Return to Transcripts main page

CNN Sunday Morning

Legal Briefs

Aired April 27, 2003 - 08:13   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.


ANDERSON COOPER, CNN ANCHOR: Time now for our "Legal Briefs." Today we examine the case of Scott Peterson, who is of course, charged with killing his wife Laci and their unborn son, Connor.
We're also going to discuss complaints of the government's so- called No-Fly database that is restricting some people to fly commercially. Two guests join me to talk about these very different issues. Trial attorney and CNN contributor, Michael Smerconish joins us from Philadelphia. And Lida Rodriguez-Taseff, president of the ACLU of Miami joins us from Miami.

Lida, I want to start off with you. Let's talk first about the Scott Peterson case. Do you think this guy has been unfairly tried and convicted in the media?

LIDA RODRIGUEZ-TASEFF, PRESIDENT, ACLU MIAMI: Well, the ACLU has no involvement in this case, but we always have to balance the First Amendment right to a free press with the whole concept of how do we get a fair trial. And in America, we've made a decision not to balance and the fact that the First Amendment means that there will be no censorship. Means that sometimes an irresponsible media will convict somebody before they're tried. And this is a concern.

And our concern is if we're going to have no censorship and a free media, how do we ensure that someone has a fair trial and sometimes it's very hard to do.

COOPER: Michael, do you think he's been tried, convicted, and sentenced

MICHAEL SMERCONISH, TRIAL ATTORNEY: He's been tried and convicted in my mind. I know I'm not supposed to say that as a lawyer but I'd be less than honest if I weren't candid about it.

It's probably a case that's ripe for a change of venue because if I'm sitting here in Philadelphia and I already have a fixed view of what he did or did not do, it tells me that in Modesto, California, people probably have gone even a step further if that's possible. But you have to remember this Anderson...

COOPER: So, you think there should definitely be a change of venue.

SMERCONISH: Yes, this is probably a case that's suitable for a change of venue. Now, the question becomes where? You might have to go to Mars to find a jury that's not already convicted him in their minds. But he's brought a lot of it on himself because he's been very -- not now, but he was media accessible previously. He did a lengthy interview on one of the networks. He was very visible in the whole campaign to quote, unquote, "find his wife." So, a part of it is his fault.

COOPER: Yes, but just to play devil's advocate here. If he hadn't done that you know, a lot of people would have been criticizing him for staying silent and saying what does that mean?

Lida, have things gone to the point where defendants in such a high profile case not only have to have their defense in court, but some sort of public component to their defense? I talked to a lawyer yesterday who was criticizing Scott Peterson's defense attorneys for not being public -- coming out more publicly and talking about the evidence and talking about their side of the case and that surprised me. Does it concern you?

RODRIGUEZ-TASEFF: Well, it's ironic now that people who are being charged with crimes are going to have to have handlers in high profile cases and this is something that we really kind of need to focus on. What's the job of the media? The job of the media really is to try to police itself, to try not to comment on guilt or innocence, to try to layout the facts for the people to understand and layout procedures so that people can kind of form an opinion as to what's going on for themselves.

But certainly, we need to highlight the fact that in a situation like this, it looks like he's been tried and convicted. And if that's the case -- and you know Michael's opinion is Michael's opinion, but people in the media are giving their opinion all day long. And if that's the case, where are we going to do to make sure he gets a fair trial? And I agree with Michael. Maybe one answer is to move the case out of Modesto.

COOPER: All right, let's move on from this case. I want to talk about this case, about the no-fly list.

Now, Lida the ACLU has launched a lawsuit. I think they filed it on Tuesday or they announced it on Tuesday. Basically, in defense of two people self-described peace activists, who I guess were questioned, taken off a flight or not allowed to board a flight. Questioned about their backgrounds. They apparently were on some kind of a list. Why the lawsuit?

RODRIGUEZ-TASEFF: Well, the lawsuit is about criteria. What this lawsuit is about the government is completely entitled to create lists of terrorists, to disseminate them in the whole country so that we can catch these people and bring them to justice. However, this list is so-called No-Fly List contains supposedly the names of people who aren't even terrorists.

So we don't know who's on the list, we don't know what the criteria is for getting on the list. Is it because you bought a Dixie Chicks CD in the last month, or you bought a case of French wine? Who knows? Whether politics are involved.

