Return to Transcripts main page
CNN Sunday Morning
Legal Roundtable
Aired November 03, 2002 - 08:14 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.
HEIDI COLLINS, CNN ANCHOR: Right now, it is time for our "Legal Roundtable." We are going to begin with some political issues this morning, so joining us, from Philadelphia, trial attorney and talk show host, Michael Smerconish, and from Miami, criminal defense attorney Jayne Weintraub. Thanks to both of you for being here this morning.
MICHAEL SMERCONISH, TRIAL ATTORNEY: Hey, Heidi.
JAYNE WEINTRAUB, CRIMINAL DEFENSE ATTORNEY: Good morning.
COLLINS: I want to just kind of lay out quickly what we're going to talk about. We've got so much to talk about during this election, but the three issues we're going to get to this morning are the Minnesota absentee ballots, are the forgery on the absentee ballots in South Dakota, and the New Jersey sniper ad that is being used by a congressional candidate in that state.
Let's go ahead and get started. Michael, you say the Minnesota deal is boring. What do you mean by that?
SMERCONISH: Well, I think the absentee ballot issue is boring, in terms of this is the proper way to handle it. There was a dispute between the parties as to whether everyone who voted by absentee ballot should be sent a new absentee ballot, or only those who request them. And I think that the court in Minnesota made the proper determination in saying if you're now displeased with whom you voted via absentee ballot, no problem, request a new one, we'll do our best, because we only have a couple of days to send you a new ballot, but I do not think that there was a need to go back and to send absolutely everybody who voted by absentee ballot a fresh ballot.
COLLINS: Jayne, you say they only got it half right, though?
WEINTRAUB: Well, that's true, because as Michael very well knows, as does the rest of the world, this isn't that they changed their mind and they wanted a different candidate. This is due to the untimely death of Senator Wellstone. And what I might add is that this could cause or give rise to an equal protection argument under Bush versus Gore because now we're going to have different voters having different ballots.
This should not be upon request. This should be all of the ballots that were cast get automatically re-sent, because people that are traveling abroad, people that voted or cast their vote for one candidate, thinking that their vote was going to be good, then the senator died, and they don't know or they can't get to another ballot. So what have we accomplished? Again, we have people voting whose votes don't count, and that's not what we want.
SMERCONISH: Jayne, if I voted for Norm Coleman, the Republican, because I'm a Coleman believer and now the Democratic lineup has changed, I'm still comfortable, theoretically, with my vote for Coleman. I'm not yearning to vote for Walter Mondale. So why burden the system, which is already burdened because of the short time period, to send me a new absentee ballot? I don't need it.
WEINTRAUB: Why burden the system? Well, you know, I'm sure that the senator's family wouldn't think of it that way. And Michael, let me remind you that this is a vote, this is an election. This is what our country is all about. Don't you want to make sure it's as perfect as can be?
SMERCONISH: Well, but I don't need a new ballot. I voted for Coleman, I am happy with Coleman, I don't want Fritz Mondale. So why are you going to now send me a new absentee ballot and do what with the first one?
WEINTRAUB: Michael, then why don't you make a party vote. Forget the names and just make it a Democratic or Republican vote for this senatorial race. If they voted for Senator Wellstone, then they want to vote for Mondale, and that's it. Is that what you want?
SMERCONISH: Minnesota has the highest rate of participation in the country. They can handle it, but voters don't need to be sent two absentee ballots if they're comfortable with the way they filled out the first one. That's it.
COLLINS: OK, guys. Let move on. Let's move on to a different state, how about? We're going to go now to South Dakota, where we have some issues in that state about absentee ballots once again and allegations of forgery on the ballot applications. Tell me what you think about this. Jayne, why don't you go ahead and go first on this one.
WEINTRAUB: Well, unfortunately coming from Florida, we're all too familiar with voting irregularities and voter fraud that comes up in these elections. It's horrible. It is a threat to our very democracy. I think from what we've read on the wires that this woman will be arrested. I think it's nonsense for her to come up with this excuse, and I hope that, you know, the vote is protected there.
COLLINS: Just to let everybody know, we are looking at some wire copy that says she's expected of possibly 500 to 1,000 forgeries over 25 different counties.
