Return to Transcripts main page

American Morning

Federal Appeals Court Overturns Obstruction of Justice Convictions of Three Officers

Aired March 01, 2002 - 07:18   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.
PAULA ZAHN, CNN ANCHOR: Now to a change in fortune for three New York City cops in the notorious Abner Louima case. The racially charged 1997 incident in which Louima was tortured in a precinct bathroom has become synonymous with police brutality. Yesterday a federal appeals court over turned the obstruction of justice convictions of three officers, Charles Schwarz, Tom Wiese and Thomas Bruder, citing poor representation in the case of Schwarz, insufficient evidence in the two others.

The ruling will not affect Officer Justin Volpe, who is serving 30 years for committing the attack.

In a moment, we're going to hear from the Reverend Al Sharpton, who has been a critic of all of these police officers, as well as their attorneys, throughout the process.

But joining us right now is Attorney Joe Tacopina, who represents Officer Thomas Wiese.

Thank you very much for being with us this morning.

JOE TACOPINA, THOMAS WIESE'S ATTORNEY: Sure, Paula.

ZAHN: I am sure you picked up the papers and you have read the analysis of this case. A lot of people are saying the appeals court only made this decision because these men were police officers. What do you say to them?

TACOPINA: Well, I guess they haven't been following recent appeals court decisions regarding cop cases. It's not, in fact, true. The decisions, if you read them, I mean this appeals court took so many months to really, you know, decipher all the legal rulings that the district court had made here. And if you read their opinion, it's one of the most well reasoned opinions I've read as a lawyer. I both prosecuted cases, now defend them, Paula, and it was well reasoned because it was just. It was the right decision.

We've been saying from day one that one man and one man alone, you know, committed this atrocity on Mr. Louima. And today's ruling, yesterday's ruling, I think, sort of nails that home a little bit more for us.

ZAHN: Well, let me tell you what some of the other papers had to say this morning. The "New York Times" is basically saying the decision has nothing to do with the guilt or innocence of these players. And I want you to respond to a small part of this editorial that ran today. It reads," There was plenty of evidence, the courts stated, to find that Mr. Schwarz, Mr. Bruder and Mr. Wiese agreed to impede investigators by putting out a false account of what occurred. The convictions were reversed because they were charged under a technical law which required specific knowledge that a grand jury investigation was under way."

Your reaction to that?

TACOPINA: Well, my reaction to that is the Second Circuit, the appeals court, by making that ruling, dismissed the second case against Officer Wiese, my client, and Officer Bruder, and, in fact, ordered a judgment of acquittal. We've been through two federal trials, Paula, now. Tommy Wiese has been through two federal trials. I've represented him in both. He was acquitted in the civil rights trial for violations against Mr. Louima and has now been acquitted in a second trial. I don't know many people who go through two federal trials and get acquitted.

And the fact of the matter is everyone who was in that courtroom throughout those proceedings in the second case didn't think there was even a remote shot that they were going to get convicted. But there was so much else going on in that case and during that time and other trials that sort of, we believe, permeated that jury room. But the fact of the matter is the appeals court made it clear from the outset of their ruling that they were not going to make findings on things they didn't have to make findings on.

So they didn't have to decipher all the other evidence. And the fact of the matter is there was insufficient evidence, is the ruling, for the second trial. There was insufficient evidence to find guilt on that charge.

All I need to do is respond by saying that two trials, two acquittals, we're ready to move on with our lives.

ZAHN: And I know that's what your client says he plans to do.

Joe Tacopina, thank you very much for joining us with your reaction to this federal appeals decision.

TACOPINA: OK, Paula.

ZAHN: We're going to turn now to Reverend Al Sharpton, who is one of the loudest voices calling for justice in the Louima case. He joins us now from New York this morning.

Good morning. Welcome to A.M.

Your reaction, sir, to this federal appeals court decision?

REV. AL SHARPTON, NATIONAL ACTION NETWORK: Well, I think given the heinous crime of having a man assaulted and sodomized in a police station, clearly no one, I think, that looks at this in a rational way could think that an officer could do this in a police station either not aided, heard, seen or in some way assisted by other officers, if no other than officers that Abner Louima told what happened to him, who never turned in this officer, who never tried to get any relief for Mr. Louima.

So I think that this ruling in effect tries to help those that are trying to act as if one man could have done all of this in a crowded precinct by himself. I think that's outrageous.

ZAHN: So, is your anger wholly aimed at the federal appeals court? After all, you praised the federal appeals court not long ago when that same court actually overturned the conviction of Lemrick Nelson, a black man who was convicted of violating the civil rights of a Jewish man in Brooklyn.

SHARPTON: When did I praise that? Name one -- I never made a statement like that at all.

ZAHN: Well, we have a number of instances here, newspaper accounts that suggest that you...

SHARPTON: Not one.

ZAHN: ... thought it was pretty good work.

SHARPTON: Well, but you're talking to me.

ZAHN: Well, OK, so...

SHARPTON: I mean you're not talking to newspapers. So don't assign something.

ZAHN: So you're saying that you deny...

SHARPTON: What I'm saying is...

ZAHN: You deny all these accounts in the papers...

SHARPTON: No, what I'm saying is...

ZAHN: ... that you ever supported...

SHARPTON: There is no account.

ZAHN: ... that federal appeals court decision?

SHARPTON: You have no account. You have no account saying that. You have no account.

ZAHN: Well, let's come back to this case and what the "New York Times" says was decided, that this was a technicality and basically didn't even determine the guilt or innocence of these clients.

SHARPTON: And that's the point. The point is that the "New York Times" editorial is our position all along, and that is that they're saying that, not that these people did not mislead law enforcement, not that they did not attempt to come with a contrary story, but that they didn't know their lies was going to a federal grand jury. Not that they didn't lie, but because their lies we can't prove, according to the appeals court, was set up to go to a federal grand jury. On that technicality, you let someone go on such a heinous crime? I think that that is outrageous and I think that it really is not protecting the citizens of this country and of this city.

ZAHN: And Reverend Al Sharpton, if you'd like to set the record straight, tell us as truthfully as you can your assessment of the federal appeals court over -- that same court overturning the conviction of Lemrick Nelson.

SHARPTON: First of all, I was not...

ZAHN: Was that a good thing or a bad thing?

SHARPTON: I was not involved in the case. I don't know the particulars like I do here, which is why I didn't make a comment. Nor did I have any direct involvement with the defendant or the accused there, as I do here. So that's why no, I never made a statement. I only speak on cases I'm involved with.

ZAHN: All right, a final thought on what you think should happen to these New York City police officers.

SHARPTON: Well, I think that there must be an aggressive prosecution of the, Mr. Schwarz because the federal government has identified him and the victim, Mr. Louima. And I think out of that aggressive prosecution there may still be new charges and new evidence against the two that think this is over. I think that clearly they cannot be tried again on conspiracy, but they have not been, if Mr. Wiese is the one that was in the bathroom during the assault, as his, some of his supporters say, Mr. Schwarz's supporters say, there's nothing barring from him being charged with assault in that bathroom. He was never tried for that.

So I think an aggressive and thorough prosecution of Mr. Schwarz is in order here to have any level of justice for Abner Louima and the people of this city.

ZAHN: We are going to have to leave it there this morning.

Reverend Al Sharpton, thank you very much for being with us this morning on A.M.

SHARPTON: Thank you.

ZAHN: Appreciate your time.

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