Return to Transcripts main page

CNN Sunday Morning

Legal Roundtable

Aired September 01, 2002 - 08:23   ET

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

CATHERINE CALLAWAY, CNN ANCHOR: What a full plate we have on our legal roundtable this morning. We have murder, abduction, an apology for a front page faux pas, and joining us now from Philadelphia is trial attorney, talk show host Michael Smerconish, and from New York, criminal defense attorney Pamela Hayes. Thank you for being with us this morning.
MICHAEL SMERCONISH, TRIAL ATTORNEY: Good morning.

PAMELA HAYES, CRIMINAL DEFENSE ATTORNEY: Good morning.

CALLAWAY: Doing my stretch in here, waiting for this one, because this is going to be a good one between you two today.

Let's start with the Philadelphia story. "The Philadelphia Daily News" is apologizing for running some mug shots on the front page of a dozen fugitive murder suspects. They were all minorities in this. You're looking at it now. And managing editor Ellen Folley (ph) wrote an apology about this, saying it was a mistake, because it might have been an incorrect message that only black men commit murder. And let's get to you first, sir. I know you're not real happy with that apology that was issued, where you?

SMERCONISH: Well, I think it was an unnecessary apology, and Catherine, I'm a columnist for the "Philadelphia Daily News"...

CALLAWAY: Yes, I know...

SMERCONISH: ... so, this is my newspaper. Let me tell you what went on here. Forty-one individuals were identified by the homicide unit of the Philadelphia Police Department as being wanted for murder. None of them were Caucasian. They were overwhelmingly African- American. Some were Asian, a few were Hispanic.

So, "The Philadelphia Daily News," I think, performed a public service by profiling 27 of these individuals, 15 of them were placed on the cover. No one has questioned the veracity, the truthfulness of the reporting, and because there was some political pressure brought to bear on the newspaper, they've apologized. I think it was unnecessary, and a mistake.

CALLAWAY: Do you think that apology was needed, Pamela?

HAYES: I think if there were white suspects that were not printed in that composite of suspects, that it was a problem, because it does send a subliminal message that only non-whites are criminals. But if Michael -- if what Michael says is right, that there were no white suspects to put on the papers, then they had no choice, and an apology would not be necessary. But I'm very concerned to say that in the city of Philadelphia, there were no white suspects that the police were looking for that the public needed to be aware of.

CALLAWAY: Michael, is it a fact that there were not any white suspects?

SMERCONISH: There were no white suspects. It was -- it was, you know, it's unfortunate that "The Daily News" is getting caught in the crossfire, and being blamed by some members of the minority community -- and by the way, Catherine, chief among them is the son of the mayor of the city of Philadelphia, who himself is a prominent layer and wrote to the newspaper and he said that it has made it more difficult for him to be an African-American male. But the fact of the matter is, it's the cops who identified the 41 individuals that they're looking for...

CALLAWAY: Yes.

SMERCONISH: ... none of them are white guys, none of them.

CALLAWAY: All right, let's move on to another...

HAYES: I would have to wonder about that, because you would wonder why a major news outlet would just go ahead and make an apology when they know they weren't wrong. I think it's important that the newspaper let them public know that there were no white suspects for them to report about. Well, unfortunately, they didn't do that, and that in of itself is a problem, because we don't have the whole story, and people are only passing on what they surmise is true.

I just think that there are some suspects somewhere, and they weren't run.

CALLAWAY: All right, let's move on now to the Elizabeth Smart case out of Utah. As you know this week, Richard Ricci died. He was the handyman for the Smart family. A lot of concern now that even though he was never charged in that case, that this case is dead in the water, or what's going to happen now?

Let's start with you, Michael.

SMERCONISH: Well, there's not going to be a confession, I guess that's the one thing that we know for sure in the aftermath of his death. I hope that this family gets some closure. I would hate to think that this is now going in the direction of the JonBenet Ramsey case, where years later we're still wondering what happened.

Hey, maybe, Catherine, there's been divine intervention in this case, I don't know.

CALLAWAY: Pam, what do you think about this? He wasn't charged. What could happen know? Could we -- or will we ever hear what evidence, if any, the police had against him? HAYES: I hope we will, because this was a really tough break, because the way, I think most people have read this case that was -- there was a lot of information that the public didn't have. They had this suspect, and they were using him as leverage, hoping that he knew something, and he would come forward and tell us. Now, he's gone. Now, what the police have to do is if they have anymore information, they're going to have to put that information out so that people could hear about it, and maybe try to put things together.

