Return to Transcripts main page
CNN Sunday Morning
Legal Briefs
Aired December 22, 2002 - 08:21 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.
FREDRICKA WHITFIELD, CNN ANCHOR: Time now for our "Legal Briefs." From the airport to the baseball diamond to the recording studio, we're checking what's on the docket. We're joined today by trial attorney and talk show host Michael Smerconish in Philadelphia.
MICHAEL SMERCONISH, TRIAL ATTORNEY/TALK SHOW HOST: Good morning.
WHITFIELD: And in Miami, Lida Rodriguez-Taseff, president of the ACLU of Miami. Good to see both of you.
LIDA RODRIGUEZ-TASEFF, PRESIDENT, ACLU OF MIAMI: Good morning.
SMERCONISH: Hi.
WHITFIELD: All right, let's begin with the inmate issue, the release of, or the early release of 567 inmates in Kentucky because that state is looking at a $500 million deficit.
Michael, don't an awful lot of states take the very, a very similar measure? They've got to do something about the overcrowding issue, right?
SMERCONISH: Well, the inmates are truly running the asylum at this point. You know, it's funny to me that all of a sudden you hear we're only letting out those who are not a danger to others. Well, there's some reason, Fredricka, why they were incarcerated to begin with and that reason? They're dangerous.
WHITFIELD: And we're talking about people with offenses such as burglary, some who were fugitives and some who were convicted of arms possession.
SMERCONISH: Hey, if we're letting 'em out, I don't want 'em let out in Philadelphia, I can tell you that, cause I don't want 'em anywhere near me. Spend some more money, build some more prisons, cause I'll tell you what, we can either pay now or we can pay later, cause these are the type of people where the rates of recidivism are high and they're going to do it again.
WHITFIELD: Well, Lida, it sounds like a good idea, OK, build more prisons. But if there are no finances in which to do that, what's the recourse?
RODRIGUEZ-TASEFF: Well, I think the conservatives are in a bit of a pickle here because during the '80s and '90s they all, you know, ran on these tough on crime policies and the chickens have come home to roost. What are we going to do now? We treated jaywalkers and murderers just the same. Everybody else walked around this country, the so-called liberals, saying what we need is better drug policy and what we do need is alternatives to incarceration for non-violent drug offenders.
WHITFIELD: So you're saying if so many people weren't jailed for what you would think to be a very minor offense, perhaps we wouldn't have this overcrowding issue in the first place?
RODRIGUEZ-TASEFF: Absolutely. The inmates are not running the asylum, as Michael says. The people who are running the asylum are the same people who decided that they were going to take these opportunistic policies in the '80s and '90s. Now, people like Frank Keating of Oklahoma, who ran on a tough on crime policy, built all these prisons, put all these people in jail, now has to say oh, but they're not so bad.
WHITFIELD: All right, Michael, quickly.
RODRIGUEZ-TASEFF: Well, he should have said that before.
SMERCONISH: Lida...
WHITFIELD: Quickly, Michael, you disagree on that one.
SMERCONISH: Lida, the crime rates are down all across the country. Why? Because we've got these people off the street. It's no coincidence. There's a direct causal relationship. Keep 'em there.
WHITFIELD: But now we're seeing that some of them are going to be back on the street.
All right, let's move on to the next subject, which is security at the airports when you travel. Now, as of December 31, they're asking passengers not to lock their luggage when checking it.
Michael, you got a problem with that?
SMERCONISH: No, I have no problem with that. Fredricka, when you ask someone to transport a suitcase for you, you're giving up some expectation of privacy, much in the same way as when you walk through a metal detector. I think we need to go a step further. Like the Israelis with El Al, we need to start looking for bombers and not just look for bombs.
WHITFIELD: So, Lida, it sounds to me like this is also going to send the red flag to travelers who are now going to feel like they have better reason to just carry on their luggage because they don't want to leave their stuff unchecked. They may leave themselves open to theft, perhaps.
RODRIGUEZ-TASEFF: Well, I think what it does send is a message to all of us to keep an eye on this policy, because here's the problem. I don't have a problem with somebody opening the bag when it goes bing, bing, when the machine goes bing, bing, bing. However, what happens if the over zealous security checker decides to open a bag just because the name tag on it happens to sound Muslim or Arab? That's racial profiling and I realize that while Bush and Ashcroft were absent from school the day the fourth amendment was taught, we still have a fourth amendment.
So, but what we need to do is distinguish between using the fourth amendment to fight crime and getting, making an end run around the fourth amendment in cases like this, where you, basically, it's going to be open season on people who are maybe coming from countries that are known drug countries...
SMERCONISH: Hey, I hope, wait a minute, wait a minute, that's...
