Return to Transcripts main page

CNN Sunday Morning

Legal Briefs

Aired January 05, 2003 - 08:23   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: It is time now for our "Legal Briefs." From the serial killer case in Louisiana state to the doctor walk out in West Virginia. We have got an interesting morning today with all of these topics we're going to be talking about.
So, let's go ahead and check in with our legal experts. Joining us this morning from Miami, Lida Rodriguez-Taseff, president of the ACLU of Miami.

LIDA RODRIGUEZ-TASEFF, PRESIDENT, ACLU OF MIAMI: Good morning.

COLLINS: Good morning, Lida, thanks for being here.

And Philadelphia trial attorney, and talk show host, Michael Smerconish.

Thanks to you both for being here.

MICHAEL SMERCONISH, TRIAL ATTORNEY/TALK SHOW HOST: Thanks.

COLLINS: So, I want to mention quickly, once again, what we're going to be talking about this morning, the molester case of child kidnapper Kenneth Parnell and Steven Stayner. We've seen a TV movie on that one. We're going to get your comments on that one. Also the malpractice protests of doctors. And the DNA test in Louisiana.

So let's go ahead and get started. We want to start first with the molester case. Kidnaper Kenneth Parnell was arrested in San Francisco after an investigation lead to conspiracy to commit child stealing, this is according to Berkeley police. He served five years, but was never charged with molestation because the statute ran out on that.

Michael, why don't you go ahead and start and tell us what you think about this particular case.

SMERCONISH: Well, the laws were different at the time of that initial prosecution, but here's the bottom line, Heidi. Touch a kid, you never get out of the big house. That's the only rule that's going to address this problem. Because these pedophiles, these child molesters have such a high rate of recidivism that we should never let them out. And that's why I've never been comfortable with Megan's Law, or these other laws that seek a registry, some type of a community notification of where they live, because it's an acknowledgement they're going to strike again. So, if we know they're going to strike again, never let them out of the slammer. That's the bottom line.

COLLINS: That's right, and this time, the Berkeley police say that he was actually trying to buy a child.

Lida, what do you think about this case?

RODRIGUEZ-TASEFF: First of all, I want to say that I am completely shocked that Michael and I would agree this early on in the year. But I completely agree, and if you ever want to know what was wrong with this picture, think about it, a kidnaper gets out after five years in prison.

He didn't even do the full eight years. What's wrong with this picture? Well, I'll tell you. The answer is, remember the '80s, everybody was busy fighting the war on drugs. All these politicians were writing get out of jail free cards to people like this man, to arsonists, to murderers, to rapists, because they were making way for all these petty drug offenders who a gram of marijuana landed you 20 years.

How is that? How is that? So, now we have to fix the problem. And I hate to say it, but I agree with Michael. Megan's Law and all these registry laws are not going to do it. What we need to do is change laws so that sentences can be longer for these people so they don't get out and do this again.

COLLINS: What is the maximum prison sentence now? We have determined that the maximum at the time was eight years.

RODRIGUEZ-TASEFF: Well, it depends on the state. What we're talking about here is there are longer sentences for people who are repeat offenders, so a repeat offender can probably be put away for life in most states now. And there are differing sentences for first- time offenders across the country based on whether or not the person is a child, that they were molesting, whether or not there was kidnapping involved. So the sentences vary. But one thing that should be clear to all of America, which is find a way to create longer, tougher sentences so these people don't get out.

COLLINS: Let's go ahead and move on, guys, to our next topic, which is the malpractice insurance. We've got doctors going on strike. We've got people coming into emergency rooms not getting care and obviously, this is -- seems to be sort of a tough situation for doctors to be in, trying to stand up for themselves and yet the Hippocratic oath.

What do you have to say on this, Mr. Michael?

SMERCONISH: Well, I have to say, this is where the streak of Lida and I agreeing for 2003 will probably end.

COLLINS: I think you're right.

