Return to Transcripts main page

CNN Sunday Morning

Legal Briefs

Aired May 04, 2003 - 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.


ROBIN MEADE, CNN ANCHOR: We've got some high profile cases topping today's legal roundtable, including the Scott Peterson case and the Elizabeth Smart investigation. Now, two guests are here for our discussion. We thank them. They are Michael Smerconish, trial attorney and CNN contributor joining us from Philadelphia.
Good morning to you.

MICHAEL SMERCONISH, TRIAL ATTORNEY: Good morning.

MEADE: And we have Lida Rodriguez-Taseff, president of the ACLU of Miami. Thank you both, we do appreciate it.

We're going to start off with the issue of Mark Geragos taking on Scott Peterson as a client. How do you both think that this will change the trial -- the nature of the trial and of his defense if it has not already? Let's start with Michael.

SMERCONISH: Well, I think Mark Geragos is a good hire for Scott Peterson because he requires someone with some media savvy. What I find interesting is that people are saying wait a minute, Mark Geragos, didn't he come on "LARRY KING LIVE" and say some incriminating things about Peterson? And the answer is well, yes. All of us have been doing so.

And I think if he'd been on the outside looking in at this case and had said well, from what I can see, it looks like the guy is totally innocent, we'd be saying he's too stupid to be the man's lawyer. So I appreciated his candor. And now he'll get into the case and he'll see what all the files reveal. We still don't know a great deal about this case, but the bottom line, he's a good hire.

MEADE: Lida, should he have taken Scott Peterson on as a client.

LIDA RODRIGUEZ-TASEFF, PRESIDENT, ACLU MIAMI: Well, Mark Geragos said that 90 percent of the populous had already said that Scott Peterson was guilty and this was a great case for a defense lawyer. And the truth is and this isn't an ACLU case, but the principle applies nonetheless, that every criminal defendant deserves a real defense lawyer, a real defense and to be represented fully.

And obviously, Geragos is going to be paid a lot of money, some say up to a million dollars, but he's going to have to do a lot of work especially before the May 19 hearing. He's going to have to go through 39,000 pages of literature before he gets ready for the case. And you can see the effects of the representation already bearing fruit. Mark Geragos, immediately asked the judge to allow his client to appear in court without being shackled and without having to wear an orange jump suit. And these might seem minor things, but you know, a picture is worth a thousand words.

MEADE: Perception. OK.

We are going to move to another issue right now and those are concerns, the Elizabeth Smart investigation. From Salt Lake -- two reporters from "The Salt Lake Tribune," a newspaper there fired for working with the "National Enquirer" revealed the law enforcements sources for the story. That story by the way, back in July the" National Enquirer" had retracted that story and apologized for that story.

Lida, let's start with you, what's your take on what's happening here?

RODRIGUEZ-TASEFF: Well, you know, it's about time that prosecutors and police were being scrutinized for leaking information in cases. You know, they don't leak information because they're trying to be good guys. They leak information to gain an unfair advantage. To make people presume the guilt of people who are suspects. And they leak information because they're the government and they're in power.

So it is a good thing that these prosecutors and defense lawyers and police people will start being looked at as is going to happen here now that the city has called for an investigation of the leaks, which were internal leaks in this case.

MEADE: So, Michael, are you in agreement with Lida or you say that the Salt Lake contributor had to go.

SMERCONISH: Well, the lack of the oversight on the part of the "Tribune" editor was mind-boggling to me because here's what went on. You had two reporters from the so-called legitimate press accepting 10 grand each from the "National Enquire." And apparently they were the basis for a report about a gay sex ring that did not exist. The "Tribune" finds out about it and what do they do? They put them on double secret probation instead of just firing them. That's what the editor did and now the editor paid with his job, which is the proper outcome. It's just amazing the lack of ethics that the "Tribune" exhibited.

MEADE: All right. We're going to move on to another issue. You guys are keeping pretty calm this Sunday morning.

RODRIGUEZ-TASEFF: We're not awake yet.

MEADE: We're not done yet, are we?

The next issue concerns a ruling from the Supreme Court regarding legal immigrants. Michael you say that the Supreme Court has a right to say that legal immigrants can be held without bail during the deportation proceedings, why?