WHITFIELD: Do you think this policy, I mean it's supposed to start...
SMERCONISH: ... that's good police work.
WHITFIELD: ... December 31. Do you think honestly it really will fly, given that there are a lot of sentiments being expressed by travelers who say...
SMERCONISH: Fredricka, that's...
WHITFIELD: ... another reason for you not to fly.
SMERCONISH: Wait a minute now. That's good police work. What Lida just said is what...
RODRIGUEZ-TASEFF: No, no, no.
SMERCONISH: ... exactly what I want done. I don't want law enforcement to ignore that most of the those hijackers came from Saudi Arabia. In fact, let me say it clearly. If you're Saudi and you're flying, guess what? You are going to be scrutinized, because we don't want a repeat of 9/11.
WHITFIELD: OK.
RODRIGUEZ-TASEFF: Well, see, this is where we completely disagree.
WHITFIELD: Yes, I see.
RODRIGUEZ-TASEFF: That would be racial profiling.
SMERCONISH: Yes, it would be.
RODRIGUEZ-TASEFF: That would be racial profiling...
SMERCONISH: What's wrong with it?
RODRIGUEZ-TASEFF: ... which is illegal. It's illegal.
SMERCONISH: It is not illegal.
RODRIGUEZ-TASEFF: Even under this administration it's illegal.
WHITFIELD: OK, all right, here's another topic that you guys are likely to disagree on. How about Paul McCartney and John Lennon. Paul McCartney's saying now on his new album "Back In the U.S.: Live 2000," he wants his name to go first on songs, 19 songs that he and John Lennon wrote together instead of John Lennon's name first.
Lida?
RODRIGUEZ-TASEFF: Well, I think what he has done, and he's trying to minimize it. He's trying to say well, this is no big deal, it is a big deal and I think, first of all, there's a 40-year-old agreement, the contract between these guys, to put Lennon's name first. Now he's, now Paul has decided, Sir Paul has decided to change the order and Yoko has a good old cause of action here.
But, you know, she brought this on herself. All he wanted when they released the anthology back in '95, all she wanted -- all he wanted was to have credit on the one masterpiece they wrote, and that is the song "Yesterday." So I think he basically is just forgetting the realities of a contract that entered with a guy who is now dead and who can't defend himself.
WHITFIELD: All right, Michael, you find this laughable. Why?
SMERCONISH: Oh, yes. Hey, listen, there's a new Yoko Ono on the scene and her name is Heather Mills. I think it's all her, you know, every time there's a new female who comes on the scene with the Beatles, there's trouble in paradise. And I think it's probably Heather's fault.
This is ridiculous.
RODRIGUEZ-TASEFF: I love this. Sexism comes out, Michael.
WHITFIELD: All right, all right, well, let's talk about a little sports, shall we, with our legal moment of the week. San Francisco Judge Kevin McCarthy, not McCartney, says, all right, there are no winners here, there are no losers. In fact, both of you are winners, both of you are losers.
Let's listen.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
JUDGE KEVIN MCCARTHY: Prior to the time the ball was hit, it was possessed and owned by Major League Baseball. At the time it was hit, it became intentionally abandoned property. The first person who came into possession of the ball became its new owner. The parties fundamentally disagree about the definition of possession. The court therefore declares that both plaintiff and defendant have an equal and undivided interest in the ball. Plaintiff's cause of action for conversion is sustained only as to his equal and undivided interest.
In order to effectuate this ruling, the ball must be sold and the parties divide it equally between the parties. (END VIDEO CLIP)
WHITFIELD: All right, we're talking about Barry Bond's ball, hit into the stands and at least two people start scrapping for it and now it turns out that the judge says you both, you have to sell it and then both of you will benefit from the proceeds.
Michael, was that a good decision?
SMERCONISH: It's, this is the King Solomon of the new millennium. The only thing that surprises me is that he didn't say let's cut the ball down the middle and give half to each side.
WHITFIELD: All right, Lida? They each stand to get something like a million dollars each, say some who estimate.
RODRIGUEZ-TASEFF: Well, I think this is proof positive that Heather Mills and Yoko Ono had nothing to do with this. This is boys fighting over their balls. That's all it is.
WHITFIELD: Oh, boy.
All right, Lida Rodriguez-Taseff and Michael Smerconish in Philadelphia, Lida in Miami, thank you very much for joining us.
SMERCONISH: Thank you.
RODRIGUEZ-TASEFF: Thank you.
SMERCONISH: Merry Christmas.
WHITFIELD: Merry Christmas.
Have a great holiday.
RODRIGUEZ-TASEFF: You, too.
