Return to Transcripts main page

American Morning

'I Object'

Aired June 12, 2003 - 07:35   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.


BILL HEMMER, CNN ANCHOR: There's a hearing in two weeks scheduled in the Laci Peterson matter to set the focus on the wiretaps on Scott Peterson's phone. Defense lawyers have now subpoenaed the judge who gave the original approval for those wiretaps and they charge the judge violated rules governing a capital murder case.
Well, Jeffrey Toobin objects to this.

He's here this morning in his segment, I Object.

Tell us why -- Jeff, good morning.

JEFFREY TOOBIN, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: Let's rip the defense in the Laci Peterson case again, what do you say?

HEMMER: How about it?

TOOBIN: What happened was in California law, there is a provision that says if it's a death penalty case, you have to have a court reporter present at all times on all proceedings. A fair rule. No problem. But these wiretaps were subpoenaed, took place -- they were approved by the judge in February, before there was even an arrest in the case. So the judge had no reason to order a court reporter being there.

There, it was just an ordinary course of business wiretap. They didn't know it would be a death penalty case. They didn't even know there would be an arrest in the case. But because there's no wiretap, there's -- because there is no transcript, they are subpoenaing the judge to get him to testify.

HEMMER: So, but under California law, can this be retroactive?

TOOBIN: Well, that's the...

HEMMER: Can you rework the rules or not?

TOOBIN: That's what the defense is trying to do. And in fairness to the defense, what they are doing is they are pushing in every way. The best defense is a good offense. We know that, all the time.

HEMMER: Sure.

TOOBIN: So they are trying to put the prosecution on trial, trying to call the judge to testify because there is no transcript of what he said. HEMMER: So they want a piece of this judge, then?

TOOBIN: They want a piece of the judge. I mean it takes -- you know, I think it's interesting, you have Mark Geragos, who's a lawyer from Los Angeles who's not, you know, based there in Modesto. I think a lawyer who was in Modesto might be a little hesitant to subpoena a judge because, you know, after all you live in that community. But Geragos says no, let's go subpoena the judge, full speed ahead.

HEMMER: You almost said something. It takes what?

TOOBIN: It takes...

HEMMER: Guts?

TOOBIN: It takes guts. Yes, guts. It takes spirit, let's say. I don't know. There's a word I'm thinking of that I probably shouldn't use.

HEMMER: Probably not on cable.

TOOBIN: Yes, that's right.

HEMMER: How aggressive a move is this for the defense? I mean, listen, if you're Mark Geragos and you're trying to defend your guy and he's up for capital murder, don't you want to try and pull out all the stops you can?

TOOBIN: Absolutely. And that's the cause -- that's what causes all of this, that it's a death penalty case. Interesting, you know, I was just looking it up this morning, in the invaluable Web site of the Death Penalty Information Center. We call this a death penalty case. There are 624 people on death row in California. They are executing them at the rate of about one a year.

HEMMER: It was 1977 was the last one, right?

TOOBIN: Well, no, no. There have been a couple since then. That's when the death penalty came back nationwide. There's been about maybe 10.

HEMMER: But no more than that?

TOOBIN: No more than that. And the pace is one a year. So even though we call this a death penalty case, in fact, it's not really, because they do it in order.

HEMMER: Yes.

TOOBIN: Remember David Westerfield in San Diego?

HEMMER: Sure.

TOOBIN: He's like number 600. So he's not going anywhere.

HEMMER: Which could take a while. TOOBIN: Yes.

HEMMER: Get back to this whole question about reporters being present. Is that a technicality or is that something that could truly reverse the evidence that may be entered into the case?

TOOBIN: You know, it is possible that it could lead to the exclusion of the evidence from the wiretaps. Let's not, you know, it's not going to get the whole case thrown out.

HEMMER: Yes.

TOOBIN: The worst thing that could happen to the government's case is having the evidence from the wiretaps thrown out. I don't even think that's going to happen. I object so I think that'll basically settle things, don't you?

HEMMER: That you do. I think so.

TOOBIN: Yes.

HEMMER: If they're watching.

TOOBIN: Good.

HEMMER: At 4:30 in the morning in Modesto.

TOOBIN: That's right. That's right.

HEMMER: Thanks, Jeff.

Great to see you.