SMERCONISH: Hey, Heidi, maybe Jayne forgot to mention she's a Democratic operative and it's a very close election. And apparently what she's done is she has forged the names of Native Americans whom she was attempting to get out and vote. The prosecutors say that they actually found her with some charred remains of absentee ballot applications. That race is expected to be so razor thin that this issue could be outcome determinative. COLLINS: And also, the county auditors are being told not to count the absentee ballots that look suspicious. Is this not a pretty subjective thing to be trying to do?
WEINTRAUB: Didn't we do that already here in Florida once? I think what they need to do, Michael, is burden the system, and I think that people need to recast their votes.
We want to protect the integrity of the vote. And that should be paramount.
SMERCONISH: It sounds like if you don't like the outcome the first time around, you want to quickly give them a second ballot. If people are comfortable with how they voted, there is no need to do it over.
COLLINS: OK, guys, last question for you. We are running out of time here. I want to get to the New Jersey congressional candidate who is using at least an image of the sniper in an ad that addresses gun control. Michael, what do you think about that?
SMERCONISH: I think that guns are a legitimate issue, but it's in poor taste. This is almost in as bad a taste as that so-called service for Senator Wellstone earlier in the week. Guns are a good issue to talk about, but you don't talk about the sniper in the short aftermath of what the country's just been through.
COLLINS: And Jayne?
WEINTRAUB: I'm sorry, Michael, but I completely agree with you. I think it's absolutely shameless exploitation.
COLLINS: Oh, don't be sorry.
WEINTRAUB: It is shameless exploitation of what's happened to the victims, to the families.
And I'll tell you something else. I think that what has happened with the sniper has affected every American. When schools were shut down, I think every parent in America could feel that. And I think to exploit any of it is disgraceful, I really do. And I agree, it is a very legitimate issue and should be argued fairly.
COLLINS: All right, Michael Smerconish and Jayne Weintraub, we do thank you for being here. We're going to visit with you again a little bit later when we're going to be talking about some more legal issues. We'll talk Winona Ryder, the butler trial and some new information about news agency access to a hearing tomorrow for 17- year-old John Lee Malvo. We'll get to that a little bit later.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
COLLINS: All right. We are back once again with Michael Smerconish and Jayne Weintraub to talk some more legal stuff. We're going to move away from the elections now and go on to some crime issues. Of course, yesterday something that happened that a lot of people have been following was the trial of the butler, Paul Burrell, for Princess Diana. The queen steps in, saves the day, says, oh, yeah, I remember a conversation that I had with Paul Burrell, and he said he was just hanging on to those items, photographs, memoirs, for safekeeping.
So, Michael, what's the deal on this? What did she know, when did she know it?
SMERCONISH: You stole my line, because that's the Howard Baker line. What did the queen know and when did she know it is the critical line here.
I find it hard to believe, because this case is all the rage in the U.K., and the queen reportedly is a big newspaper reader. And I know she's been in Canada, but they get newspapers in Canada as well. She had to know that this was the critical issue and that she had this information, and it makes me very suspect that in the end the royal family did not want the butler getting on the stand and telling secrets. And that's the only possible explanation that I can see for her late determination that she had some knowledge that she'd better share.
COLLINS: Jayne, you think this might be an issue of due process?
WEINTRAUB: Well, I certainly do. I mean, I think it's reminiscent to us here of Watergate. I mean, isn't this a classic case of the head of state, whether it be the queen or the president, interfering with the process? And to me, like to Michael, I think, it is offensive, because obviously if she knew something, she knew it. And it came through layers and layers of lawyers, only after the trial had begun.
If the man had pled guilty and was going to serve prison time, I don't think that the queen mom would have come forward so quickly. And I think it's really terrible, and it is suspicious. I think everybody in the world views it as that. I think everybody knows what happened here, and of course the dirty laundry will not be aired of Diana or her grandsons, who will be hopefully one day taking the throne.
SMERCONISH: Heidi, I think the most significant thing about the so-called butler is that apparently he never heard of e-Bay, because despite all the allegations that he stole these 310 items, he never sold anything, never attempted to sell anything. That said something to me. That in my mind gave him credibility that he really was trying to protect Lady Di, even now that she has passed. So I think he would have been vindicated had the whole tried played itself out.