SMERCONISH: Because I believe that everybody hates the trial lawyers until they need one. And the question that I ask those West Virginia physicians is this: What are you prepared to do to clean up your own profession? Because a study from Harvard, last year, said that 100,000 Americans are dying each year because of a physician error. That's more than in automobile accidents.

Now, I acknowledge there's a problem with their high malpractice insurance, but themselves have got to do something about it.

COLLINS: And Lida, you say, what do you say about the percentage of doctors that are responsible for the bulk of all malpractice cases?

RODRIGUEZ-TASEFF: Well, this is a little-known secret that the doctors want to keep from all of us, which is 5 percent of all doctors are responsible for more than half of all the malpractice cases. And you have all these state boards letting go of these repeat offenders. You have doctor after doctor after doctor who does this over and over and over again, sometimes 20, 30, 40 times, and none of these state boards are doing against them.

And if you really want to look at what the problem is here, we're talking about an insurance problem. You know what insurance companies did? They lost money in the stock market. So what are they doing? Rather than doing what all the rest of us in America are doing when we lost money, they're taking it out on doctors.

COLLINS: Now, wait a minute, Lida, let me go back for a second. You said 5 percent of doctors are the ones who are malpracticing, so to speak.

RODRIGUEZ-TASEFF: Correct.

COLLINS: Then aren't the 95 percent of the rest of the doctor paying for those mistakes and isn't that what this is about?

RODRIGUEZ-TASEFF: Those 95 percent of the doctors who are not committing malpractice over and over again, are paying for the mistakes of these 5 percent. And the responsible parties are really the state boards that are supposed to regulate these doctors, because they're the ones that should be taking action against them. They shouldn't be waiting for all these other doctors to get together and try to do something because this is the responsibility of these state boards and they're not doing anything.

SMERCONISH: And, Heidi, what compounds the problem is that you as a patient cannot get access to information about bad doctors. They are store it away in something called the National Data Bank, which is I think where they put the Arc of the Covenant at the end of "Raiders of the Lost Arc". You know, one of these big government warehouses that none of us has the keys to.

As a matter of fact, Lida, our string is intact. We're two for two this year.

RODRIGUEZ-TASEFF: Shocking.

SMERCONISH: Yes, there we go.

COLLINS: What do you think should be done with the DNA then, afterwards? Because right now, as you say, they've only got DNA on people who have committed crimes.

RODRIGUEZ-TASEFF: Well, well, all right. Well, let's talk about that. Because I think if you start with the whole concept about the DNA and the people who have committed crimes -- if we're talking about now, Louisiana, what are we going to do about all these people? The issue is whether or not the serial killer is gong to say, hi, here I am, why don't you all take my DNA? That's not going to happen. The only people that are going to sit there and give their DNA are the people who actually have done nothing wrong and have nothing to hide.

How fair is that if you're a father, if you are trying to raise your family and they say if you don't give your DNA, we're going to arrest you, we're going to get it from you, we're going to let the media know. What are you going to do? You're going to give it up. So this is either dumb or it's coerced.

COLLINS: Let me set this story up just a little bit. I don't think we've done that yet. In Louisiana, four women have been killed in the region in the last 16 months. So now what the authorities are doing is going and doing voluntary, what they call voluntary, anyway, DNA testing of several people who are suspects, I guess I would say, not necessarily named as suspects, but they are saying they have probable cause in order to take their DNA samples.

Michael, what do you think on this? Do you think this is voluntary?

SMERCONISH: There's no legal basis to object to a voluntary program of giving up DNA. I'd go a step further. Heidi, if you said to me we know that this guy who killed four women is living in a certain condo development and we want to get DNA from all the guys in that condo development to break this case, I'd let you go ahead and do it in those circumstances as well.

COLLINS: OK. So you're...

RODRIGUEZ-TASEFF: It needs to be more specific. I knew the streak would end. I knew the streak would end.

COLLINS: What's your thought then, Lida?

