Return to Transcripts main page

American Morning

Malvo Jury

Aired December 18, 2003 - 09:37   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: Now to the D.C. Sniper case. The fate of suspect Lee Malvo is in the jury's hands as they decide whether he is guilty of murder. Malvo's lawyers claim he was brainwashed by convicted sniper John Muhammad and didn't know right from wrong at the time of the killings.
Jeffrey Toobin has a look at the case for us this morning.

Good morning.

JEFFREY TOOBIN, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: Hi.

O'BRIEN: Already, they've spent more time deliberating than the other jurors spent in the John Muhammad part of this trial. What does that indicate to you, if anything?

TOOBIN: Not much. You know, there's a rough rule of thumb that lawyers sometimes use. One day of deliberation for each week of testimony. This was more than four weeks, this trial. It's only been one day of deliberation. Jurors in my experience, I think in most lawyers' experience, often come back on Fridays. I wouldn't be at all surprised if it went off -- if deliberations continued into tomorrow. I'd be somewhat surprised if we didn't get a verdict by tomorrow. But this is far from surprising what's going on so far.

O'BRIEN: They've had some questions. Jurors have wanted to go take a look at the car. The judge has said no to that request. They've also had some questions about phrasing of certain words, and the judge basically seems to be, so far, saying figure it out on your own.

TOOBIN: Good luck. And that's often what judges do when you have words like reason. They wanted the definition of reason. That's a word that is familiar in everyday life, and sometimes judges get into trouble when they overexplain things. Jurors don't need any special instruction on what reason means. But it also means that this jury is focusing in on the key issue in the case, is whether Malvo had the ability to exercise his own judgment, whether he was mentally ill, whether he was insane. That's the only issue in the case. The issue in the case is not whether he was one of the snipers.

O'BRIEN: So they're also asking about the charges of terrorism and capital murder. And they want to know if those are separate charges are, or are those charges that are considered together. What does that request tell you about their mindset?

TOOBIN: Again, these are not intuitively obvious for people who are nonlawyers. What is the difference between being a terrorist and committing murder? It's a natural question for jurors to ask. This is also, remember, an unusual law. The terrorism statute had never been used until the sniper case. It was just passed in the aftermath of 9/11. And it is a somewhat complicated law that suggests a different kind of crime beyond murder, that says if you're trying to terrorize a population and commit murder in the course of that, that's a different crime. It's understandable that jurors might have some questions about understanding what that means.

O'BRIEN: So none of this tells you which way it sounds like the jury could be leading at this point, just too early to tell?

TOOBIN: All it tells you is the evidence in this case, which is awfully strong. But in terms of the questions, you know, lawyers often tell you, is it a good question for the defense? Is it a good question for the prosecution? I think these are pretty neutral so far.

O'BRIEN: They just need more information. All right, Jeff, thank 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 December 18, 2003 - 09:37   ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
SOLEDAD O'BRIEN, CNN ANCHOR: Now to the D.C. Sniper case. The fate of suspect Lee Malvo is in the jury's hands as they decide whether he is guilty of murder. Malvo's lawyers claim he was brainwashed by convicted sniper John Muhammad and didn't know right from wrong at the time of the killings.
Jeffrey Toobin has a look at the case for us this morning.

Good morning.

JEFFREY TOOBIN, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: Hi.

O'BRIEN: Already, they've spent more time deliberating than the other jurors spent in the John Muhammad part of this trial. What does that indicate to you, if anything?

TOOBIN: Not much. You know, there's a rough rule of thumb that lawyers sometimes use. One day of deliberation for each week of testimony. This was more than four weeks, this trial. It's only been one day of deliberation. Jurors in my experience, I think in most lawyers' experience, often come back on Fridays. I wouldn't be at all surprised if it went off -- if deliberations continued into tomorrow. I'd be somewhat surprised if we didn't get a verdict by tomorrow. But this is far from surprising what's going on so far.

O'BRIEN: They've had some questions. Jurors have wanted to go take a look at the car. The judge has said no to that request. They've also had some questions about phrasing of certain words, and the judge basically seems to be, so far, saying figure it out on your own.

TOOBIN: Good luck. And that's often what judges do when you have words like reason. They wanted the definition of reason. That's a word that is familiar in everyday life, and sometimes judges get into trouble when they overexplain things. Jurors don't need any special instruction on what reason means. But it also means that this jury is focusing in on the key issue in the case, is whether Malvo had the ability to exercise his own judgment, whether he was mentally ill, whether he was insane. That's the only issue in the case. The issue in the case is not whether he was one of the snipers.

O'BRIEN: So they're also asking about the charges of terrorism and capital murder. And they want to know if those are separate charges are, or are those charges that are considered together. What does that request tell you about their mindset?

TOOBIN: Again, these are not intuitively obvious for people who are nonlawyers. What is the difference between being a terrorist and committing murder? It's a natural question for jurors to ask. This is also, remember, an unusual law. The terrorism statute had never been used until the sniper case. It was just passed in the aftermath of 9/11. And it is a somewhat complicated law that suggests a different kind of crime beyond murder, that says if you're trying to terrorize a population and commit murder in the course of that, that's a different crime. It's understandable that jurors might have some questions about understanding what that means.

O'BRIEN: So none of this tells you which way it sounds like the jury could be leading at this point, just too early to tell?

TOOBIN: All it tells you is the evidence in this case, which is awfully strong. But in terms of the questions, you know, lawyers often tell you, is it a good question for the defense? Is it a good question for the prosecution? I think these are pretty neutral so far.

O'BRIEN: They just need more information. All right, Jeff, thank 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