Return to Transcripts main page

CNN Sunday Morning

Interview With Pamela Hayes, Michael Smerconish

Aired August 11, 2002 - 08:04   ET

THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.

ANDERSON COOPER, CNN ANCHOR: We will begin this morning with the anthrax investigation. The former Army biotech researcher named in the probe is going public this afternoon, to talk about how he's been treated by authorities. Dr. Steven Hatfill is one of the many scientists under scrutiny in last fall's deadly anthrax attacks, but he was by far -- he has by far gained the most public attention in the probe, and he's angry about that, as lawyers complained to the Justice Department about leaks in the case. The recent highly publicized search of Hatfill's Maryland apartment complex.
Hatfill told the "Washington Post", quote, "I went from being someone with pride in my work, pride in my profession, to be made into the biggest criminal of the 21st century, for something I never touched. What I've been trying to contribute, my work is finished, my life is destroyed."

So, is Steven Hatfill being tried in the news media? We're going to ask out legal panel. We'll also discuss some other cases that made headlines last week.

Joining us are trial attorney, and radio talk show host, Michael Smerconish.

MICHAEL SMERCONISH, ATTORNEY AND TALK SHOW HOST: Good morning.

COOPER: And criminal defense attorney, Pamela Hayes. Thanks very much for being with us, both of you.

Pamela, let me start off with you. You know, Dr. Steven Hatfill is basically coming out today, and saying he's been victimized. That he's the subject of unfair leaks by law enforcement, and that he's being tried in the media, that he's had his life destroyed. Does he have a case?

PAMELA HAYES, CRIMINAL DEFENSE ATTORNEY: Absolutely, 100 percent, he does. The problem with, when you have leaks is, before the government can get this case together, they publicize it, and by publicizing it, you destroy somebody's life. This is Richard Jewell all over again. Unless you can actually get an indictment, get some type of credible document, charging document -- you don't need to put the evidence out there, until you can be certain, because if it doesn't come to fruition, you have a problem.

COOPER: Michael, I see you shaking your head.

SMERCONISH: Yes, I don't with Pamela -- I mean, the bottom line is; I don't if he did it or he didn't do it, meaning the anthrax attacks, but I'm not loosing any sleep over Mr. Hatfill's concerns about his treatment at the hands of the government, and that's for this reason: He fits the profile of what our investigators are looking for right now. They think this is the work of an insider, who wanted to warn the United States about the threat of attack from germ warfare.

He's been an outspoken critic of our lack of defense against germ warfare, and there are a number of questions that have been raised about his own background. Was he really in the Special Forces, like he claims? Does he have the doctorate that he maintains that he has? He worked for a CIA subcontractor, and he was fired because he failed a lie detector test. I want this man looked at in a long manner.

COOPER: But, Michael, what about the name Richard Jewell? I mean, you know, as Pamela brought up the Richard Jewell case, in which, you know, people early on suspected him, and he's been cleared of all charges.

SMERCONISH: It's unfortunate, what happened with Richard Jewell, but, you know, this countries at war right now, and we're going to have to stop sitting around and wringing our hands and have -- philosophizing over rights, and so forth, and instead decide that the greater good for all of us, unfortunately, sometimes is going to catch individuals in the process that maybe don't deserve the treatment that they received. But until this man is proven -- until this man is proven is to be innocent, unfortunately, this is the way that it's got to be, Pamela.

HAYES: No, it's not -- it's -- until he's proven guilty, nobody has an quarrel, least of all me, with some -- with the government doing a proper investigation; it just doesn't have to be publicized. We don't gain anything by having someone vilified in the media, unless we know they deserve it. They could do this, they don't have to leak the information. It's against public policy to do those type of things, and we gain nothing. We're tarring somebody's reputation, but we don't make the case.

SMERCONISH: You're acting as if the FBI put out a press release, and said, "We're about to serve a search warrant, please show up, media, with your helicopters." There's so much attention on this case from the media already.