I find this all very strange. This is the second suspect that something has happened to. If you recall, the first guy had a drug overdose, and you know, he mysteriously ended -- landed up in the hospital.

CALLAWAY: Are you implying that someone did something to them? I mean, be clear here.

HAYES: I don't know, no one has told us. All of a sudden, he gets a brain hemorrhage, like out of the clear blue sky? It's difficult to believe that something's not going on somewhere.

SMERCONISH: Hey, divine intervention, as I said. Maybe a higher authority has brought this to some closure.

CALLAWAY: I don't know, you guys are reaching into conspiracy theories here. I just want to know the facts at this point. And, Michael, are we going to hear exactly now -- are we going to hear exactly what the police had?

SMERCONISH: Well, you would, you would hope that now they would be more forthcoming and that they would lay out the record, whatever the record may be with regard to the evidence on Mr. Ricci, because they certainly don't need to protect him the way that they would if he were alive and among us.

CALLAWAY: All right. Let's move on to another case right now, with the Michael -- the Michael Skakel case. Too many unanswered questions in this one?

SMERCONISH: No.

HAYES: Indeed there are.

CALLAWAY: All right.

HAYES: You know, I just never was sure, Cathy, I just never was sure. This case was a very old case. There was no smoking gun. It wasn't a real confession of the (UNINTELLIGIBLE). He actually sat down and said, listen, this is what I did. The people who he talked to are very suspect. You know, 20 years is a long time. If he did do this to this young girl, he certainly deserves it.

I just wasn't convinced beyond the reasonable doubt that he did it, and I think there are a lot of legal issues that are left over, whether or not he will ever spend his 20 years, is -- remains to be seen. CALLAWAY: And this from a defense attorney, we must say.

HAYES: Yes, of course.

CALLAWAY: Oh, right, but, Michael, what do you think? Was there enough evidence? Obviously he was convicted -- what about if you'd been on the jury?

SMERCONISH: Apparently, the jurors believe that there was -- there was convincing evidence of this man's guilt. I don't like 20 years to life for taking the life of a 15-year-old girl. It seems much too light of a sentence.

On the other hand, it could have been worse, because you know that he could have only been given 10 years and would have gotten out in six on probation. That was my fear, and my concern was that the Kennedy name was going to cut him some slack, but in the end, it did not, and that's a good thing.

CALLAWAY: Let me ask you, do you think the sentence would have been a little big tougher had this been done, you know, 15 years ago?

SMERCONISH: You know what, the standards that were in effect here for the sentencing were the 1975 standards, and that's why it was such a light penalty because the penalties have gotten more severe over the years.

CALLAWAY: Over the years. Right. All right. We don't have a lot of time, but I do want to talk about David Westerfield, because we are talking about sentencing and what you feel would be appropriate in this case. He is, of course, found guilty in the Danielle van Dam abduction and murder. What would be the right sentence for him? Let's start with you, Pamela.

HAYES: Unfortunately, I'm not a big death penalty advocate, but in this instance I think that the death penalty is an appropriate sentence for the defendant in this case, because this is the life of a 7-year-old defenseless little girl who had nothing to do but grow up and be a normal, productive citizen. And he snuffed out her life. And there aren't going to be any mitigating factors that can remove that from the jury mind. And if you don't give the penalty in this particular case, what case is there for you to give it in?

CALLAWAY: And that from a defense attorney. I'm shocked. What about you, Michael?

SMERCONISH: I say the man deserves a date with old sparky, or whatever it is that exists on the books in California. But here's what I don't like. This is an academic debate. He's 50 years old. California does not execute with regularity. There's a backlog of folks on death row, and so, you know, this is kind of a sham that we're even having such a debate in the court system because he's going to spend the rest of his days in prison. That's the bottom line.

CALLAWAY: In New York, we have criminal defense attorney Pamela Hayes, thank you for being with us. And Michael, I want to apologize, I think I mispronounced your last name.

SMERCONISH: I'm used to it.

CALLAWAY: (UNINTELLIGIBLE) and I apologize because it's so unfair.

Michael Smerconish. Right?

SMERCONISH: You got it.

CALLAWAY: I apologize.

SMERCONISH: Come on, I'm used to it. Are you kidding?

CALLAWAY: Just don't yell at me on the radio when you're on, please. Be kind, be kind, because you're my favorite one we have on. We love having you on. Thank you both for being with us today.

SMERCONISH: Bye-bye.

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