Return to Transcripts main page

CNN Sunday Morning

Legal Issues: Patrick Dennehy, Kobe Bryant

Aired July 27, 2003 - 10:22   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.


ANDREA KOPPEL, CNN ANCHOR: The Dennehy case is just one of several that raise interesting legal questions. To discuss them, trial attorney and talk show host Michael Smerconish and civil rights attorney and law professor Avery Friedman.
Gentlemen, you just heard Mike Brooks' report there. Let me show you question out there to either one of you as to how this will affect the case against Carlton Dotson, if in fact, he was the one who put his finger on a map and led police to what could be the body of Patrick Dennehy.

AVERY FRIEDMAN, CIVIL RIGHTS ATTORNEY: Well, good morning, Andrea.

It seems to me already that Carlton Dotson is in a world of trouble. The FBI claims he's already confessed. He's denying it. He's also fighting extradition to Texas.

So I think the identification of the body, which Mike Brooks indicated will be in the next couple days, will be pretty strong evidence against Dotson.

KOPPEL: Michael Smerconish?

MICHAEL SMERCONISH, TRIAL ATTORNEY/TALK SHOW HOST: A couple of days ago, Andrea, we were talking about this issue and the issue was then, well, the confession. Is it going to come in? Was he of a sound state of mind at the time that he uttered it?

Now you've got forensics from this body. It would seem that would almost render the confession issue moot, although maybe Avery would argue that it's fruit of a poisonous tree.

But the bottom line is, if they I.D. that body, I think that this case is pretty much wrapped up.

KOPPEL: Do you agree, Avery?

FRIEDMAN: Oh, yes. I think this is a case of fairly overwhelming evidence.

Again, remember, Andrea, that the state still has to prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt. But when you look at the confession, you look at some of the things that have happened here, the fight against extradition to Texas and finding the body, Mr. Dotson's in a world of trouble right now. KOPPEL: Well, let's talk about that. Right now Carlton Dotson is fighting extradition. He's in Maryland; he doesn't want to return to Texas. Now good to you -- do you think his chances are of being able to resist extradition, Mr. Friedman?

FRIEDMAN: Oh, think he's finished. I think there's sufficient evidence under extradition laws to permit his transfer to Texas. And I think, given the fact that the evidence is as strong as it is, Andrea, he's on his way to Texas. It's just a matter of time.

KOPPEL: Let's move on to another story that's been grabbing headlines for the last number of weeks, and that, of course, is the case against Kobe Bryant.

This week a judge in Eagle, Colorado, ruled that one video camera and one still camera will be allowed in the August 6 hearing. So just over a week away from now.

Michael Smerconish, what do you think about that?

SMERCONISH: Well, I think that the August 6 hearing is not much in terms of substantively what's going to take place. They're going to advise Kobe of the charges against him.

I think it is a sign, though, that this trial will be -- if there is a trial, because now I'm starting to be a little bit doubtful as to where this thing is going -- but this trial will be televised. Cameras in the courtroom are good, not bad, as long as you don't have a Judge Ito who lets it get out of control. So hopefully, whomever will preside at this trial will rein in these lawyers.

KOPPEL: Mr. Friedman?

FRIEDMAN: Andrea, the idea of a trial in -- cameras in a courtroom in this kind of a trial creates a circus environment.

The reality is that Judge Walter Gannett (sic), who's the Eagle County judge who will try this case, has told the lawyers and law enforcement not to comment about credibility, not to comment about character. The fact is he's going to try to keep a tight rein.

I don't think we're going to see cameras in the courtroom, but it's time to reevaluate what kind of rule we're going to see now in protecting the victims who are victims of sexual assault such as in this case.

KOPPEL: Is that...

SMERCONISH: But Avery, you or I could walk into that courthouse as citizens and we can take up a seat if there were a seat available, and we could watch. So why should it be any different for a camera? Why shouldn't we be able to sit in our living rooms and be afforded the same right?