RODRIGUEZ-TASEFF: I think what happens here is either you're expecting some really dumb serial killer to give up his DNA voluntarily, which isn't going to happen. So this is dumb police work. Or you're going to coerce innocent people who are afraid that if they don't give up their DNA, they're going to be looked at by the whole country as suspects and they are going to be seen as the killer, they're going to have their reputations ruined.

So basically people are being coerced, and I happen to disagree with Michael on this one. If you have a condo full of people who you think might be it, then go out and get a search warrant if you think they're it, test them, and otherwise, it's not voluntary if people aren't really giving it up because they want to give it up, then you can't ask for it, you can't threaten them, you can't tell them you're going to arrest them if they don't do it, and you certainly can't tell them that if you don't do it, the media is going to find out about it. That's coercion.

(CROSSTALK)

COLLINS: What about -- without cause, anyway -- all right, you guys, last question for you real quick. Tell me about your favorite laws coming up. Lida, I've got to start with you, because a little bird told me that you like the law about pets. Tell me about that.

RODRIGUEZ-TASEFF: Oh, this is hilarious. The state of Florida has joined 16 other states in the country and it allows people who love their pets to leave little Fido and little Fifi all their money and to make sure to create these trusts so that when they die, little Fido and little Fifi will get their favorite treats. This is a law, folks. Now, we're going to have to pay as taxpayers for these laws to be enforced.

COLLINS: Frightening. Frightening. Michael, what about you?

SMERCONISH: I like New Hampshire clamping down on those who spread computer viruses, and I hope that there's going to be more regulation of the Internet. This morning I turned on my e-mail, I had three invitations to enlarge a certain part of my anatomy. I had five other invitations to meet sassy Japanese women. I don't know what that means, but I'm sick and tired of the Internet being a free-for- all, and I want it cleaned up so good news in New Hampshire.

COLLINS: All right, and on that note, Michael Smerconish and Lida Rodriguez-Taseff, I'm sorry, Taseff, I will get it right next time. Thanks so much to both of you for your time this morning.

SMERCONISH: Thank you.

RODRIGUEZ-TASEFF: Thanks.

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 January 5, 2003 - 08:23   ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
HEIDI COLLINS, CNN ANCHOR: It is time now for our "Legal Briefs." From the serial killer case in Louisiana state to the doctor walk out in West Virginia. We have got an interesting morning today with all of these topics we're going to be talking about.
So, let's go ahead and check in with our legal experts. Joining us this morning from Miami, Lida Rodriguez-Taseff, president of the ACLU of Miami.

LIDA RODRIGUEZ-TASEFF, PRESIDENT, ACLU OF MIAMI: Good morning.

COLLINS: Good morning, Lida, thanks for being here.

And Philadelphia trial attorney, and talk show host, Michael Smerconish.

Thanks to you both for being here.

MICHAEL SMERCONISH, TRIAL ATTORNEY/TALK SHOW HOST: Thanks.

COLLINS: So, I want to mention quickly, once again, what we're going to be talking about this morning, the molester case of child kidnapper Kenneth Parnell and Steven Stayner. We've seen a TV movie on that one. We're going to get your comments on that one. Also the malpractice protests of doctors. And the DNA test in Louisiana.

So let's go ahead and get started. We want to start first with the molester case. Kidnaper Kenneth Parnell was arrested in San Francisco after an investigation lead to conspiracy to commit child stealing, this is according to Berkeley police. He served five years, but was never charged with molestation because the statute ran out on that.

Michael, why don't you go ahead and start and tell us what you think about this particular case.

SMERCONISH: Well, the laws were different at the time of that initial prosecution, but here's the bottom line, Heidi. Touch a kid, you never get out of the big house. That's the only rule that's going to address this problem. Because these pedophiles, these child molesters have such a high rate of recidivism that we should never let them out. And that's why I've never been comfortable with Megan's Law, or these other laws that seek a registry, some type of a community notification of where they live, because it's an acknowledgement they're going to strike again. So, if we know they're going to strike again, never let them out of the slammer. That's the bottom line.

