Return to Transcripts main page

American Morning

Interview With Attorney and Novelist Attorney Scott Turow

Aired October 22, 2003 - 08:16   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.


SOLEDAD O'BRIEN, CNN ANCHOR: Attorney and novelist Scott Turow has looked at capital cases from both the prosecution and defense points of view. His new book is called "Ultimate Punishment: A Lawyer's Reflections On Dealing with the Death Penalty."
He served on the Illinois commission that influenced then Governor George Ryan to commute the sentences of 167 death row inmates.

And Scott Turow joins us from Chicago this morning.

Good morning to you.

Nice to see you.

SCOTT TUROW, ATTORNEY AND AUTHOR: Good morning, Soledad.

Nice to be with you.

O'BRIEN: Thank you very much.

So you've obviously investigated this issue thoroughly. Are you for or against the death penalty?

TUROW: I've ultimately, after vacillating for years, decided that the death penalty is just impractical. It doesn't work. It doesn't give us what we think we want from it.

O'BRIEN: At the same time, you have said that you would never hesitate to execute a man like John Wayne Gacey. Where would you stand on execution if convicted of a man like John Allen Muhammad?

TUROW: Well, there's no question that the Muhammad case, assuming he's guilty, is at the far reaches of criminality. And certainly if there is a case to be made for the death penalty, it can be made in a case like this.

O'BRIEN: He's being tried, John Allen Muhammad, under two statutes, one Virginia law and the other which would be a federal terror law, which would allow for him to face the death penalty even if he is not proven to be the triggerman.

TUROW: Right.

O'BRIEN: How unusual is this case? And weigh in for me on that, about what you think about that second statue? TUROW: Well, I think it's really interesting. The Muhammad case, despite the extremity of the crime, really illustrates many of the typical problems with the death penalty. Virginia law, generally speaking, reserves the death penalty for triggermen, that is, people who actually committed the murder, and says clearly that people who were not actually the killers cannot be put to death. And as is typical with the death penalty and the way it always expands to fit perceived needs, that's what's happening here. They're trying to apply either the terrorism branch, which is untested, or the multiple murder branch, which, quite frankly, I took a look at the statute last night, I don't understand where they're going with that.

O'BRIEN: John Allen Muhammad, as you well know, representing himself. What do you make of that?

TUROW: Oh, I think it's a very, very unwise decision. You know the old saw that he who represents himself has a fool for a client. And I think that's clearly applicable here.

O'BRIEN: You think it's a straight path to the death penalty?

TUROW: I certainly think that he's likely to antagonize the jury, it sounds from the reports, and I, of course, have been nowhere near the courtroom. It sounds like he's doing his best to be polite, but typically prose defendants, that is, people who are representing themselves, don't understand the legal niceties and they tend to be obsessed, of course, with their own case, and they often really aggravate juries.

O'BRIEN: Lee Boyd Malvo, let's turn and talk about him for a minute, 17 years old at the time that the crimes were committed. He faces death, as you well know, in Virginia. Do you think he should be facing the death sentence?

TUROW: Well, the Malvo case presents an issue that is really ripe for a decision right now by the United States Supreme Court, which is basically are we going to continue to execute juveniles in the United States. The Supreme Court ruled last year that persons who suffer from mental retardation are not eligible for execution. And so the next question is how developed as a human being does somebody have to be before the death penalty applies to him or her? And Malvo, who was 17 at the time of the crimes, is very likely to present a test case on that issue.

O'BRIEN: And what do you think of the tack that his lawyers are taking, which is insanity and yet not a matter of understanding right and wrong, a sort of a sense of one's will can be subjugated by another person? It's unusual.

TUROW: It's very unusual. It sounds like a defense of undue influence. I don't know enough about Virginia law to speculate on whether or not it's going to be successful. But typically in the United States, where insanity is defined as not knowing the difference between right and wrong, it would not be a winner in most jurisdictions.

O'BRIEN: Lawyer and author Scott Turow joining us this morning.

Scott, thanks.

It's nice to see you.