COOPER: I think that's a little bit of an overstatement.

RODRIGUEZ-TASEFF: Well, certainly the concern is are people being put on the list because they're peace activists, because of their political opinions; because they're you know...

COOPER: All right. I got it. Michael, your thoughts? Has the government gone too far?

SMERCONISH: The government would be derelict in it's duty not maintain such a list. I don't know the facts for these particular women. May be they are owed an apology. I don't think they're owed a full explanation as to how they ended up on such a list because I don't think the government has to completely tip its hand in the war against terrorism. You'd have a hard time convincing me that they end up for the reasons that Lida made light of.

COOPER: Well, Lida, do we know? Has it been announced how people get on this list. I mean from some of the background information, you were sort of or the ACLU indicating that some police officer with a grudge somewhere can send their name to -- send anybody's name to the TSA and suddenly you're on a list and red flagged and can't fly.

RODRIGUEZ-TASEFF: Well, that's exactly right. This list was initially created and it was supposed to contain names of anybody who might have information about the terrorists. And the way one government official described it; is this is like a list of witnesses to a bank robbery. Well, in a list of witnesses to a bank robbery would be the bank robber, but also the innocent bank teller. And if this is what the list is, there are people on it who are not terrorists, who don't know how they got on. Including a guy from Juneau, Alaska, who is a former Coast Guard guy, who risks his life every day to save fishermen who are stranded or mountaineers. And this guy landed on the list also. He doesn't know how he got on. He doesn't know what criteria were used and he doesn't know if he wants to get off the list, what he has to do.

And that's what this lawsuit is about. This lawsuit is about figuring out how we get off the list.

COOPER: Michael, final thought.

SMERCONISH: We've got to fix the bugs in the system because I agree that they are plainly evident. But bottom line when I take off my shoes and go through that airport, I am cursing Osama bin Laden, not George Bush and John Ashcroft. I want to give them the tools they need to fight the war against terrorism. So don't throw away the system, just make it better.

COOPER: All right. Michael Smerconish, Lida Rodriguez-Taseff, I appreciated you joining us. It was fun, interesting. Thanks.

SMERCONISH: Thank you.

RODRIGUEZ-TASEFF: 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 April 27, 2003 - 08:13   ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
ANDERSON COOPER, CNN ANCHOR: Time now for our "Legal Briefs." Today we examine the case of Scott Peterson, who is of course, charged with killing his wife Laci and their unborn son, Connor.
We're also going to discuss complaints of the government's so- called No-Fly database that is restricting some people to fly commercially. Two guests join me to talk about these very different issues. Trial attorney and CNN contributor, Michael Smerconish joins us from Philadelphia. And Lida Rodriguez-Taseff, president of the ACLU of Miami joins us from Miami.

Lida, I want to start off with you. Let's talk first about the Scott Peterson case. Do you think this guy has been unfairly tried and convicted in the media?

LIDA RODRIGUEZ-TASEFF, PRESIDENT, ACLU MIAMI: Well, the ACLU has no involvement in this case, but we always have to balance the First Amendment right to a free press with the whole concept of how do we get a fair trial. And in America, we've made a decision not to balance and the fact that the First Amendment means that there will be no censorship. Means that sometimes an irresponsible media will convict somebody before they're tried. And this is a concern.

And our concern is if we're going to have no censorship and a free media, how do we ensure that someone has a fair trial and sometimes it's very hard to do.

COOPER: Michael, do you think he's been tried, convicted, and sentenced

MICHAEL SMERCONISH, TRIAL ATTORNEY: He's been tried and convicted in my mind. I know I'm not supposed to say that as a lawyer but I'd be less than honest if I weren't candid about it.

It's probably a case that's ripe for a change of venue because if I'm sitting here in Philadelphia and I already have a fixed view of what he did or did not do, it tells me that in Modesto, California, people probably have gone even a step further if that's possible. But you have to remember this Anderson...

COOPER: So, you think there should definitely be a change of venue.

SMERCONISH: Yes, this is probably a case that's suitable for a change of venue. Now, the question becomes where? You might have to go to Mars to find a jury that's not already convicted him in their minds. But he's brought a lot of it on himself because he's been very -- not now, but he was media accessible previously. He did a lengthy interview on one of the networks. He was very visible in the whole campaign to quote, unquote, "find his wife." So, a part of it is his fault.