COLLINS: That's right, and this time, the Berkeley police say that he was actually trying to buy a child.

Lida, what do you think about this case?

RODRIGUEZ-TASEFF: First of all, I want to say that I am completely shocked that Michael and I would agree this early on in the year. But I completely agree, and if you ever want to know what was wrong with this picture, think about it, a kidnaper gets out after five years in prison.

He didn't even do the full eight years. What's wrong with this picture? Well, I'll tell you. The answer is, remember the '80s, everybody was busy fighting the war on drugs. All these politicians were writing get out of jail free cards to people like this man, to arsonists, to murderers, to rapists, because they were making way for all these petty drug offenders who a gram of marijuana landed you 20 years.

How is that? How is that? So, now we have to fix the problem. And I hate to say it, but I agree with Michael. Megan's Law and all these registry laws are not going to do it. What we need to do is change laws so that sentences can be longer for these people so they don't get out and do this again.

COLLINS: What is the maximum prison sentence now? We have determined that the maximum at the time was eight years.

RODRIGUEZ-TASEFF: Well, it depends on the state. What we're talking about here is there are longer sentences for people who are repeat offenders, so a repeat offender can probably be put away for life in most states now. And there are differing sentences for first- time offenders across the country based on whether or not the person is a child, that they were molesting, whether or not there was kidnapping involved. So the sentences vary. But one thing that should be clear to all of America, which is find a way to create longer, tougher sentences so these people don't get out.

COLLINS: Let's go ahead and move on, guys, to our next topic, which is the malpractice insurance. We've got doctors going on strike. We've got people coming into emergency rooms not getting care and obviously, this is -- seems to be sort of a tough situation for doctors to be in, trying to stand up for themselves and yet the Hippocratic oath.

What do you have to say on this, Mr. Michael?

SMERCONISH: Well, I have to say, this is where the streak of Lida and I agreeing for 2003 will probably end.

COLLINS: I think you're right.

SMERCONISH: Because I believe that everybody hates the trial lawyers until they need one. And the question that I ask those West Virginia physicians is this: What are you prepared to do to clean up your own profession? Because a study from Harvard, last year, said that 100,000 Americans are dying each year because of a physician error. That's more than in automobile accidents.

Now, I acknowledge there's a problem with their high malpractice insurance, but themselves have got to do something about it.

COLLINS: And Lida, you say, what do you say about the percentage of doctors that are responsible for the bulk of all malpractice cases?

RODRIGUEZ-TASEFF: Well, this is a little-known secret that the doctors want to keep from all of us, which is 5 percent of all doctors are responsible for more than half of all the malpractice cases. And you have all these state boards letting go of these repeat offenders. You have doctor after doctor after doctor who does this over and over and over again, sometimes 20, 30, 40 times, and none of these state boards are doing against them.

And if you really want to look at what the problem is here, we're talking about an insurance problem. You know what insurance companies did? They lost money in the stock market. So what are they doing? Rather than doing what all the rest of us in America are doing when we lost money, they're taking it out on doctors.

COLLINS: Now, wait a minute, Lida, let me go back for a second. You said 5 percent of doctors are the ones who are malpracticing, so to speak.

RODRIGUEZ-TASEFF: Correct.

COLLINS: Then aren't the 95 percent of the rest of the doctor paying for those mistakes and isn't that what this is about?

RODRIGUEZ-TASEFF: Those 95 percent of the doctors who are not committing malpractice over and over again, are paying for the mistakes of these 5 percent. And the responsible parties are really the state boards that are supposed to regulate these doctors, because they're the ones that should be taking action against them. They shouldn't be waiting for all these other doctors to get together and try to do something because this is the responsibility of these state boards and they're not doing anything.

SMERCONISH: And, Heidi, what compounds the problem is that you as a patient cannot get access to information about bad doctors. They are store it away in something called the National Data Bank, which is I think where they put the Arc of the Covenant at the end of "Raiders of the Lost Arc". You know, one of these big government warehouses that none of us has the keys to.