COOPER: Well, Michael, let me, if I could, just point out here, I mean, there are a lot of people who say, look, you know, this man has been the subject of a lot -- of an awful of leaks by law enforcement. I think, in fact, his attorneys have contacted law enforcement about those leaks, but it does seem that there's this new category, Michael, I'd like to hear your thoughts on it, where the police just say publicly, "This person is not a suspect, but they're an interesting person." And are we creating a new class of, you know, non-suspect, of someone who can be sort of be the accused without actually being the accused?

SMERCONISH: I think, Anderson, that it's a technique that's used by law enforcement, and I'm not about to take that tool away from them. I think it's a process whereby they want to take a long look at somebody, but they don't want to outright say that they are doing so. And it's probably intended to make the person unsettled and perhaps to stumble, and to reveal information that they would not otherwise have.

Look, again, this is not a lab experiment; we're not sitting in a classroom. We're in a country that right now is a war, and we should start acting like we're at war.

COOPER: All right, let's move onto the other -- a lot of cases in the news, I want to try to touch on this morning.

The New Jersey drunk driving case; Friday a mistrial was declared, jury basically found him not guilty of manslaughter, but couldn't come to terms on two other charges. Prosecutors says he's going to refile this thing, he's going to pursue two of those charges.

Michael, do you think he should?

SMERCONISH: No, this is a prosecution that should never have been brought. The gentleman who was the DUI driver and is now dead -- his name is Pangle. If Pangle had lived but if the Navy ensign had died, Pangle alone would have been charged. But in this case, both the DUI driver and the man that he ran into both lost their lives, and I think that law enforcement, wanting to excuse its own conduct in letting this man return to his automobile brought these charges.

One thing I want to tell you. Mr. Pangle's sister called my radio show within an hour of this verdict, and I found it very interesting that the dead DUI family members, they blame him and not the best friend. And I think they have the right attitude about it. It's the guy who was driving drunk who's at fault, not is best friend.

COOPER: Pamela, where you surprised by the prosecutor saying they were going to try to retry this thing?

HAYES: I was mortified. This is a situation, as Michael said, that should have never come. There is not criminal liability in this case; it's a stretch to even find civil liability. In order to have a criminal case, you must have some nexus to the crime involved. In this instance, the individual who they are prosecuting did nothing. He helped the police out. It was up to the police to keep a person that they felt was drunk in their jailed facility, until he was capable of going out and getting himself home again. To call up a friend, and say, "Hey, I want you to do my job," is an outrage, and people need to focus their attention on the wrongdoer here.

The individual who perpetrated this crime was, I forget, Mr. Pegasis (ph), or...

COOPER: Pangle.

HAYES: Was Mr. Pangle. He is dead. That does not entitle us to release to the next person we think should bear some false responsibility. I think it's an outrage. I don't think they should bring the case. It should have been dismissed after the state of New Jersey presented its evidence, and that's it. If they want to try and sue this person, well, that's something else...

COOPER: All right.

HAYES: ... but you have to look at the actions of the actor involved.

COOPER: We only got about 45 seconds left, just want to briefly touch on the David Westerfield case out of California. Were you surprised, Michael, let's start with you; where you surprised that jury was given the weekend off?

SMERCONISH: Yes, I was surprised they were given the weekend off after, but it's been an unconventional trial. I'm also surprised there's not already a guilty verdict in this case, and I'm praying that they didn't buy into all the blame of the parents, for their wife swapping and pot smoking. They may have been involved in that, but it has nothing to do with the actual act of murder, and you can tell I'm convinced that Westerfield did it.

COOPER: Pamela, your final thoughts.

HAYES: I absolutely agree. I can't believe that the judge did not sequester this jury, gave them days off in the midst of a death penalty case, a potential death penalty case. These people need to be locked into that room. They need to work every day. I think they would work every day, but it's the procedure of the court that I have a question. I don't think they should be outside where they could be influenced or potentially influenced.

COOPER: All right. Pamela Hayes, Michael Smerconish, thanks very much. Interesting as always to talk to you this morning. Thanks a lot.

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