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 22, 2002 - 08:21 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
FREDRICKA WHITFIELD, CNN ANCHOR: Time now for our "Legal Briefs." From the airport to the baseball diamond to the recording studio, we're checking what's on the docket. We're joined today by trial attorney and talk show host Michael Smerconish in Philadelphia.
MICHAEL SMERCONISH, TRIAL ATTORNEY/TALK SHOW HOST: Good morning.
WHITFIELD: And in Miami, Lida Rodriguez-Taseff, president of the ACLU of Miami. Good to see both of you.
LIDA RODRIGUEZ-TASEFF, PRESIDENT, ACLU OF MIAMI: Good morning.
SMERCONISH: Hi.
WHITFIELD: All right, let's begin with the inmate issue, the release of, or the early release of 567 inmates in Kentucky because that state is looking at a $500 million deficit.
Michael, don't an awful lot of states take the very, a very similar measure? They've got to do something about the overcrowding issue, right?
SMERCONISH: Well, the inmates are truly running the asylum at this point. You know, it's funny to me that all of a sudden you hear we're only letting out those who are not a danger to others. Well, there's some reason, Fredricka, why they were incarcerated to begin with and that reason? They're dangerous.
WHITFIELD: And we're talking about people with offenses such as burglary, some who were fugitives and some who were convicted of arms possession.
SMERCONISH: Hey, if we're letting 'em out, I don't want 'em let out in Philadelphia, I can tell you that, cause I don't want 'em anywhere near me. Spend some more money, build some more prisons, cause I'll tell you what, we can either pay now or we can pay later, cause these are the type of people where the rates of recidivism are high and they're going to do it again.
WHITFIELD: Well, Lida, it sounds like a good idea, OK, build more prisons. But if there are no finances in which to do that, what's the recourse?
RODRIGUEZ-TASEFF: Well, I think the conservatives are in a bit of a pickle here because during the '80s and '90s they all, you know, ran on these tough on crime policies and the chickens have come home to roost. What are we going to do now? We treated jaywalkers and murderers just the same. Everybody else walked around this country, the so-called liberals, saying what we need is better drug policy and what we do need is alternatives to incarceration for non-violent drug offenders.
WHITFIELD: So you're saying if so many people weren't jailed for what you would think to be a very minor offense, perhaps we wouldn't have this overcrowding issue in the first place?
RODRIGUEZ-TASEFF: Absolutely. The inmates are not running the asylum, as Michael says. The people who are running the asylum are the same people who decided that they were going to take these opportunistic policies in the '80s and '90s. Now, people like Frank Keating of Oklahoma, who ran on a tough on crime policy, built all these prisons, put all these people in jail, now has to say oh, but they're not so bad.
WHITFIELD: All right, Michael, quickly.
RODRIGUEZ-TASEFF: Well, he should have said that before.
SMERCONISH: Lida...
WHITFIELD: Quickly, Michael, you disagree on that one.
SMERCONISH: Lida, the crime rates are down all across the country. Why? Because we've got these people off the street. It's no coincidence. There's a direct causal relationship. Keep 'em there.
WHITFIELD: But now we're seeing that some of them are going to be back on the street.
All right, let's move on to the next subject, which is security at the airports when you travel. Now, as of December 31, they're asking passengers not to lock their luggage when checking it.
Michael, you got a problem with that?
SMERCONISH: No, I have no problem with that. Fredricka, when you ask someone to transport a suitcase for you, you're giving up some expectation of privacy, much in the same way as when you walk through a metal detector. I think we need to go a step further. Like the Israelis with El Al, we need to start looking for bombers and not just look for bombs.
WHITFIELD: So, Lida, it sounds to me like this is also going to send the red flag to travelers who are now going to feel like they have better reason to just carry on their luggage because they don't want to leave their stuff unchecked. They may leave themselves open to theft, perhaps.
RODRIGUEZ-TASEFF: Well, I think what it does send is a message to all of us to keep an eye on this policy, because here's the problem. I don't have a problem with somebody opening the bag when it goes bing, bing, when the machine goes bing, bing, bing. However, what happens if the over zealous security checker decides to open a bag just because the name tag on it happens to sound Muslim or Arab? That's racial profiling and I realize that while Bush and Ashcroft were absent from school the day the fourth amendment was taught, we still have a fourth amendment.
So, but what we need to do is distinguish between using the fourth amendment to fight crime and getting, making an end run around the fourth amendment in cases like this, where you, basically, it's going to be open season on people who are maybe coming from countries that are known drug countries...
SMERCONISH: Hey, I hope, wait a minute, wait a minute, that's...
WHITFIELD: Do you think this policy, I mean it's supposed to start...
SMERCONISH: ... that's good police work.
