Return to Transcripts main page

American Morning

Jury Pronounced Durst Not Guilty

Aired November 12, 2003 - 08:08   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: Well, now to the verdict in the murder trial of real estate heir Robert Durst. It looked like the prosecution had a pretty strong case. But yesterday a jury in Texas pronounced him not guilty, a decision that seemed to even surprise the defendant.
Joining us this morning, one of the jurors who heard the case, Deborah Warren.

Nice to have you.

Thanks for joining us.

DEBORAH WARREN, JUROR IN DURST TRIAL: Good morning.

O'BRIEN: It was interesting, and I think it's fair to say people are shocked by the decision in this case. But afterwards there was a clip of you talking to television cameras and you said we did what we could with what we had.

What were you referring to?

WARREN: Well, what I meant was what we had is what we had in the jury room as far as testimony, evidence, the things that were brought in front of us. And that's basically what we had. And the, as far as the judge orders to us, that we looked upon as a bible. Like I said yesterday, this is all the facts that we had to go by.

O'BRIEN: Some of us, of course, watched the case from the outside. We were shocked by some of the testimony -- going into bars dressed as a woman, dismembering Morris Black. But I read that some of the jurors really, at the end of the day, it was all about intent.

Is that what your perspective was? And explain that.

WARREN: Correct. You know, when I came in as voir dire as a juror, I was explained and told that the dismemberment of Morris Black was not how Morris died. How Morris died was the bullet. And it was upon me as a juror to decide whether or not Robert Durst intentionally or he went in there voluntarily and just killed Morris Black. And according to all the evidence we had and everything that was presented to us, this is how we came up with a verdict.

O'BRIEN: So to some degree all of the dramatic testimony, I think it's fair to say, in the case, really wasn't relevant to the actual case, is it sounds like what you're saying. WARREN: I don't say that nothing was relevant to us. We took everything. We went, I mean I can't speak on behalf of all of the jurors, but I can speak on behalf of myself that I went into this courtroom with an open mind. I didn't even know who Robert Durst was. I had no idea that he was an heir to a fortune.

O'BRIEN: A real estate fortune.

WARREN: I didn't know he was rich. I didn't have any idea of that. So I went in there with an open mind.

O'BRIEN: The prosecution said you have to find him guilty of murder or acquit him. If they had said or you can find him guilty of manslaughter -- and I realize we're talking only hypothetically here -- what do you think you would have done?

WARREN: There's a possibility you would have had a guilty verdict. But that's hypothetical. That's not what was presented to us.

O'BRIEN: What was the most important piece of evidence, in your mind, that made you clear Robert Durst -- or was it just sort of a compilation of many things?

WARREN: It was a combination of many things. I felt, personally, when they had Robert Durst on the stand that if the state could have just drilled him more and more instead of just being repetitive with the same question, coming back at him, back and forth with the same question, if they could have just drilled him -- at one point I wanted to jump up and ask them some things myself.

O'BRIEN: You think prosecutors dropped the ball in this case?

WARREN: I mean they did. They did the best that they had, you know. They did ask -- I give them all the glory, but it wasn't a strong enough rope for me to hold onto. It was things, they kept throwing different theories to me, could have been, should have been, you know, and if they could have just stuck to one story and said this is how it is. You know, we all said, you know, that we have to go by the facts, we have to go by the evidence, we have to go by the facts and this is what was given to us. And like I said yesterday, whether the media believes us, whether America believes us I can sleep. I slept last night, what little few hours I got, and I can sleep tonight and I can sleep tomorrow and I can sleep the next day because I know within my heart I did what was asked of me.

O'BRIEN: Deborah Warren, it's nice to have you this morning.

Thanks for providing a little insight for us on what I think many people think is a pretty shocking verdict this morning.

We appreciate it.

WARREN: Thank you.

O'BRIEN: Bill? HEMMER: Soledad, thanks.

We're going to pick up right where you left off.

Our legal analyst Jeffrey Toobin was on the air yesterday when the verdict came down.

He's back with us here.

Good morning.

JEFFREY TOOBIN, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: Hi.

HEMMER: You heard Ms. Warren, one of the jurors here.

TOOBIN: I heard Ms. Warren.

HEMMER: And?

TOOBIN: With all due respect, I think this verdict is madness. I mean I think this is just crazy.

HEMMER: You used the word nuts for the jury.

TOOBIN: Not personally, but I think the result, the result is nuts. There was one core genius strategy at the core -- the defense strategy. Dick DeGuerin, a legendary lawyer in Texas, he said look, all that matters in this case is what happened at the time the trigger was pulled. Everything afterwards, don't focus on. Don't focus on the fact that he cut up the body. Don't focus on the fact that he jumped bail. And that, in listening to Ms. Warren and the other jurors, that seems to have been very effective.

But I think that is crazy. If you have someone who claims self- defense, they don't cut up the body.

HEMMER: What about this claim about Ms. Warren saying they did not have enough? Does that fly with you?

