Return to Transcripts main page

CNN Sunday Morning

Legal Briefs

Aired December 01, 2002 - 08:32   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.


CATHERINE CALLAWAY, CNN ANCHOR: It is time now for our "Legal Briefs." A look at the week's news stories through a legal perspective. We have two guests to lend their expertise. Trial attorney and talk show host Michael Smerconish, he is in Philadelphia. And joining us from Cleveland this morning is civil rights attorney Avery Friedman.
Gentlemen, thank you both for being back with us this weekend. We had a good segment last weekend and we'll have you guys back to hear your perspective on the latest developments. And this week, boy, did we have some.

First, let's go to this Frontline television program now having permission to in a Houston courtroom a judge has agreed to let this PBS crew into the jury deliberations to videotape it. And this is a death penalty case, a 17-year-old convicted of capital murder, Cedric Harrison (ph).

Let's get your thoughts on that. Let's start with you, Avery.

AVERY FRIEDMAN, CIVIL RIGHTS ATTORNEY: Well, you know, it's interesting -- there are more murder convictions in Harris County than any place in the nation. Judge Ted Poe has decided to put cameras into jury deliberations. This is supposed to be private. And it's heading on its way to the Texas Supreme Court. My prediction, it's going to be reversed. No cameras in jury deliberations.

CALLAWAY: Michael, what do you think? Is the Supreme Court going to say no way?

MICHAEL SMERCONISH, TRIAL ATTORNEY/TALK SHOW HOST: I think there should not be cameras in a deliberation room. I think the people have an expectation of privacy, much as they do in a voting booth. And frankly, I see this as a subterfuge for the anti-death penalty crowd, because Catherine, I can just imagine if they were to televise something, they would take one snippet of the debate and they would say, oh, can you imagine that this young man's life was determined by such an argument.

Hey, this is a 17-year-old who committed an act of murder allegedly himself. And I just don't think we need it. I think that the O.J. jury and that process taught us that sometimes cameras themselves can have a bad effect. And this would be the worst example of all.

FRIEDMAN: I don't agree with that. I think you should have cameras in the courtroom. And I think with restraints, it works. But in deliberations, I think Michael and I agree, it has no place in deliberations.

CALLAWAY: Yeah, Avery, we'd think the defense attorney might want the camera in there, because it might be good if he's convicted in a possible appeals argument.

FRIEDMAN: Well, but see, that's the whole problem. The whole idea of jury deliberation unlike the open trial itself is really predicated on the private deliberation, thought processes of those who take an oath to listen to instructions and make a decision on the facts. It's a bad move. It's a bad precedent. And that's why I'm predicting unanimous reversal by the Texas Supreme Court.

CALLAWAY: Michael, if you want to be a boy scout leader, you're going to have to have a criminal background check on your history. I'm curious on what your thoughts are on Boy Scouts of America requiring this background check.

SMERCONISH: Well, I think I could pass that examination. And I think it's a good thing. Look, if you want to be a volunteer or in certain professions, Little League activities, school teachers. In this day and age, absolutely, you should be subjected to some form of a background examination. It's a step in the right direction.

CALLAWAY: Avery, what do you think?

FRIEDMAN: You know what's astounding? There are 1.2 million volunteers. And you know when the Boy Scouts are going to kick this new policy in, in other words, checking on criminals and rapists and murderers? In April of 2003. In other words, if you're a law abiding citizen and you happen to be gay, you're out right now, but if you happen to be a murderer, for the time being it's OK to be a scout leader.

CALLAWAY: Some people may say, why didn't they do this sooner. If these people are, you know, looking out for my children, you want to know if they had any kind of a conviction like that.

FRIEDMAN: Isn't it stunning? Isn't it stunning? I mean, I'm a beneficiary of scouting. It was a terrific experience. And I think most kids feel the same way. But to think that it's going to take the Boy Scouts until 2003 to start a criminal background check to me is stunning.