COOPER: Yes, but just to play devil's advocate here. If he hadn't done that you know, a lot of people would have been criticizing him for staying silent and saying what does that mean?

Lida, have things gone to the point where defendants in such a high profile case not only have to have their defense in court, but some sort of public component to their defense? I talked to a lawyer yesterday who was criticizing Scott Peterson's defense attorneys for not being public -- coming out more publicly and talking about the evidence and talking about their side of the case and that surprised me. Does it concern you?

RODRIGUEZ-TASEFF: Well, it's ironic now that people who are being charged with crimes are going to have to have handlers in high profile cases and this is something that we really kind of need to focus on. What's the job of the media? The job of the media really is to try to police itself, to try not to comment on guilt or innocence, to try to layout the facts for the people to understand and layout procedures so that people can kind of form an opinion as to what's going on for themselves.

But certainly, we need to highlight the fact that in a situation like this, it looks like he's been tried and convicted. And if that's the case -- and you know Michael's opinion is Michael's opinion, but people in the media are giving their opinion all day long. And if that's the case, where are we going to do to make sure he gets a fair trial? And I agree with Michael. Maybe one answer is to move the case out of Modesto.

COOPER: All right, let's move on from this case. I want to talk about this case, about the no-fly list.

Now, Lida the ACLU has launched a lawsuit. I think they filed it on Tuesday or they announced it on Tuesday. Basically, in defense of two people self-described peace activists, who I guess were questioned, taken off a flight or not allowed to board a flight. Questioned about their backgrounds. They apparently were on some kind of a list. Why the lawsuit?

RODRIGUEZ-TASEFF: Well, the lawsuit is about criteria. What this lawsuit is about the government is completely entitled to create lists of terrorists, to disseminate them in the whole country so that we can catch these people and bring them to justice. However, this list is so-called No-Fly List contains supposedly the names of people who aren't even terrorists.

So we don't know who's on the list, we don't know what the criteria is for getting on the list. Is it because you bought a Dixie Chicks CD in the last month, or you bought a case of French wine? Who knows? Whether politics are involved.

COOPER: I think that's a little bit of an overstatement.

RODRIGUEZ-TASEFF: Well, certainly the concern is are people being put on the list because they're peace activists, because of their political opinions; because they're you know...

COOPER: All right. I got it. Michael, your thoughts? Has the government gone too far?

SMERCONISH: The government would be derelict in it's duty not maintain such a list. I don't know the facts for these particular women. May be they are owed an apology. I don't think they're owed a full explanation as to how they ended up on such a list because I don't think the government has to completely tip its hand in the war against terrorism. You'd have a hard time convincing me that they end up for the reasons that Lida made light of.

COOPER: Well, Lida, do we know? Has it been announced how people get on this list. I mean from some of the background information, you were sort of or the ACLU indicating that some police officer with a grudge somewhere can send their name to -- send anybody's name to the TSA and suddenly you're on a list and red flagged and can't fly.

RODRIGUEZ-TASEFF: Well, that's exactly right. This list was initially created and it was supposed to contain names of anybody who might have information about the terrorists. And the way one government official described it; is this is like a list of witnesses to a bank robbery. Well, in a list of witnesses to a bank robbery would be the bank robber, but also the innocent bank teller. And if this is what the list is, there are people on it who are not terrorists, who don't know how they got on. Including a guy from Juneau, Alaska, who is a former Coast Guard guy, who risks his life every day to save fishermen who are stranded or mountaineers. And this guy landed on the list also. He doesn't know how he got on. He doesn't know what criteria were used and he doesn't know if he wants to get off the list, what he has to do.

And that's what this lawsuit is about. This lawsuit is about figuring out how we get off the list.

COOPER: Michael, final thought.

SMERCONISH: We've got to fix the bugs in the system because I agree that they are plainly evident. But bottom line when I take off my shoes and go through that airport, I am cursing Osama bin Laden, not George Bush and John Ashcroft. I want to give them the tools they need to fight the war against terrorism. So don't throw away the system, just make it better.

COOPER: All right. Michael Smerconish, Lida Rodriguez-Taseff, I appreciated you joining us. It was fun, interesting. Thanks.

SMERCONISH: Thank you.

RODRIGUEZ-TASEFF: 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