TOOBIN: Well, I mean, you know, she's the juror. She's the determine -- she determines what's enough and what's not. It looked like plenty to me, that's all I can say.

HEMMER: How about this, then? You're a former prosecutor, right?

TOOBIN: I am.

HEMMER: Did the prosecution blow it?

TOOBIN: You know, it sounds like the cross-examination of Durst was not terribly effective. But, you know, I am not a big believer in blaming the lawyers one way or the other. The evidence tends to be what the evidence is. The evidence here was the guy cut up the body afterwards. He fled to Texas because he said he was under suspicion for killing his first wife, something that might, you know, set off a few alarm bells in and of itself. He's dressing as a mute woman to escape the scrutiny. I mean in the context of all this, the evidence was there. I just think the jurors made the incorrect decision.

HEMMER: Hey, I want to say that Ms. Warren is still here. She's listening to you.

TOOBIN: Right.

HEMMER: I don't mean to put either one of you on the spot, but since we're in the same studio, go ahead.

WARREN: Well, to Mr. Toobin, I respect his opinion as far as what he has to say, but Mr. Toobin has to understand, until you sit in that jury stand and until you listen to what we listened to, see I didn't have privy to listen to what you listened to that day. It was all about what was given to me that I had to go into that jury room with. And about Robert Durst having a really good, fantastic defense, I feel like this, and that goes to anybody, if you have the money, if you can afford it, get it.

TOOBIN: I couldn't agree more.

WARREN: Because, you know, maybe he couldn't have gotten off with a court-appointed lawyer. But if he had the money to pay to get him the best attorneys, then so be it. I had to be there to listen to his attorneys just like I had to sit there and listen to the State of Texas.

I'm a born on the island resident, you know, and I don't want -- I have children, I have grandchildren and I don't want criminals running loose on the street. But in the same token, just like we said in the jury room, Robert Durst has the same rights that I'm living by.

He was the person that was on trial, innocent until proven guilty. I might not like -- you might not like the verdict, but I had to go by what was given to me.

TOOBIN: You know, I think Ms. Warren and I have found some common ground. There is, there are really two legal systems in the United States, and I might say especially in Texas. There are hundreds of people on death row in Texas who didn't have a fraction of the resources that Mr. Durst did. And I think that's really the biggest explanation for this verdict, nothing else.

HEMMER: Thanks, Jeff.

Ms. Warren, thanks, as well.

As Jeffrey Toobin was quoted yesterday, it was a good day for Robert Durst.

TOOBIN: Well, it was.

HEMMER: That was an understatement.

TOOBIN: It was. HEMMER: Thanks.

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 November 12, 2003 - 08:08   ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
SOLEDAD O'BRIEN, CNN ANCHOR: Well, now to the verdict in the murder trial of real estate heir Robert Durst. It looked like the prosecution had a pretty strong case. But yesterday a jury in Texas pronounced him not guilty, a decision that seemed to even surprise the defendant.
Joining us this morning, one of the jurors who heard the case, Deborah Warren.

Nice to have you.

Thanks for joining us.

DEBORAH WARREN, JUROR IN DURST TRIAL: Good morning.

O'BRIEN: It was interesting, and I think it's fair to say people are shocked by the decision in this case. But afterwards there was a clip of you talking to television cameras and you said we did what we could with what we had.

What were you referring to?

WARREN: Well, what I meant was what we had is what we had in the jury room as far as testimony, evidence, the things that were brought in front of us. And that's basically what we had. And the, as far as the judge orders to us, that we looked upon as a bible. Like I said yesterday, this is all the facts that we had to go by.

O'BRIEN: Some of us, of course, watched the case from the outside. We were shocked by some of the testimony -- going into bars dressed as a woman, dismembering Morris Black. But I read that some of the jurors really, at the end of the day, it was all about intent.

Is that what your perspective was? And explain that.

WARREN: Correct. You know, when I came in as voir dire as a juror, I was explained and told that the dismemberment of Morris Black was not how Morris died. How Morris died was the bullet. And it was upon me as a juror to decide whether or not Robert Durst intentionally or he went in there voluntarily and just killed Morris Black. And according to all the evidence we had and everything that was presented to us, this is how we came up with a verdict.

O'BRIEN: So to some degree all of the dramatic testimony, I think it's fair to say, in the case, really wasn't relevant to the actual case, is it sounds like what you're saying. WARREN: I don't say that nothing was relevant to us. We took everything. We went, I mean I can't speak on behalf of all of the jurors, but I can speak on behalf of myself that I went into this courtroom with an open mind. I didn't even know who Robert Durst was. I had no idea that he was an heir to a fortune.

O'BRIEN: A real estate fortune.

WARREN: I didn't know he was rich. I didn't have any idea of that. So I went in there with an open mind.

O'BRIEN: The prosecution said you have to find him guilty of murder or acquit him. If they had said or you can find him guilty of manslaughter -- and I realize we're talking only hypothetically here -- what do you think you would have done?

WARREN: There's a possibility you would have had a guilty verdict. But that's hypothetical. That's not what was presented to us.