CALLAWAY: All right, you know, we've got other topics, but I want to get to this one because it's somewhat humorous and I think that our audience will enjoy it.

Pennsylvania trial judge saying that because a man gave a woman a ring, told her it was a diamond ring but it wasn't, that the prenuptial agreement should be void. But that's not really the story here. The story here is that when he issued this, he did it in the form of a poem. And we have a little bit of that for everyone to see if they want to hear this poem. "A groom must expect matrimonial pandemonium when his spouse finds he's given her a cubic zirconium -- instead of a diamond in her engagement band, the one he said was worth 21 grand."

Michael, I guess the Supreme Court says that this trial judge did not have poetic license.

SMERCONISH: Well, funny thing is that's Pennsylvania Supreme Court Justice Mike Akin (ph), who's relatively new to the bench. The chief judge of the Supreme Court said, you know, that's a little bit demeaning for us to write our opinions in rhyme. Let me tell you, Catherine, as one who read hundreds of opinions in law school and has been doing so for the last 10 years, it's one of the only opinions that I remember. I think it was well written, and I think he made his point.

CALLAWAY: But, Avery, the court disagreed not only with the fact that he wrote it in rhyme, but his ruling, you know, the entire ruling. They said that she should have had the diamond ring appraised.

FRIEDMAN: You know what, I agree with that. First of all, not only is it bad rhyme, but it's bad law. And I don't know what's going on in Pennsylvania. I think Michael knows about this better than I, because there's something strange going on in Pennsylvania.

SMERCONISH: Well, wait a minute. What happened here was a guy hands over a bogus ring and he says it's worth 21 grand. And by the way, will you sign the prenup. And what Justice Akin was trying to say is, if you're giving her a fraudulent ring, then your prenup is fraudulent as well.

CALLAWAY: And the Supreme Court is saying no, you know, she should have had it appraised. But you know, I guess it's part of history now. A little poem in the record books, right?

SMERCONISH: Right.

CALLAWAY: All right. Thank you very much for being with us, guys. Hope you come back next weekend.

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 1, 2002 - 08:32   ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
CATHERINE CALLAWAY, CNN ANCHOR: It is time now for our "Legal Briefs." A look at the week's news stories through a legal perspective. We have two guests to lend their expertise. Trial attorney and talk show host Michael Smerconish, he is in Philadelphia. And joining us from Cleveland this morning is civil rights attorney Avery Friedman.
Gentlemen, thank you both for being back with us this weekend. We had a good segment last weekend and we'll have you guys back to hear your perspective on the latest developments. And this week, boy, did we have some.

First, let's go to this Frontline television program now having permission to in a Houston courtroom a judge has agreed to let this PBS crew into the jury deliberations to videotape it. And this is a death penalty case, a 17-year-old convicted of capital murder, Cedric Harrison (ph).

Let's get your thoughts on that. Let's start with you, Avery.

AVERY FRIEDMAN, CIVIL RIGHTS ATTORNEY: Well, you know, it's interesting -- there are more murder convictions in Harris County than any place in the nation. Judge Ted Poe has decided to put cameras into jury deliberations. This is supposed to be private. And it's heading on its way to the Texas Supreme Court. My prediction, it's going to be reversed. No cameras in jury deliberations.

CALLAWAY: Michael, what do you think? Is the Supreme Court going to say no way?

MICHAEL SMERCONISH, TRIAL ATTORNEY/TALK SHOW HOST: I think there should not be cameras in a deliberation room. I think the people have an expectation of privacy, much as they do in a voting booth. And frankly, I see this as a subterfuge for the anti-death penalty crowd, because Catherine, I can just imagine if they were to televise something, they would take one snippet of the debate and they would say, oh, can you imagine that this young man's life was determined by such an argument.

Hey, this is a 17-year-old who committed an act of murder allegedly himself. And I just don't think we need it. I think that the O.J. jury and that process taught us that sometimes cameras themselves can have a bad effect. And this would be the worst example of all.