FRIEDMAN: There's a big difference, Michael. And the difference is that if we go in there, we're watching all the evidence. The difficulty when you bring cameras in, is you get bits and pieces.

Listen, the radio talk show hosts -- maybe not you -- the radio ranters have already exonerated Kobe. The fact is that there is a distorted perception of what's going on in that trial. We don't have the evidence, and I think it's a bad idea.

KOPPEL: These days it just seems almost commonplace that there are cameras in the courtroom. Why is it that this case should be treated any differently?

SMERCONISH: Well, I don't think it should be treated any differently. I mean, it's already a circus, and we haven't yet really had a substantive hearing in the case. So whether we keep cameras out or in, the circus is coming to town in Vail.

KOPPEL: Actually, let's stay on that point, Mr. Smerconish. I wanted to ask you, just based on what Mr. Friedman was saying, the judge has essentially issued a gag order or a very strong advisement to everyone involved in the case not to talk to the public.

Why is this something that isn't common sense?

SMERCONISH: Well, you see, here's what's interesting. It's not necessarily a gag order. What he did was remind the attorneys who are involved of the ethics and their professional code of responsibility that applies to this case.

It's the friends, it's the friends of the alleged victim who I think are to blame. They all want their 15 minutes of fame, and they've put her in a worse position, and no gag order is going to rein them in.

KOPPEL: Mr. Friedman, final comment?

FRIEDMAN: But, in fact -- in fact, the judge has done the correct thing. He can control the law enforcement personnel. He can control the lawyers.

And the fact is that in federal courts, for example, we don't allow cameras, and I'm really concerned that -- in fact, I think it's a reality in this case, Andrea, that there's going to be a change of venue. The difficulty here is that the jury pool has already been tainted in Eagle County, Colorado. This case is going to have to be tried someplace else.

KOPPEL: All right. Well, we'll find out the first, I guess round, if you will, is August 6. We'll all be watching.

Avery Friedman and Michael Smerconish, thank you both.

SMERCONISH: Thank you.

FRIEDMAN: Thanks a lot.

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 July 27, 2003 - 10:22   ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
ANDREA KOPPEL, CNN ANCHOR: The Dennehy case is just one of several that raise interesting legal questions. To discuss them, trial attorney and talk show host Michael Smerconish and civil rights attorney and law professor Avery Friedman.
Gentlemen, you just heard Mike Brooks' report there. Let me show you question out there to either one of you as to how this will affect the case against Carlton Dotson, if in fact, he was the one who put his finger on a map and led police to what could be the body of Patrick Dennehy.

AVERY FRIEDMAN, CIVIL RIGHTS ATTORNEY: Well, good morning, Andrea.

It seems to me already that Carlton Dotson is in a world of trouble. The FBI claims he's already confessed. He's denying it. He's also fighting extradition to Texas.

So I think the identification of the body, which Mike Brooks indicated will be in the next couple days, will be pretty strong evidence against Dotson.

KOPPEL: Michael Smerconish?

MICHAEL SMERCONISH, TRIAL ATTORNEY/TALK SHOW HOST: A couple of days ago, Andrea, we were talking about this issue and the issue was then, well, the confession. Is it going to come in? Was he of a sound state of mind at the time that he uttered it?

Now you've got forensics from this body. It would seem that would almost render the confession issue moot, although maybe Avery would argue that it's fruit of a poisonous tree.

But the bottom line is, if they I.D. that body, I think that this case is pretty much wrapped up.

KOPPEL: Do you agree, Avery?

FRIEDMAN: Oh, yes. I think this is a case of fairly overwhelming evidence.

Again, remember, Andrea, that the state still has to prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt. But when you look at the confession, you look at some of the things that have happened here, the fight against extradition to Texas and finding the body, Mr. Dotson's in a world of trouble right now. KOPPEL: Well, let's talk about that. Right now Carlton Dotson is fighting extradition. He's in Maryland; he doesn't want to return to Texas. Now good to you -- do you think his chances are of being able to resist extradition, Mr. Friedman?

