdict that was guilty or not guilty. And since we didn't hand it in, I mean, essentially there is no verdict and nothing was official until we handed it out.
But the -- at least -- I mean, it would not have been all one way or another. And I know that personally I feel that the -- the evidence, particularly on the three of the four bonuses and also the Frank Walsh payment and the last two charges, the conspiracy and the Martin Act, the securities act.
To me, I felt this was very clear, that the prosecution had proved those points beyond a reasonable doubt. And, you know, we were very close, I think on those, to a guilty verdict.
But obviously, we didn't get there since there was a mistrial before that. And I would say, the vast majority -- trying to think, maybe even all the other ones, we were very close or basically there, on the other direction, in terms of not guilty.
So it certainly wasn't all one or another, but, you know, we really had tried to hammer things out. And obviously, we had some hiccups along the way, which apparently were astonishingly well documented outside the courtroom, which is another thing obviously I'm frustrated about today.
Because it sounds, you know, like this mistrial, in the end -- I mean, we were -- obviously, we were begging for a mistrial last week. And they said no. We went back in and tried to work it out.
And then today, the mistrial came because of something that happened outside the courtroom.
O'BRIEN: Well, Peter...
MCENTEGART: I'm sorry.
O'BRIEN: Take me back to a week ago, when the word came out that the jury was hopelessly deadlocked. You felt that one juror was not deliberating in good faith, and somehow the jury was able to pick up the pieces from that moment.
How did you even get back to deliberating?
MCENTEGART: That's a great question. I'm not sure I even know the answer.
I mean, you know, Thursday, we wanted out. Friday, we wanted out. We really thought at one point, the last letter that we had sent, that it was over. And we were already exchanging, you know, phone numbers for our upcoming jury reunion.
But on the weekend, frankly, you know it seems things got even worse. So we're supposed to avoid media coverage as much as humanly possible, I think is the way the judge put it. But it's hard to walk down a street in New York and not see the front page of a paper.
So I came in Monday, and I think all of us felt that -- you know, it was -- it was over. There was nothing more to say.
But one juror, who, you know, came back with a very different attitude then he or she had had the week before, and we got the ball rolling again. And then there was still so much work to do because we hadn't gotten through all the charges. And it was a remarkably complex -- and frankly too complex from the prosecution's sake, case. So you know, just the fact that we were back on track didn't mean that we could do it in a day or two, and unfortunately, we didn't do it in four days. And as it turned out, we needed to. We literally, within minutes -- that's -- it's difficult for me right now to -- to think about all the impact.
O'BRIEN: We all had this sense of this one juror versus 11. What was that like and what -- what was motivating that one juror to be so convinced of her cause, if you will?
MCENTEGART: That's -- that's a question that we all, you know, wrestled with. And -- I don't know. We went back and forth -- I mean certainly there was a point in last week when 11 of us felt that the 12th juror was not negotiating -- not negotiating, I'm sorry, but deliberating in good faith.
Because he or she had had the exact same view on all 48 separate verdicts as she or he had the very minute we started deliberating. And like we didn't even need to be there. We felt, you know, that basically the verdict was being hijacked. That it all had to match up to what this person thought.
And we, you know, expressed those views, and things got very heated. And then there was a turnaround.
But, you know, I -- I don't know. I certainly had theories and -- and this juror did -- I believe that she believed she was acting in good faith. And certainly, she expressed that often. Other people find it hard to believe at that point.
But things sort of turned around this past week, and we were -- you know, we -- we were getting close -- and I do think the person was -- you know -- it was just generally -- my theory -- and she doesn't think this -- I'm sorry, he or she doesn't this -- but perhaps this person was so emotionally invested, not inside the jury room and it sounds like outside the jury room, on a particular view, it's very difficult emotionally to change. But we were getting there.
Just on a particular few counts where I thought the evidence -- where we thought the evidence was very clear. So -- I don't know, it certainly was sort of a roller coaster. But unfortunately, without one of those protective bars. And today's last move still has me, frankly, pretty shook up.