COLLINS: All right, let's go ahead and move on to our next crime story. We have got Winona Ryder. A lot of people following this one, too. Very interesting things happening yesterday. We've got an ax to grind against Saks, we have got a security guard who says, they're out to get her. What is happening here? I mean, this one is going to be pretty tough to predict, don't you think, Michael?
SMERCONISH: It's amazing it's a trial with so much drama and intrigue and attention over what, $5,500 in clothing? It is remarkable to me that somehow it wasn't resolved before it got to trial.
But here's something that perhaps everybody will find interesting. What this jury is not going to hear is that Winona Ryder apparently while being detained at Saks signed a statement that said "I, Winona Ryder, agree that I have stolen these items." That's one tidbit being kept from the jury. It will also be interesting -- I guess she probably will not testify, because if she had, alleged prior bad acts, meaning five-finger discounts that may have preceded this one would have been used against her, but there is no way to tell how it turns out, at least from my perspective.
COLLINS: Do you think it's a fair trial, Jayne?
WEINTRAUB: No, and I think it's another case of celebrity injustice. I think if it were not Winona Ryder, that this never would have gotten anywhere. It would have been a diversion case and taken out of the system. This is a typical, you know, petty larceny -- grand larceny, only because of the amount of money -- that would have never made it into the system. But because it's Winona Ryder, it been sensationalized.
I also think it's very suspicious that the witness' bank account gets larger and larger. "The National Enquirer" is coming out with stories, and these tabloids only buy stories if you say the person did it. So, of course, testimony that changes is more than suspect.
I mean, Michael, again, you're trying to put the slant on it, well, she might have done it before, she did it again here. From what I've seen of the evidence that's come into court, this jury should vote not guilty because they don't have the evidence to find her guilty.
SMERCONISH: Well, if her story truly is that she was rehearsing to play the role of a kleptomaniac, I don't think that's going to fly. And that's one reason I would love to see her take the stand, because I'd like to see if that's what she's going to try and rely on.
(CROSSTALK)
COLLINS: Michael, Jayne, I'm so sorry to cut it short. We're going to have to leave it there. Everybody is going to be watching and making their own decisions by themselves. We do appreciate your expertise once again, Michael Smerconish and Jayne Weintraub.
SMERCONISH: Thanks.
COLLINS: Thanks again, guys.
WEINTRAUB: 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 November 3, 2002 - 08:14 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
HEIDI COLLINS, CNN ANCHOR: Right now, it is time for our "Legal Roundtable." We are going to begin with some political issues this morning, so joining us, from Philadelphia, trial attorney and talk show host, Michael Smerconish, and from Miami, criminal defense attorney Jayne Weintraub. Thanks to both of you for being here this morning.
MICHAEL SMERCONISH, TRIAL ATTORNEY: Hey, Heidi.
JAYNE WEINTRAUB, CRIMINAL DEFENSE ATTORNEY: Good morning.
COLLINS: I want to just kind of lay out quickly what we're going to talk about. We've got so much to talk about during this election, but the three issues we're going to get to this morning are the Minnesota absentee ballots, are the forgery on the absentee ballots in South Dakota, and the New Jersey sniper ad that is being used by a congressional candidate in that state.
Let's go ahead and get started. Michael, you say the Minnesota deal is boring. What do you mean by that?
SMERCONISH: Well, I think the absentee ballot issue is boring, in terms of this is the proper way to handle it. There was a dispute between the parties as to whether everyone who voted by absentee ballot should be sent a new absentee ballot, or only those who request them. And I think that the court in Minnesota made the proper determination in saying if you're now displeased with whom you voted via absentee ballot, no problem, request a new one, we'll do our best, because we only have a couple of days to send you a new ballot, but I do not think that there was a need to go back and to send absolutely everybody who voted by absentee ballot a fresh ballot.
COLLINS: Jayne, you say they only got it half right, though?
WEINTRAUB: Well, that's true, because as Michael very well knows, as does the rest of the world, this isn't that they changed their mind and they wanted a different candidate. This is due to the untimely death of Senator Wellstone. And what I might add is that this could cause or give rise to an equal protection argument under Bush versus Gore because now we're going to have different voters having different ballots.
This should not be upon request. This should be all of the ballots that were cast get automatically re-sent, because people that are traveling abroad, people that voted or cast their vote for one candidate, thinking that their vote was going to be good, then the senator died, and they don't know or they can't get to another ballot. So what have we accomplished? Again, we have people voting whose votes don't count, and that's not what we want.