O'BRIEN: What was the most important piece of evidence, in your mind, that made you clear Robert Durst -- or was it just sort of a compilation of many things?

WARREN: It was a combination of many things. I felt, personally, when they had Robert Durst on the stand that if the state could have just drilled him more and more instead of just being repetitive with the same question, coming back at him, back and forth with the same question, if they could have just drilled him -- at one point I wanted to jump up and ask them some things myself.

O'BRIEN: You think prosecutors dropped the ball in this case?

WARREN: I mean they did. They did the best that they had, you know. They did ask -- I give them all the glory, but it wasn't a strong enough rope for me to hold onto. It was things, they kept throwing different theories to me, could have been, should have been, you know, and if they could have just stuck to one story and said this is how it is. You know, we all said, you know, that we have to go by the facts, we have to go by the evidence, we have to go by the facts and this is what was given to us. And like I said yesterday, whether the media believes us, whether America believes us I can sleep. I slept last night, what little few hours I got, and I can sleep tonight and I can sleep tomorrow and I can sleep the next day because I know within my heart I did what was asked of me.

O'BRIEN: Deborah Warren, it's nice to have you this morning.

Thanks for providing a little insight for us on what I think many people think is a pretty shocking verdict this morning.

We appreciate it.

WARREN: Thank you.

O'BRIEN: Bill? HEMMER: Soledad, thanks.

We're going to pick up right where you left off.

Our legal analyst Jeffrey Toobin was on the air yesterday when the verdict came down.

He's back with us here.

Good morning.

JEFFREY TOOBIN, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: Hi.

HEMMER: You heard Ms. Warren, one of the jurors here.

TOOBIN: I heard Ms. Warren.

HEMMER: And?

TOOBIN: With all due respect, I think this verdict is madness. I mean I think this is just crazy.

HEMMER: You used the word nuts for the jury.

TOOBIN: Not personally, but I think the result, the result is nuts. There was one core genius strategy at the core -- the defense strategy. Dick DeGuerin, a legendary lawyer in Texas, he said look, all that matters in this case is what happened at the time the trigger was pulled. Everything afterwards, don't focus on. Don't focus on the fact that he cut up the body. Don't focus on the fact that he jumped bail. And that, in listening to Ms. Warren and the other jurors, that seems to have been very effective.

But I think that is crazy. If you have someone who claims self- defense, they don't cut up the body.

HEMMER: What about this claim about Ms. Warren saying they did not have enough? Does that fly with you?

TOOBIN: Well, I mean, you know, she's the juror. She's the determine -- she determines what's enough and what's not. It looked like plenty to me, that's all I can say.

HEMMER: How about this, then? You're a former prosecutor, right?

TOOBIN: I am.

HEMMER: Did the prosecution blow it?

TOOBIN: You know, it sounds like the cross-examination of Durst was not terribly effective. But, you know, I am not a big believer in blaming the lawyers one way or the other. The evidence tends to be what the evidence is. The evidence here was the guy cut up the body afterwards. He fled to Texas because he said he was under suspicion for killing his first wife, something that might, you know, set off a few alarm bells in and of itself. He's dressing as a mute woman to escape the scrutiny. I mean in the context of all this, the evidence was there. I just think the jurors made the incorrect decision.

HEMMER: Hey, I want to say that Ms. Warren is still here. She's listening to you.

TOOBIN: Right.

HEMMER: I don't mean to put either one of you on the spot, but since we're in the same studio, go ahead.

WARREN: Well, to Mr. Toobin, I respect his opinion as far as what he has to say, but Mr. Toobin has to understand, until you sit in that jury stand and until you listen to what we listened to, see I didn't have privy to listen to what you listened to that day. It was all about what was given to me that I had to go into that jury room with. And about Robert Durst having a really good, fantastic defense, I feel like this, and that goes to anybody, if you have the money, if you can afford it, get it.

TOOBIN: I couldn't agree more.

WARREN: Because, you know, maybe he couldn't have gotten off with a court-appointed lawyer. But if he had the money to pay to get him the best attorneys, then so be it. I had to be there to listen to his attorneys just like I had to sit there and listen to the State of Texas.

I'm a born on the island resident, you know, and I don't want -- I have children, I have grandchildren and I don't want criminals running loose on the street. But in the same token, just like we said in the jury room, Robert Durst has the same rights that I'm living by.

He was the person that was on trial, innocent until proven guilty. I might not like -- you might not like the verdict, but I had to go by what was given to me.

TOOBIN: You know, I think Ms. Warren and I have found some common ground. There is, there are really two legal systems in the United States, and I might say especially in Texas. There are hundreds of people on death row in Texas who didn't have a fraction of the resources that Mr. Durst did. And I think that's really the biggest explanation for this verdict, nothing else.

HEMMER: Thanks, Jeff.

Ms. Warren, thanks, as well.

As Jeffrey Toobin was quoted yesterday, it was a good day for Robert Durst.

TOOBIN: Well, it was.

HEMMER: That was an understatement.

TOOBIN: It was. HEMMER: Thanks.

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