O'BRIEN: Peter McEntegart, a juror on this trial, thank you very much. We appreciate your time. And best to you.
Let's talk some more about the case with legal expert Paul Kellen. He's a former New York City prosecutor and a criminal defense attorney.
Paul, good to have you with us.
PAUL KELLEN, CRIMINAL DEFENSE ATTORNEY: Nice to be here.
O'BRIEN: I hope you were able to hear the juror just now. KELLEN: Yes, I heard the entire interview. Fascinating interview, Miles.
O'BRIEN: What are your thoughts? This jury room, I mean, I keep thinking of "12 Angry Men," 12 angry men and women in this case: 11 versus 1. Near a mistrial a week ago. And now at this point a mistrial.
Are there any fingers to be pointed here?
KELLEN: Well, it's -- I think the primary finger's got to be pointed at the press, frankly. You have "the Wall Street Journal," who publicly identified juror No. 4.
That was followed by a series of articles in the "New York Post" publicly identifying her and depicting her in courtroom sketches.
That was followed, we understand, by telephone calls to the juror's telephone number, and then "The New York Times" actually sent a reporter to interview her doorman.
So I think once the press publicly identified a juror, that gave the public, the angry public, an opportunity to put pressure on that individual juror. And I think that's what led to this mistrial.
You know, traditionally, the press does not identify individual jurors. There's no law against it. It's permitted under the First Amendment. But it's always been sort of an unwritten rule that we do not do that as members of the press.
And this, now, is a classic example of what can happen. You've got a case that went on for six months. I think 47 witnesses, 700 exhibits, and 12 days of jury deliberation, and we're going to have to start over again.
O'BRIEN: Well, and I guess the real tragedy in all this is we just heard Pete McEntegart say they had really gotten there, or were very close. He said nothing happens quickly, but perhaps within another hour of discussion they could have dotted their "I's," crossed their "T's."
And yet out of the blue, this juror gets some threatening mail, which, as you point out, probably wouldn't have gotten if her name wasn't in the papers.
KELLEN: Well, Dennis Kozlowski and Mark Swartz must be breathing a sigh of relief. Because it sounds from that juror interview that if they had entered a verdict yesterday, it would have been a guilty verdict.
By the way, Miles, he mentioned a couple of the counts. He was talking about the Martin Act count, which is a very serious count. It's something that has to do with what we call enterprise corruption.
And he was also talking about the Walsh payment. Now that was a payment of approximately $20 million. That, by the way, could lead to a sentence of 25 years in prison.
So we're talking about very serious counts which, from the interview with this juror, it sounds like the jury was about to hand down a guilty verdict. So the defendants really have been saved by this letter being sent to the juror overnight and disrupting the entire process.
O'BRIEN: Wow. I'm sure that they'll be talking about this in law schools for quite some time to come. Paul Kellen. And for that matter, journalism schools. Lots of issues to contend with. Paul, don't go too far away, because we're still kind of covering this as this unfolds.
Let's go back to Allan Chernoff, who's out in front of the courthouse, has a few more details for us -- Allan.
CHERNOFF: Miles, district attorney Morgenthau has just released a statement saying that he believes this is very unfortunate that a mistrial has been declared and adding that the district attorney intends to seek a new trial against Mr. Kozlowski and Swartz as soon as possible.
Now Kozlowski and Swartz have been charged with looting their company, Tyco International, of $600 million: $170 million in cash, $430 million through illicit stock sales. They were each facing 24 criminal counts, 13 of them grand larceny. And each of them had been facing as much as 30 years in prison.
But according to a single source that we've had who is familiar with the proceedings inside of the judge's chambers this morning, we understand that juror No. 4, the controversial juror who had apparently made that OK sign one week ago today, that she had received a coercive letter.
And that she was then questioned about that letter by the judge and, based upon her answers, the judge then declared a mistrial.
Miles, you said this certainly will be an important case for the media. And frankly, it does bring to mind some of the events of the recently concluded Martha Stewart case, because in that trial, Judge Miriam Cederbaum had banned the news media from the voir dire, the interviewing of the potential jurors, prior to even the selection of a jury.
