Return to Transcripts main page
American Morning
Malvo Jury Rejected Defense Argument He Was Brainwashed
Aired December 19, 2003 - 08:11 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: In reaching their verdict, the Malvo jury rejected the defense argument that he was brainwashed by his older accomplice, John Muhammad.
Attorney Peter Greenspun defended Muhammad in the first sniper trial and he joins us this morning from Washington, D.C. for an exclusive interview with his reaction to the Malvo verdict.
Nice to see you, Peter.
Thanks for joining us.
PETER GREENSPUN, ATTORNEY FOR JOHN MUHAMMAD: Good morning.
O'BRIEN: Let's start with your reaction.
Any surprise to you that he was convicted?
GREENSPUN: Well, ultimately I think that the letters that Malvo wrote at the jail over the summer really removed any chance there was for a successful insanity defense. That was devastating evidence that came in at the last moment.
O'BRIEN: At the same time, it was very interesting, of course, the prosecution in the two cases taking exactly opposite tacks, right?
GREENSPUN: Well, there's only one Commonwealth of Virginia, as far as I know, and in our case, the prosecutor in his closing arguments said that Mr. Muhammad was the person that shot Linda Franklin. In the Malvo case, Mr. Horan said that Lee Malvo was the one who shot Linda Franklin. In the Malvo case, the judge said that Malvo had to be the triggerman. In our case, the judge said that the shooter did not have to be the -- that Muhammad did not have to be the triggerman.
So there are a great deal of inconsistencies both factually for the juries to consider and legally by the court's instructions.
O'BRIEN: At the same time, many people said the evidence was overwhelming and certainly the jurors in the trial that you handled, the Muhammad trial, said the evidence was just completely overwhelming to them.
What do you think of the defense strategy in the Malvo case?
GREENSPUN: Well, the Malvo case was significantly different. They had the hours and hours of confessions to multiple law enforcement personnel to deal with. Once those confessions were ruled admissible, they had to deal with that and the way to do it was through this mental health defense. I think Malvo's attorneys did a tremendous job. No one knows the effort that they had to put into putting this phalanx of evidence together, dozens and dozens of witnesses from around the world, literally, many mental health people. It was just a yeoman's effort. And I think while they were seriously trying to find an insanity verdict here, that what they were doing was trying to set up, as Jean said, the sentencing phase, which they've done very well.
O'BRIEN: So then do you think your client brainwashed Lee Malvo?
GREENSPUN: Well, you know, I can't get into things that are privileged. They had their defense, we have our defense. The evidence in our case was of a circumstantial nature. There was very little evidence about what Mr. Muhammad did and our jurors really relied, I think, on a huge amount of circumstances, but also by being bludgeoned by the prosecution with picture after picture and all the emotional evidence in that case.
In the Malvo case, the court was -- the defense attorneys were dealing with different circumstances and a different defense. And the jurors had to evaluate that.
O'BRIEN: A final question for you. Did you learn anything, in retrospect, about juries and jurors that you take away from the case that you handled, and even from what you sort of witnessed in the Malvo case?
GREENSPUN: Well, you know, our system isn't perfect, and that's the really tough part of capital prosecutions and defense. What we learned in our case is, from the jurors' interviews post-trial, was that a large part of their decision to impose the death penalty was based on their view of Mr. Muhammad in the courtroom, did he look remorseful, did he look angry at his former wife when she testified. They were really reading things into his mind and into his general appearance and is that the basis upon which a decision of life or death is to be made?
I would suggest that it's not, under our system, that that's arbitrary and it's not a certainty of a basis for a result. And that's the difficulty with capital punishment in that it should be a perfect result. In this case, we don't believe that it was.
O'BRIEN: There's been much of the same criticism of Lee Malvo, we should point out.
Peter Greenspun, nice to see you this morning.
Thanks for coming in to talk to us.
Appreciate it.
GREENSPUN: Thank you, Soledad.