SMERCONISH: Jayne, if I voted for Norm Coleman, the Republican, because I'm a Coleman believer and now the Democratic lineup has changed, I'm still comfortable, theoretically, with my vote for Coleman. I'm not yearning to vote for Walter Mondale. So why burden the system, which is already burdened because of the short time period, to send me a new absentee ballot? I don't need it.
WEINTRAUB: Why burden the system? Well, you know, I'm sure that the senator's family wouldn't think of it that way. And Michael, let me remind you that this is a vote, this is an election. This is what our country is all about. Don't you want to make sure it's as perfect as can be?
SMERCONISH: Well, but I don't need a new ballot. I voted for Coleman, I am happy with Coleman, I don't want Fritz Mondale. So why are you going to now send me a new absentee ballot and do what with the first one?
WEINTRAUB: Michael, then why don't you make a party vote. Forget the names and just make it a Democratic or Republican vote for this senatorial race. If they voted for Senator Wellstone, then they want to vote for Mondale, and that's it. Is that what you want?
SMERCONISH: Minnesota has the highest rate of participation in the country. They can handle it, but voters don't need to be sent two absentee ballots if they're comfortable with the way they filled out the first one. That's it.
COLLINS: OK, guys. Let move on. Let's move on to a different state, how about? We're going to go now to South Dakota, where we have some issues in that state about absentee ballots once again and allegations of forgery on the ballot applications. Tell me what you think about this. Jayne, why don't you go ahead and go first on this one.
WEINTRAUB: Well, unfortunately coming from Florida, we're all too familiar with voting irregularities and voter fraud that comes up in these elections. It's horrible. It is a threat to our very democracy. I think from what we've read on the wires that this woman will be arrested. I think it's nonsense for her to come up with this excuse, and I hope that, you know, the vote is protected there.
COLLINS: Just to let everybody know, we are looking at some wire copy that says she's expected of possibly 500 to 1,000 forgeries over 25 different counties.
SMERCONISH: Hey, Heidi, maybe Jayne forgot to mention she's a Democratic operative and it's a very close election. And apparently what she's done is she has forged the names of Native Americans whom she was attempting to get out and vote. The prosecutors say that they actually found her with some charred remains of absentee ballot applications. That race is expected to be so razor thin that this issue could be outcome determinative. COLLINS: And also, the county auditors are being told not to count the absentee ballots that look suspicious. Is this not a pretty subjective thing to be trying to do?
WEINTRAUB: Didn't we do that already here in Florida once? I think what they need to do, Michael, is burden the system, and I think that people need to recast their votes.
We want to protect the integrity of the vote. And that should be paramount.
SMERCONISH: It sounds like if you don't like the outcome the first time around, you want to quickly give them a second ballot. If people are comfortable with how they voted, there is no need to do it over.
COLLINS: OK, guys, last question for you. We are running out of time here. I want to get to the New Jersey congressional candidate who is using at least an image of the sniper in an ad that addresses gun control. Michael, what do you think about that?
SMERCONISH: I think that guns are a legitimate issue, but it's in poor taste. This is almost in as bad a taste as that so-called service for Senator Wellstone earlier in the week. Guns are a good issue to talk about, but you don't talk about the sniper in the short aftermath of what the country's just been through.
COLLINS: And Jayne?
WEINTRAUB: I'm sorry, Michael, but I completely agree with you. I think it's absolutely shameless exploitation.
COLLINS: Oh, don't be sorry.
WEINTRAUB: It is shameless exploitation of what's happened to the victims, to the families.
And I'll tell you something else. I think that what has happened with the sniper has affected every American. When schools were shut down, I think every parent in America could feel that. And I think to exploit any of it is disgraceful, I really do. And I agree, it is a very legitimate issue and should be argued fairly.
COLLINS: All right, Michael Smerconish and Jayne Weintraub, we do thank you for being here. We're going to visit with you again a little bit later when we're going to be talking about some more legal issues. We'll talk Winona Ryder, the butler trial and some new information about news agency access to a hearing tomorrow for 17- year-old John Lee Malvo. We'll get to that a little bit later.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
COLLINS: All right. We are back once again with Michael Smerconish and Jayne Weintraub to talk some more legal stuff. We're going to move away from the elections now and go on to some crime issues. Of course, yesterday something that happened that a lot of people have been following was the trial of the butler, Paul Burrell, for Princess Diana. The queen steps in, saves the day, says, oh, yeah, I remember a conversation that I had with Paul Burrell, and he said he was just hanging on to those items, photographs, memoirs, for safekeeping.