And this was very controversial. A consortium of news media organizations had appealed the judge's decision, and she was actually overturned on appeal.
But now it seems that perhaps one can argue the judge had some legitimate concerns, because she said she was highly concerned about Martha Stewart getting a fair trial. She did not want the news media to know the names of those jurors in that specific case -- Miles.
O'BRIEN: CNN's Allan Chernoff on the courthouse steps.
And worth pointing out to our viewers, it is CNN's policy, and in this case, we followed it, not to release the names of those jurors. We didn't do it, and we still haven't even mentioned her name on our air. And as the story unfolds, perhaps that will change. But nevertheless that is our policy here.
Back with more of CNN's LIVE FROM in just a moment.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
(AUDIO GAP)
JONATHAN FREED, CNN CORRESPONDENT: ... wanted to be alone. Now, fast forward, almost two hours later. We have just within the last 30 minutes or so received word there is going to be a second news conference here today with Madison police. And it is unclear exactly what it's going to be about.
However, polices did say last time that they would only come out again today if there would be another significant development in the case.
So this could go in a number of ways. But let's hear what the police had to say earlier when they were explaining why and how Audrey Seiler had arrived at the point where she changed her story.
PHILLIPS: OK, Jonathan, let's talk about this composite that has been released. Audrey Seiler saying the composite that was put out was not of this abduction in the marsh area, now saying that that wasn't true.
Is this composite still valid, I guess you could say, with the other part of her story, where she says she was abducted at a different time downtown?
FREED: Well, that's right. What the police said is that they went on to clarify, and they said that the sketch -- they said that the sketch that was drawn up yesterday and released yesterday -- that Audrey claims that she was still abducted by that person at knife point, but that it just happened in another part of the city and not from her apartment.
And here is what police were saying earlier.
(BEGIN VIDO CLIP)
ASST. CHIEF NOBLE WRAY, MADISON, WISCONSIN, POLICE: She was presented with these confirmed inconsistencies that resulted in Audrey admitting that, in fact, she had not been abducted at her apartment at all. Audrey stated that she just wanted to quote/unquote "be alone."
However, Audrey is now reporting that the suspect depicted in the sketch which was made available last night -- that her -- the sketch -- that the sketch -- abducted her from a different location in the city at knifepoint.
(END VIDEO CLIP) FREED: So Kyra, the sense here in Madison, Wisconsin, is that we are looking at this developing story through the looking glass, because it certainly seems to be becoming curiouser and curiouser as the days wear on -- Kyra.
PHILLIPS: Jonathan Freed, thank you.
Joining us with more information and insights on the Seiler case is former D.C. police detective, also former FBI counterterrorism agent, CNN's Mike Brooks.
OK. You and I were together when this story was unfolding. Breaking news. What, we were on the air for about four hours.
MIKE BROOKS, CNN ANALYST: Almost, yes.
PHILLIPS: And we saw that the dog, the canine, the search dog they had out there kept getting distracted. Well, you and I brought up the point that could this be a hoax? Is it possible that no one is out there?
BROOKS: Exactly. We said she could be the victim of a random act of violence. She could have -- it could have been a planned kidnapping, or she could have left of her own accord.
Chief Wray said in the press conference earlier that there were inconsistencies in her statements, in witness statements and in evidence. But he didn't say whether or not there was evidence found or there weren't any evidence found.
So, you know, this is very, very confusing. I'll be anxious to see what they say in the next press conference, if they're just coming back to clarify what they said, to say that basically the composite, they're still looking for that.
But Kyra, we know that they would be remiss if they did not continue the investigation. As they said, it's still an ongoing investigation. They would be remiss if they didn't go back and, again, question her on this composite, maybe even offer her a polygraph.
If they believe that there is still someone out there in the community that's a danger to the community, they would be remiss if they didn't keep the investigation going, looking for this white male with the knit stocking cap that she said attacked her in another part of the city.