FRIEDMAN: I don't agree with that. I think you should have cameras in the courtroom. And I think with restraints, it works. But in deliberations, I think Michael and I agree, it has no place in deliberations.

CALLAWAY: Yeah, Avery, we'd think the defense attorney might want the camera in there, because it might be good if he's convicted in a possible appeals argument.

FRIEDMAN: Well, but see, that's the whole problem. The whole idea of jury deliberation unlike the open trial itself is really predicated on the private deliberation, thought processes of those who take an oath to listen to instructions and make a decision on the facts. It's a bad move. It's a bad precedent. And that's why I'm predicting unanimous reversal by the Texas Supreme Court.

CALLAWAY: Michael, if you want to be a boy scout leader, you're going to have to have a criminal background check on your history. I'm curious on what your thoughts are on Boy Scouts of America requiring this background check.

SMERCONISH: Well, I think I could pass that examination. And I think it's a good thing. Look, if you want to be a volunteer or in certain professions, Little League activities, school teachers. In this day and age, absolutely, you should be subjected to some form of a background examination. It's a step in the right direction.

CALLAWAY: Avery, what do you think?

FRIEDMAN: You know what's astounding? There are 1.2 million volunteers. And you know when the Boy Scouts are going to kick this new policy in, in other words, checking on criminals and rapists and murderers? In April of 2003. In other words, if you're a law abiding citizen and you happen to be gay, you're out right now, but if you happen to be a murderer, for the time being it's OK to be a scout leader.

CALLAWAY: Some people may say, why didn't they do this sooner. If these people are, you know, looking out for my children, you want to know if they had any kind of a conviction like that.

FRIEDMAN: Isn't it stunning? Isn't it stunning? I mean, I'm a beneficiary of scouting. It was a terrific experience. And I think most kids feel the same way. But to think that it's going to take the Boy Scouts until 2003 to start a criminal background check to me is stunning.

CALLAWAY: All right, you know, we've got other topics, but I want to get to this one because it's somewhat humorous and I think that our audience will enjoy it.

Pennsylvania trial judge saying that because a man gave a woman a ring, told her it was a diamond ring but it wasn't, that the prenuptial agreement should be void. But that's not really the story here. The story here is that when he issued this, he did it in the form of a poem. And we have a little bit of that for everyone to see if they want to hear this poem. "A groom must expect matrimonial pandemonium when his spouse finds he's given her a cubic zirconium -- instead of a diamond in her engagement band, the one he said was worth 21 grand."

Michael, I guess the Supreme Court says that this trial judge did not have poetic license.

SMERCONISH: Well, funny thing is that's Pennsylvania Supreme Court Justice Mike Akin (ph), who's relatively new to the bench. The chief judge of the Supreme Court said, you know, that's a little bit demeaning for us to write our opinions in rhyme. Let me tell you, Catherine, as one who read hundreds of opinions in law school and has been doing so for the last 10 years, it's one of the only opinions that I remember. I think it was well written, and I think he made his point.

CALLAWAY: But, Avery, the court disagreed not only with the fact that he wrote it in rhyme, but his ruling, you know, the entire ruling. They said that she should have had the diamond ring appraised.

FRIEDMAN: You know what, I agree with that. First of all, not only is it bad rhyme, but it's bad law. And I don't know what's going on in Pennsylvania. I think Michael knows about this better than I, because there's something strange going on in Pennsylvania.

SMERCONISH: Well, wait a minute. What happened here was a guy hands over a bogus ring and he says it's worth 21 grand. And by the way, will you sign the prenup. And what Justice Akin was trying to say is, if you're giving her a fraudulent ring, then your prenup is fraudulent as well.

CALLAWAY: And the Supreme Court is saying no, you know, she should have had it appraised. But you know, I guess it's part of history now. A little poem in the record books, right?

SMERCONISH: Right.

CALLAWAY: All right. Thank you very much for being with us, guys. Hope you come back next weekend.

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