As a matter of fact, Lida, our string is intact. We're two for two this year.

RODRIGUEZ-TASEFF: Shocking.

SMERCONISH: Yes, there we go.

COLLINS: What do you think should be done with the DNA then, afterwards? Because right now, as you say, they've only got DNA on people who have committed crimes.

RODRIGUEZ-TASEFF: Well, well, all right. Well, let's talk about that. Because I think if you start with the whole concept about the DNA and the people who have committed crimes -- if we're talking about now, Louisiana, what are we going to do about all these people? The issue is whether or not the serial killer is gong to say, hi, here I am, why don't you all take my DNA? That's not going to happen. The only people that are going to sit there and give their DNA are the people who actually have done nothing wrong and have nothing to hide.

How fair is that if you're a father, if you are trying to raise your family and they say if you don't give your DNA, we're going to arrest you, we're going to get it from you, we're going to let the media know. What are you going to do? You're going to give it up. So this is either dumb or it's coerced.

COLLINS: Let me set this story up just a little bit. I don't think we've done that yet. In Louisiana, four women have been killed in the region in the last 16 months. So now what the authorities are doing is going and doing voluntary, what they call voluntary, anyway, DNA testing of several people who are suspects, I guess I would say, not necessarily named as suspects, but they are saying they have probable cause in order to take their DNA samples.

Michael, what do you think on this? Do you think this is voluntary?

SMERCONISH: There's no legal basis to object to a voluntary program of giving up DNA. I'd go a step further. Heidi, if you said to me we know that this guy who killed four women is living in a certain condo development and we want to get DNA from all the guys in that condo development to break this case, I'd let you go ahead and do it in those circumstances as well.

COLLINS: OK. So you're...

RODRIGUEZ-TASEFF: It needs to be more specific. I knew the streak would end. I knew the streak would end.

COLLINS: What's your thought then, Lida?

RODRIGUEZ-TASEFF: I think what happens here is either you're expecting some really dumb serial killer to give up his DNA voluntarily, which isn't going to happen. So this is dumb police work. Or you're going to coerce innocent people who are afraid that if they don't give up their DNA, they're going to be looked at by the whole country as suspects and they are going to be seen as the killer, they're going to have their reputations ruined.

So basically people are being coerced, and I happen to disagree with Michael on this one. If you have a condo full of people who you think might be it, then go out and get a search warrant if you think they're it, test them, and otherwise, it's not voluntary if people aren't really giving it up because they want to give it up, then you can't ask for it, you can't threaten them, you can't tell them you're going to arrest them if they don't do it, and you certainly can't tell them that if you don't do it, the media is going to find out about it. That's coercion.

(CROSSTALK)

COLLINS: What about -- without cause, anyway -- all right, you guys, last question for you real quick. Tell me about your favorite laws coming up. Lida, I've got to start with you, because a little bird told me that you like the law about pets. Tell me about that.

RODRIGUEZ-TASEFF: Oh, this is hilarious. The state of Florida has joined 16 other states in the country and it allows people who love their pets to leave little Fido and little Fifi all their money and to make sure to create these trusts so that when they die, little Fido and little Fifi will get their favorite treats. This is a law, folks. Now, we're going to have to pay as taxpayers for these laws to be enforced.

COLLINS: Frightening. Frightening. Michael, what about you?

SMERCONISH: I like New Hampshire clamping down on those who spread computer viruses, and I hope that there's going to be more regulation of the Internet. This morning I turned on my e-mail, I had three invitations to enlarge a certain part of my anatomy. I had five other invitations to meet sassy Japanese women. I don't know what that means, but I'm sick and tired of the Internet being a free-for- all, and I want it cleaned up so good news in New Hampshire.

COLLINS: All right, and on that note, Michael Smerconish and Lida Rodriguez-Taseff, I'm sorry, Taseff, I will get it right next time. Thanks so much to both of you for your time this morning.

SMERCONISH: Thank you.

RODRIGUEZ-TASEFF: Thanks.

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