PHILLIPS: All right. If it turns out that all of this, everything that she's saying, it's all a bunch of lies, how can she be held accountable?
I mean, you're talking about a lot of police officers, a lot of money, a lot of cost involved in a search for a number of days. And you know, taking for -- what she said as truth.
BROOKS: A lot of resources went into this particular case. And we go back to February 1, where she said that she was assaulted by an unknown assailant near her apartment that came up from behind her.
Now, we've got to take a look at that case, too. Is that going to be unfounded, or are they going ahead with that investigation?
But there is a city statute and there is also a state statue dealing with obstruction of an officer in an official investigation.
I spoke with a lieutenant from the Madison Police Department today, and he said that that is one charge that they have as a city ordinance. They have a very similar state charge that's a Class A misdemeanor. Both of them would be misdemeanors.
But it would be up to the district attorney to decide exactly what charges, if any, would be brought against her for making this story up.
PHILLIPS: This could be someone that may just be looking for a little attention.
BROOKS: It could be. And early on in the investigation, it was asked whether or not she had any problems, and they said that she was not depressed. There could be other things going on we don't know about. Maybe the police can help clarify that at the 1:30 news conference.
PHILLIPS: Again, we're going to dip into that 1:30 news conference, bring it to our viewers live.
Mike Brooks, thanks so much.
We'll take a quick break. More LIVE FROM right after this.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
O'BRIEN: Let's go to Spain now, where some sharp eyes saved lives. Railway workers credited today with spotting a bomb packed with more than 20 pounds of explosives on a so-called bullet train south of Madrid.
CNN Madrid bureau chief Al Goodman tells us a little more about it. He joins us now via videophone -- Al.
AL GOODMAN, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Hello, Miles.
There was a powerful bomb on these bullet train tracks right behind me earlier this day.
And discovery of that bomb by the railway workers prompted the suspension of service on that very busy line between Madrid and the beautiful city of Seville in southern Spain.
That is an extremely busy line. All of that service has been cut off.
Now, the interior minister said that the bomb contained 12 kilos, or as you said, 26 pounds of explosives. He said it was attached to a detonator and to a very long cable. So clearly, someone was try to cause havoc.
And now that they have deactivated this bomb, the interior minister has come back to say that the type of explosive they found, Miles, was same type used in the Madrid commuter train bombing three weeks ago that killed 190 people and wounded more than 1800.
Now, Islamic terrorists are blamed for that bombing. There have been a number of arrests and a number of people charged, including 11 Moroccans already in that case. There's been no claim of responsibility for this.
But this has all prompted the interior ministry, defense ministry, to hold an emergency meeting this day in the capital and promise beefed up security on the rail lines, the interior minister promising to check every kilometer of this high speed train line between Madrid and Seville. That's 417 kilometers or 260 miles.
We can tell you just in the last few minutes, a number of civil guard officers have been swarming back around this area. They say it's part of the investigation -- Miles.
O'BRIEN: Al, the train would have been going very fast in this part of track, as I understand it. How would this particular device had -- how would it have been detonated if it had remained there?
GOODMAN: Well, this train line, this bullet line between Madrid and Seville, is probably the most prestigious train line in the whole nation. The train travels at 300 kilometers, or 186 miles an hour. I've been on it many times. It is a wonderful ride.
Now the bomb was placed right on -- right beside one of the rail lines, behind it. And because of this very long cable that would have put the bombers able to detonate it by remote control through that cable, if we were to understand it would have caused some damage to the track as the train was passing by.
The train is a multicar train, going very fast. Could it derail the train? It could have caused serious deaths and damages there, just three weeks after the commuter train bombings in Madrid about an hour's drive north of here, which has left this nation very, very shaken -- Miles.
O'BRIEN: CNN's Al Goodman, just south of Madrid, thank you very much.
TO ORDER A VIDEO OF THIS TRANSCRIPT, PLEASE CALL 800-CNN-NEWS OR USE OUR SECURE ONLINE ORDER FORM LOCATED AT WWW.FDCH.COM