TOOBIN: All right.

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 June 12, 2003 - 07:35   ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
BILL HEMMER, CNN ANCHOR: There's a hearing in two weeks scheduled in the Laci Peterson matter to set the focus on the wiretaps on Scott Peterson's phone. Defense lawyers have now subpoenaed the judge who gave the original approval for those wiretaps and they charge the judge violated rules governing a capital murder case.
Well, Jeffrey Toobin objects to this.

He's here this morning in his segment, I Object.

Tell us why -- Jeff, good morning.

JEFFREY TOOBIN, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: Let's rip the defense in the Laci Peterson case again, what do you say?

HEMMER: How about it?

TOOBIN: What happened was in California law, there is a provision that says if it's a death penalty case, you have to have a court reporter present at all times on all proceedings. A fair rule. No problem. But these wiretaps were subpoenaed, took place -- they were approved by the judge in February, before there was even an arrest in the case. So the judge had no reason to order a court reporter being there.

There, it was just an ordinary course of business wiretap. They didn't know it would be a death penalty case. They didn't even know there would be an arrest in the case. But because there's no wiretap, there's -- because there is no transcript, they are subpoenaing the judge to get him to testify.

HEMMER: So, but under California law, can this be retroactive?

TOOBIN: Well, that's the...

HEMMER: Can you rework the rules or not?

TOOBIN: That's what the defense is trying to do. And in fairness to the defense, what they are doing is they are pushing in every way. The best defense is a good offense. We know that, all the time.

HEMMER: Sure.

TOOBIN: So they are trying to put the prosecution on trial, trying to call the judge to testify because there is no transcript of what he said. HEMMER: So they want a piece of this judge, then?

TOOBIN: They want a piece of the judge. I mean it takes -- you know, I think it's interesting, you have Mark Geragos, who's a lawyer from Los Angeles who's not, you know, based there in Modesto. I think a lawyer who was in Modesto might be a little hesitant to subpoena a judge because, you know, after all you live in that community. But Geragos says no, let's go subpoena the judge, full speed ahead.

HEMMER: You almost said something. It takes what?

TOOBIN: It takes...

HEMMER: Guts?

TOOBIN: It takes guts. Yes, guts. It takes spirit, let's say. I don't know. There's a word I'm thinking of that I probably shouldn't use.

HEMMER: Probably not on cable.

TOOBIN: Yes, that's right.

HEMMER: How aggressive a move is this for the defense? I mean, listen, if you're Mark Geragos and you're trying to defend your guy and he's up for capital murder, don't you want to try and pull out all the stops you can?

TOOBIN: Absolutely. And that's the cause -- that's what causes all of this, that it's a death penalty case. Interesting, you know, I was just looking it up this morning, in the invaluable Web site of the Death Penalty Information Center. We call this a death penalty case. There are 624 people on death row in California. They are executing them at the rate of about one a year.

HEMMER: It was 1977 was the last one, right?

TOOBIN: Well, no, no. There have been a couple since then. That's when the death penalty came back nationwide. There's been about maybe 10.

HEMMER: But no more than that?

TOOBIN: No more than that. And the pace is one a year. So even though we call this a death penalty case, in fact, it's not really, because they do it in order.

HEMMER: Yes.

TOOBIN: Remember David Westerfield in San Diego?

HEMMER: Sure.

TOOBIN: He's like number 600. So he's not going anywhere.

HEMMER: Which could take a while. TOOBIN: Yes.

HEMMER: Get back to this whole question about reporters being present. Is that a technicality or is that something that could truly reverse the evidence that may be entered into the case?

TOOBIN: You know, it is possible that it could lead to the exclusion of the evidence from the wiretaps. Let's not, you know, it's not going to get the whole case thrown out.

HEMMER: Yes.

TOOBIN: The worst thing that could happen to the government's case is having the evidence from the wiretaps thrown out. I don't even think that's going to happen. I object so I think that'll basically settle things, don't you?

HEMMER: That you do. I think so.

TOOBIN: Yes.

HEMMER: If they're watching.

TOOBIN: Good.

HEMMER: At 4:30 in the morning in Modesto.

TOOBIN: That's right. That's right.

HEMMER: Thanks, Jeff.

Great to see you.

TOOBIN: All right.

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