So, Michael, what's the deal on this? What did she know, when did she know it?
SMERCONISH: You stole my line, because that's the Howard Baker line. What did the queen know and when did she know it is the critical line here.
I find it hard to believe, because this case is all the rage in the U.K., and the queen reportedly is a big newspaper reader. And I know she's been in Canada, but they get newspapers in Canada as well. She had to know that this was the critical issue and that she had this information, and it makes me very suspect that in the end the royal family did not want the butler getting on the stand and telling secrets. And that's the only possible explanation that I can see for her late determination that she had some knowledge that she'd better share.
COLLINS: Jayne, you think this might be an issue of due process?
WEINTRAUB: Well, I certainly do. I mean, I think it's reminiscent to us here of Watergate. I mean, isn't this a classic case of the head of state, whether it be the queen or the president, interfering with the process? And to me, like to Michael, I think, it is offensive, because obviously if she knew something, she knew it. And it came through layers and layers of lawyers, only after the trial had begun.
If the man had pled guilty and was going to serve prison time, I don't think that the queen mom would have come forward so quickly. And I think it's really terrible, and it is suspicious. I think everybody in the world views it as that. I think everybody knows what happened here, and of course the dirty laundry will not be aired of Diana or her grandsons, who will be hopefully one day taking the throne.
SMERCONISH: Heidi, I think the most significant thing about the so-called butler is that apparently he never heard of e-Bay, because despite all the allegations that he stole these 310 items, he never sold anything, never attempted to sell anything. That said something to me. That in my mind gave him credibility that he really was trying to protect Lady Di, even now that she has passed. So I think he would have been vindicated had the whole tried played itself out.
COLLINS: All right, let's go ahead and move on to our next crime story. We have got Winona Ryder. A lot of people following this one, too. Very interesting things happening yesterday. We've got an ax to grind against Saks, we have got a security guard who says, they're out to get her. What is happening here? I mean, this one is going to be pretty tough to predict, don't you think, Michael?
SMERCONISH: It's amazing it's a trial with so much drama and intrigue and attention over what, $5,500 in clothing? It is remarkable to me that somehow it wasn't resolved before it got to trial.
But here's something that perhaps everybody will find interesting. What this jury is not going to hear is that Winona Ryder apparently while being detained at Saks signed a statement that said "I, Winona Ryder, agree that I have stolen these items." That's one tidbit being kept from the jury. It will also be interesting -- I guess she probably will not testify, because if she had, alleged prior bad acts, meaning five-finger discounts that may have preceded this one would have been used against her, but there is no way to tell how it turns out, at least from my perspective.
COLLINS: Do you think it's a fair trial, Jayne?
WEINTRAUB: No, and I think it's another case of celebrity injustice. I think if it were not Winona Ryder, that this never would have gotten anywhere. It would have been a diversion case and taken out of the system. This is a typical, you know, petty larceny -- grand larceny, only because of the amount of money -- that would have never made it into the system. But because it's Winona Ryder, it been sensationalized.
I also think it's very suspicious that the witness' bank account gets larger and larger. "The National Enquirer" is coming out with stories, and these tabloids only buy stories if you say the person did it. So, of course, testimony that changes is more than suspect.
I mean, Michael, again, you're trying to put the slant on it, well, she might have done it before, she did it again here. From what I've seen of the evidence that's come into court, this jury should vote not guilty because they don't have the evidence to find her guilty.
SMERCONISH: Well, if her story truly is that she was rehearsing to play the role of a kleptomaniac, I don't think that's going to fly. And that's one reason I would love to see her take the stand, because I'd like to see if that's what she's going to try and rely on.
(CROSSTALK)
COLLINS: Michael, Jayne, I'm so sorry to cut it short. We're going to have to leave it there. Everybody is going to be watching and making their own decisions by themselves. We do appreciate your expertise once again, Michael Smerconish and Jayne Weintraub.
SMERCONISH: Thanks.
COLLINS: Thanks again, guys.
WEINTRAUB: 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