FRIEDMAN: Oh, think he's finished. I think there's sufficient evidence under extradition laws to permit his transfer to Texas. And I think, given the fact that the evidence is as strong as it is, Andrea, he's on his way to Texas. It's just a matter of time.

KOPPEL: Let's move on to another story that's been grabbing headlines for the last number of weeks, and that, of course, is the case against Kobe Bryant.

This week a judge in Eagle, Colorado, ruled that one video camera and one still camera will be allowed in the August 6 hearing. So just over a week away from now.

Michael Smerconish, what do you think about that?

SMERCONISH: Well, I think that the August 6 hearing is not much in terms of substantively what's going to take place. They're going to advise Kobe of the charges against him.

I think it is a sign, though, that this trial will be -- if there is a trial, because now I'm starting to be a little bit doubtful as to where this thing is going -- but this trial will be televised. Cameras in the courtroom are good, not bad, as long as you don't have a Judge Ito who lets it get out of control. So hopefully, whomever will preside at this trial will rein in these lawyers.

KOPPEL: Mr. Friedman?

FRIEDMAN: Andrea, the idea of a trial in -- cameras in a courtroom in this kind of a trial creates a circus environment.

The reality is that Judge Walter Gannett (sic), who's the Eagle County judge who will try this case, has told the lawyers and law enforcement not to comment about credibility, not to comment about character. The fact is he's going to try to keep a tight rein.

I don't think we're going to see cameras in the courtroom, but it's time to reevaluate what kind of rule we're going to see now in protecting the victims who are victims of sexual assault such as in this case.

KOPPEL: Is that...

SMERCONISH: But Avery, you or I could walk into that courthouse as citizens and we can take up a seat if there were a seat available, and we could watch. So why should it be any different for a camera? Why shouldn't we be able to sit in our living rooms and be afforded the same right?

FRIEDMAN: There's a big difference, Michael. And the difference is that if we go in there, we're watching all the evidence. The difficulty when you bring cameras in, is you get bits and pieces.

Listen, the radio talk show hosts -- maybe not you -- the radio ranters have already exonerated Kobe. The fact is that there is a distorted perception of what's going on in that trial. We don't have the evidence, and I think it's a bad idea.

KOPPEL: These days it just seems almost commonplace that there are cameras in the courtroom. Why is it that this case should be treated any differently?

SMERCONISH: Well, I don't think it should be treated any differently. I mean, it's already a circus, and we haven't yet really had a substantive hearing in the case. So whether we keep cameras out or in, the circus is coming to town in Vail.

KOPPEL: Actually, let's stay on that point, Mr. Smerconish. I wanted to ask you, just based on what Mr. Friedman was saying, the judge has essentially issued a gag order or a very strong advisement to everyone involved in the case not to talk to the public.

Why is this something that isn't common sense?

SMERCONISH: Well, you see, here's what's interesting. It's not necessarily a gag order. What he did was remind the attorneys who are involved of the ethics and their professional code of responsibility that applies to this case.

It's the friends, it's the friends of the alleged victim who I think are to blame. They all want their 15 minutes of fame, and they've put her in a worse position, and no gag order is going to rein them in.

KOPPEL: Mr. Friedman, final comment?

FRIEDMAN: But, in fact -- in fact, the judge has done the correct thing. He can control the law enforcement personnel. He can control the lawyers.

And the fact is that in federal courts, for example, we don't allow cameras, and I'm really concerned that -- in fact, I think it's a reality in this case, Andrea, that there's going to be a change of venue. The difficulty here is that the jury pool has already been tainted in Eagle County, Colorado. This case is going to have to be tried someplace else.

KOPPEL: All right. Well, we'll find out the first, I guess round, if you will, is August 6. We'll all be watching.

Avery Friedman and Michael Smerconish, thank you both.

SMERCONISH: Thank you.

FRIEDMAN: Thanks a lot.

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