SMERCONISH: I do and I guarantee you this is one where Lida and I will disagree. I thought appellate court was correct when they looked at this and say hey, you know this is a matter for Congress. If the law is not something that is suitable for people, let the Congress change it. We don't want activist judges to set the standards as to whether there should be bail in a deportation setting. And being these are for individuals accused of criminal conduct.

MEADE: But it's not heinous crimes.

SMERCONISH: No, they're not heinous crimes but in the post-9/11 world, I think we all agree that we have a need to keep better track of those who are within our borders and are not naturalized citizens.

MEADE: And Lida, you say though, that the ruling basically says it's OK to treat legal immigrants differently than American citizens and your question is what's next?

RODRIGUEZ-TASEFF: Absolutely, and this case is about a law that is a 1996 law. It's pre-September 11. So pre-September 11, this is a Clinton Reno law and itself that it is OK to deny a bail hearing to people who are facing deportation.

These aren't undocumented people. These are legal immigrants. And basically what we're saying is that it is OK in the United States and in fact, Justice Rehnquist said exactly this. It is OK in the United States to treat permanent residents differently than U.S. citizens and to create laws that are unconstitutional if they would be applied to U.S. citizens.

And I think we're starting to reflect the countries we love to hate. You know Iraq; we bashed Iraq for treating the Kurds differently. We bashed Saudi Arabia every chance we get for treating non-citizens differently. It is wrong to deny the non-citizens basic constitutional rights.

MEADE: Michael, does it stink of discrimination?

SMERCONISH: Well, when she refers to it as a Clinton law, now I'm sitting here thinking maybe I should reconsider my viewpoint.

But the bottom line is I don't have a problem with Justice Rehnquist saying we need to treat naturalized -- people who were born and raised in the United States differently from those who came to our shores some time thereafter. Frankly, I don't know what the problem is. I'm comfortable with the United States Supreme Court decision.

MEADE: All right. Well, Michael Smerconish, thank you so much. And let me get Lydia -- Lida Rodriguez Taseff, thank you both so much for discussing the issues.

SMERCONISH: Thank you.

RODRIGUEZ-TASEFF: Thank you.

MEADE: We do appreciate it. You guys have a good weekend and what's left of it.

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 May 4, 2003 - 08:14   ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
ROBIN MEADE, CNN ANCHOR: We've got some high profile cases topping today's legal roundtable, including the Scott Peterson case and the Elizabeth Smart investigation. Now, two guests are here for our discussion. We thank them. They are Michael Smerconish, trial attorney and CNN contributor joining us from Philadelphia.
Good morning to you.

MICHAEL SMERCONISH, TRIAL ATTORNEY: Good morning.

MEADE: And we have Lida Rodriguez-Taseff, president of the ACLU of Miami. Thank you both, we do appreciate it.

We're going to start off with the issue of Mark Geragos taking on Scott Peterson as a client. How do you both think that this will change the trial -- the nature of the trial and of his defense if it has not already? Let's start with Michael.

SMERCONISH: Well, I think Mark Geragos is a good hire for Scott Peterson because he requires someone with some media savvy. What I find interesting is that people are saying wait a minute, Mark Geragos, didn't he come on "LARRY KING LIVE" and say some incriminating things about Peterson? And the answer is well, yes. All of us have been doing so.

And I think if he'd been on the outside looking in at this case and had said well, from what I can see, it looks like the guy is totally innocent, we'd be saying he's too stupid to be the man's lawyer. So I appreciated his candor. And now he'll get into the case and he'll see what all the files reveal. We still don't know a great deal about this case, but the bottom line, he's a good hire.

MEADE: Lida, should he have taken Scott Peterson on as a client.

LIDA RODRIGUEZ-TASEFF, PRESIDENT, ACLU MIAMI: Well, Mark Geragos said that 90 percent of the populous had already said that Scott Peterson was guilty and this was a great case for a defense lawyer. And the truth is and this isn't an ACLU case, but the principle applies nonetheless, that every criminal defendant deserves a real defense lawyer, a real defense and to be represented fully.

And obviously, Geragos is going to be paid a lot of money, some say up to a million dollars, but he's going to have to do a lot of work especially before the May 19 hearing. He's going to have to go through 39,000 pages of literature before he gets ready for the case. And you can see the effects of the representation already bearing fruit. Mark Geragos, immediately asked the judge to allow his client to appear in court without being shackled and without having to wear an orange jump suit. And these might seem minor things, but you know, a picture is worth a thousand words.