WHITFIELD: ... December 31. Do you think honestly it really will fly, given that there are a lot of sentiments being expressed by travelers who say...
SMERCONISH: Fredricka, that's...
WHITFIELD: ... another reason for you not to fly.
SMERCONISH: Wait a minute now. That's good police work. What Lida just said is what...
RODRIGUEZ-TASEFF: No, no, no.
SMERCONISH: ... exactly what I want done. I don't want law enforcement to ignore that most of the those hijackers came from Saudi Arabia. In fact, let me say it clearly. If you're Saudi and you're flying, guess what? You are going to be scrutinized, because we don't want a repeat of 9/11.
WHITFIELD: OK.
RODRIGUEZ-TASEFF: Well, see, this is where we completely disagree.
WHITFIELD: Yes, I see.
RODRIGUEZ-TASEFF: That would be racial profiling.
SMERCONISH: Yes, it would be.
RODRIGUEZ-TASEFF: That would be racial profiling...
SMERCONISH: What's wrong with it?
RODRIGUEZ-TASEFF: ... which is illegal. It's illegal.
SMERCONISH: It is not illegal.
RODRIGUEZ-TASEFF: Even under this administration it's illegal.
WHITFIELD: OK, all right, here's another topic that you guys are likely to disagree on. How about Paul McCartney and John Lennon. Paul McCartney's saying now on his new album "Back In the U.S.: Live 2000," he wants his name to go first on songs, 19 songs that he and John Lennon wrote together instead of John Lennon's name first.
Lida?
RODRIGUEZ-TASEFF: Well, I think what he has done, and he's trying to minimize it. He's trying to say well, this is no big deal, it is a big deal and I think, first of all, there's a 40-year-old agreement, the contract between these guys, to put Lennon's name first. Now he's, now Paul has decided, Sir Paul has decided to change the order and Yoko has a good old cause of action here.
But, you know, she brought this on herself. All he wanted when they released the anthology back in '95, all she wanted -- all he wanted was to have credit on the one masterpiece they wrote, and that is the song "Yesterday." So I think he basically is just forgetting the realities of a contract that entered with a guy who is now dead and who can't defend himself.
WHITFIELD: All right, Michael, you find this laughable. Why?
SMERCONISH: Oh, yes. Hey, listen, there's a new Yoko Ono on the scene and her name is Heather Mills. I think it's all her, you know, every time there's a new female who comes on the scene with the Beatles, there's trouble in paradise. And I think it's probably Heather's fault.
This is ridiculous.
RODRIGUEZ-TASEFF: I love this. Sexism comes out, Michael.
WHITFIELD: All right, all right, well, let's talk about a little sports, shall we, with our legal moment of the week. San Francisco Judge Kevin McCarthy, not McCartney, says, all right, there are no winners here, there are no losers. In fact, both of you are winners, both of you are losers.
Let's listen.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
JUDGE KEVIN MCCARTHY: Prior to the time the ball was hit, it was possessed and owned by Major League Baseball. At the time it was hit, it became intentionally abandoned property. The first person who came into possession of the ball became its new owner. The parties fundamentally disagree about the definition of possession. The court therefore declares that both plaintiff and defendant have an equal and undivided interest in the ball. Plaintiff's cause of action for conversion is sustained only as to his equal and undivided interest.
In order to effectuate this ruling, the ball must be sold and the parties divide it equally between the parties. (END VIDEO CLIP)
WHITFIELD: All right, we're talking about Barry Bond's ball, hit into the stands and at least two people start scrapping for it and now it turns out that the judge says you both, you have to sell it and then both of you will benefit from the proceeds.
Michael, was that a good decision?
SMERCONISH: It's, this is the King Solomon of the new millennium. The only thing that surprises me is that he didn't say let's cut the ball down the middle and give half to each side.
WHITFIELD: All right, Lida? They each stand to get something like a million dollars each, say some who estimate.
RODRIGUEZ-TASEFF: Well, I think this is proof positive that Heather Mills and Yoko Ono had nothing to do with this. This is boys fighting over their balls. That's all it is.
WHITFIELD: Oh, boy.
All right, Lida Rodriguez-Taseff and Michael Smerconish in Philadelphia, Lida in Miami, thank you very much for joining us.
SMERCONISH: Thank you.
RODRIGUEZ-TASEFF: Thank you.
SMERCONISH: Merry Christmas.
WHITFIELD: Merry Christmas.
Have a great holiday.
RODRIGUEZ-TASEFF: You, too.
TO ORDER A VIDEO OF THIS TRANSCRIPT, PLEASE CALL 800-CNN-NEWS OR USE OUR SECURE ONLINE ORDER FORM LOCATED AT www.fdch.com