TUROW: You're welcome, Soledad.

Good to be with you.

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 October 22, 2003 - 08:16   ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
SOLEDAD O'BRIEN, CNN ANCHOR: Attorney and novelist Scott Turow has looked at capital cases from both the prosecution and defense points of view. His new book is called "Ultimate Punishment: A Lawyer's Reflections On Dealing with the Death Penalty."
He served on the Illinois commission that influenced then Governor George Ryan to commute the sentences of 167 death row inmates.

And Scott Turow joins us from Chicago this morning.

Good morning to you.

Nice to see you.

SCOTT TUROW, ATTORNEY AND AUTHOR: Good morning, Soledad.

Nice to be with you.

O'BRIEN: Thank you very much.

So you've obviously investigated this issue thoroughly. Are you for or against the death penalty?

TUROW: I've ultimately, after vacillating for years, decided that the death penalty is just impractical. It doesn't work. It doesn't give us what we think we want from it.

O'BRIEN: At the same time, you have said that you would never hesitate to execute a man like John Wayne Gacey. Where would you stand on execution if convicted of a man like John Allen Muhammad?

TUROW: Well, there's no question that the Muhammad case, assuming he's guilty, is at the far reaches of criminality. And certainly if there is a case to be made for the death penalty, it can be made in a case like this.

O'BRIEN: He's being tried, John Allen Muhammad, under two statutes, one Virginia law and the other which would be a federal terror law, which would allow for him to face the death penalty even if he is not proven to be the triggerman.

TUROW: Right.

O'BRIEN: How unusual is this case? And weigh in for me on that, about what you think about that second statue? TUROW: Well, I think it's really interesting. The Muhammad case, despite the extremity of the crime, really illustrates many of the typical problems with the death penalty. Virginia law, generally speaking, reserves the death penalty for triggermen, that is, people who actually committed the murder, and says clearly that people who were not actually the killers cannot be put to death. And as is typical with the death penalty and the way it always expands to fit perceived needs, that's what's happening here. They're trying to apply either the terrorism branch, which is untested, or the multiple murder branch, which, quite frankly, I took a look at the statute last night, I don't understand where they're going with that.

O'BRIEN: John Allen Muhammad, as you well know, representing himself. What do you make of that?

TUROW: Oh, I think it's a very, very unwise decision. You know the old saw that he who represents himself has a fool for a client. And I think that's clearly applicable here.

O'BRIEN: You think it's a straight path to the death penalty?

TUROW: I certainly think that he's likely to antagonize the jury, it sounds from the reports, and I, of course, have been nowhere near the courtroom. It sounds like he's doing his best to be polite, but typically prose defendants, that is, people who are representing themselves, don't understand the legal niceties and they tend to be obsessed, of course, with their own case, and they often really aggravate juries.

O'BRIEN: Lee Boyd Malvo, let's turn and talk about him for a minute, 17 years old at the time that the crimes were committed. He faces death, as you well know, in Virginia. Do you think he should be facing the death sentence?

TUROW: Well, the Malvo case presents an issue that is really ripe for a decision right now by the United States Supreme Court, which is basically are we going to continue to execute juveniles in the United States. The Supreme Court ruled last year that persons who suffer from mental retardation are not eligible for execution. And so the next question is how developed as a human being does somebody have to be before the death penalty applies to him or her? And Malvo, who was 17 at the time of the crimes, is very likely to present a test case on that issue.

O'BRIEN: And what do you think of the tack that his lawyers are taking, which is insanity and yet not a matter of understanding right and wrong, a sort of a sense of one's will can be subjugated by another person? It's unusual.

TUROW: It's very unusual. It sounds like a defense of undue influence. I don't know enough about Virginia law to speculate on whether or not it's going to be successful. But typically in the United States, where insanity is defined as not knowing the difference between right and wrong, it would not be a winner in most jurisdictions.

O'BRIEN: Lawyer and author Scott Turow joining us this morning.

Scott, thanks.

It's nice to see you.

TUROW: You're welcome, Soledad.

Good to be with you.

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