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 19, 2003 - 08:11 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
SOLEDAD O'BRIEN, CNN ANCHOR: In reaching their verdict, the Malvo jury rejected the defense argument that he was brainwashed by his older accomplice, John Muhammad.
Attorney Peter Greenspun defended Muhammad in the first sniper trial and he joins us this morning from Washington, D.C. for an exclusive interview with his reaction to the Malvo verdict.
Nice to see you, Peter.
Thanks for joining us.
PETER GREENSPUN, ATTORNEY FOR JOHN MUHAMMAD: Good morning.
O'BRIEN: Let's start with your reaction.
Any surprise to you that he was convicted?
GREENSPUN: Well, ultimately I think that the letters that Malvo wrote at the jail over the summer really removed any chance there was for a successful insanity defense. That was devastating evidence that came in at the last moment.
O'BRIEN: At the same time, it was very interesting, of course, the prosecution in the two cases taking exactly opposite tacks, right?
GREENSPUN: Well, there's only one Commonwealth of Virginia, as far as I know, and in our case, the prosecutor in his closing arguments said that Mr. Muhammad was the person that shot Linda Franklin. In the Malvo case, Mr. Horan said that Lee Malvo was the one who shot Linda Franklin. In the Malvo case, the judge said that Malvo had to be the triggerman. In our case, the judge said that the shooter did not have to be the -- that Muhammad did not have to be the triggerman.
So there are a great deal of inconsistencies both factually for the juries to consider and legally by the court's instructions.
O'BRIEN: At the same time, many people said the evidence was overwhelming and certainly the jurors in the trial that you handled, the Muhammad trial, said the evidence was just completely overwhelming to them.
What do you think of the defense strategy in the Malvo case?
GREENSPUN: Well, the Malvo case was significantly different. They had the hours and hours of confessions to multiple law enforcement personnel to deal with. Once those confessions were ruled admissible, they had to deal with that and the way to do it was through this mental health defense. I think Malvo's attorneys did a tremendous job. No one knows the effort that they had to put into putting this phalanx of evidence together, dozens and dozens of witnesses from around the world, literally, many mental health people. It was just a yeoman's effort. And I think while they were seriously trying to find an insanity verdict here, that what they were doing was trying to set up, as Jean said, the sentencing phase, which they've done very well.
O'BRIEN: So then do you think your client brainwashed Lee Malvo?
GREENSPUN: Well, you know, I can't get into things that are privileged. They had their defense, we have our defense. The evidence in our case was of a circumstantial nature. There was very little evidence about what Mr. Muhammad did and our jurors really relied, I think, on a huge amount of circumstances, but also by being bludgeoned by the prosecution with picture after picture and all the emotional evidence in that case.
In the Malvo case, the court was -- the defense attorneys were dealing with different circumstances and a different defense. And the jurors had to evaluate that.
O'BRIEN: A final question for you. Did you learn anything, in retrospect, about juries and jurors that you take away from the case that you handled, and even from what you sort of witnessed in the Malvo case?
GREENSPUN: Well, you know, our system isn't perfect, and that's the really tough part of capital prosecutions and defense. What we learned in our case is, from the jurors' interviews post-trial, was that a large part of their decision to impose the death penalty was based on their view of Mr. Muhammad in the courtroom, did he look remorseful, did he look angry at his former wife when she testified. They were really reading things into his mind and into his general appearance and is that the basis upon which a decision of life or death is to be made?
I would suggest that it's not, under our system, that that's arbitrary and it's not a certainty of a basis for a result. And that's the difficulty with capital punishment in that it should be a perfect result. In this case, we don't believe that it was.
O'BRIEN: There's been much of the same criticism of Lee Malvo, we should point out.
Peter Greenspun, nice to see you this morning.
Thanks for coming in to talk to us.
Appreciate it.
GREENSPUN: Thank you, Soledad.
TO ORDER A VIDEO OF THIS TRANSCRIPT, PLEASE CALL 800-CNN-NEWS OR USE OUR SECURE ONLINE ORDER FORM LOCATED AT www.fdch.com