MEADE: Perception. OK.

We are going to move to another issue right now and those are concerns, the Elizabeth Smart investigation. From Salt Lake -- two reporters from "The Salt Lake Tribune," a newspaper there fired for working with the "National Enquirer" revealed the law enforcements sources for the story. That story by the way, back in July the" National Enquirer" had retracted that story and apologized for that story.

Lida, let's start with you, what's your take on what's happening here?

RODRIGUEZ-TASEFF: Well, you know, it's about time that prosecutors and police were being scrutinized for leaking information in cases. You know, they don't leak information because they're trying to be good guys. They leak information to gain an unfair advantage. To make people presume the guilt of people who are suspects. And they leak information because they're the government and they're in power.

So it is a good thing that these prosecutors and defense lawyers and police people will start being looked at as is going to happen here now that the city has called for an investigation of the leaks, which were internal leaks in this case.

MEADE: So, Michael, are you in agreement with Lida or you say that the Salt Lake contributor had to go.

SMERCONISH: Well, the lack of the oversight on the part of the "Tribune" editor was mind-boggling to me because here's what went on. You had two reporters from the so-called legitimate press accepting 10 grand each from the "National Enquire." And apparently they were the basis for a report about a gay sex ring that did not exist. The "Tribune" finds out about it and what do they do? They put them on double secret probation instead of just firing them. That's what the editor did and now the editor paid with his job, which is the proper outcome. It's just amazing the lack of ethics that the "Tribune" exhibited.

MEADE: All right. We're going to move on to another issue. You guys are keeping pretty calm this Sunday morning.

RODRIGUEZ-TASEFF: We're not awake yet.

MEADE: We're not done yet, are we?

The next issue concerns a ruling from the Supreme Court regarding legal immigrants. Michael you say that the Supreme Court has a right to say that legal immigrants can be held without bail during the deportation proceedings, why?

SMERCONISH: I do and I guarantee you this is one where Lida and I will disagree. I thought appellate court was correct when they looked at this and say hey, you know this is a matter for Congress. If the law is not something that is suitable for people, let the Congress change it. We don't want activist judges to set the standards as to whether there should be bail in a deportation setting. And being these are for individuals accused of criminal conduct.

MEADE: But it's not heinous crimes.

SMERCONISH: No, they're not heinous crimes but in the post-9/11 world, I think we all agree that we have a need to keep better track of those who are within our borders and are not naturalized citizens.

MEADE: And Lida, you say though, that the ruling basically says it's OK to treat legal immigrants differently than American citizens and your question is what's next?

RODRIGUEZ-TASEFF: Absolutely, and this case is about a law that is a 1996 law. It's pre-September 11. So pre-September 11, this is a Clinton Reno law and itself that it is OK to deny a bail hearing to people who are facing deportation.

These aren't undocumented people. These are legal immigrants. And basically what we're saying is that it is OK in the United States and in fact, Justice Rehnquist said exactly this. It is OK in the United States to treat permanent residents differently than U.S. citizens and to create laws that are unconstitutional if they would be applied to U.S. citizens.

And I think we're starting to reflect the countries we love to hate. You know Iraq; we bashed Iraq for treating the Kurds differently. We bashed Saudi Arabia every chance we get for treating non-citizens differently. It is wrong to deny the non-citizens basic constitutional rights.

MEADE: Michael, does it stink of discrimination?

SMERCONISH: Well, when she refers to it as a Clinton law, now I'm sitting here thinking maybe I should reconsider my viewpoint.

But the bottom line is I don't have a problem with Justice Rehnquist saying we need to treat naturalized -- people who were born and raised in the United States differently from those who came to our shores some time thereafter. Frankly, I don't know what the problem is. I'm comfortable with the United States Supreme Court decision.

MEADE: All right. Well, Michael Smerconish, thank you so much. And let me get Lydia -- Lida Rodriguez Taseff, thank you both so much for discussing the issues.

SMERCONISH: Thank you.

RODRIGUEZ-TASEFF: Thank you.

MEADE: We do appreciate it. You guys have a good weekend and what's left of it.

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