Return to Transcripts main page
CNN Saturday Morning News
Interview With Wendy Murphy, Jayne Weintraub
Aired March 23, 2002 - 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.
MILES O'BRIEN, CNN ANCHOR: It's time for us to check in on the legal desk. A couple of cases on our minds this morning -- the dog mauling case, the Yates sentencing. We also want to check in on some thoughts on the Bush administration plans for dealing with those detainees at Guantanamo.
To do that we check in with Wendy Murphy, a professor at the New England School of Law and a former prosecutor. She's in Boston. And in our Miami bureau, criminal defense attorney and former prosecutor Jayne Weintraub. Good to have you both with us, ladies.
WENDY MURPHY, NEW ENGLAND SCHOOL OF LAW: Good morning.
JAYNE WEINTRAUB, CRIMINAL DEFENSE ATTORNEY: Good morning.
O'BRIEN: All right, let's talk about the dog mauling case. Wendy, let's begin with you. Such a sensational trial and really, I thought, a stunning verdict. I didn't watch every last minute of this trial. I don't know if you had the opportunity to do so. Were you surprised?
MURPHY: Well, in a way I was. I mean as a law professor I understood that this was an unusual type of case. There hadn't been a successful prosecution in the past in terms of prosecuting an individual for what their dog did wrong in a criminal sense. Lots of civil liability there. But I predicted the result and I'm not just boasting there. I predicted it because this was such an outrageous set of circumstances. Over 30 witnesses coming forward saying these dogs were like lethal weapons, barking, snarling, biting at everybody. And there just was no real argument here that these two defendants didn't know how utterly vicious these dogs were.
One of them was nicknamed the assassin. This couple knew that this type of dog was bred to kill. I thought it was a really tough defense case and there was a tremendous amount of sympathy on the victim's side of things. It may well be that the second degree murder conviction gets reversed on appeal. I thought that was a push at the legal envelope.
WEINTRAUB: Plus...
MURPHY: But in the end, in the end, you know, I think they needed to be held criminally responsible and that's the message from that case. O'BRIEN: Jayne, what do you think?
WEINTRAUB: I think criminally responsible is one thing, negligence maybe, manslaughter maybe was a reach, but second degree murder for your dog's actions and intentional malice? I think the problem here was that the defendants were not likable people in the public's eye. I think that's why they were convicted, because of their lifestyle. But not to breed vicious dogs? Does that mean Dobermans can't be bred anymore? German Shepherds can't be bred? What's next?
MURPHY: That's not...
WEINTRAUB: I think it's a clear case...
MURPHY: That's not what was going on, Jayne. You're so overdoing this.
WEINTRAUB: It...
MURPHY: And this is what the defendants said.
WEINTRAUB: It is a clear case of prosecution...
MURPHY: It's somebody else's fault, not my fault. It's the judge's fault, it's the D.A.'s fault...
O'BRIEN: But wait a minute...
MURPHY: It's all about politics. They think we're icky people. Please. These dogs had a long...
WEINTRAUB: This is prosecutorial over reaching.
MURPHY: This...
WEINTRAUB: A murder conviction?
O'BRIEN: Here's the deal, though. Here's my opinion on this. Let me just weigh in, if I could. Almost immediately after this happened they got out and they tried to blame the victim. It started off that way and they've never really shown any sense of responsibility for this. And I'm sure the jury picked up on that, don't you think?
MURPHY: I totally agree, Miles. I mean this was, there was so much arrogance from the defense side of things...
O'BRIEN: Thank you. Yes.
MURPHY: And I'm not sure...
WEINTRAUB: Well, maybe on behalf of the lawyer...
MURPHY: Arrogance is...
WEINTRAUB: ... not as much as of the defendants.
MURPHY: Well, arrogance...
WEINTRAUB: I mean you can't say that...
(CROSSTALK)
O'BRIEN: Jayne, let her finish. Let her finish.
MURPHY: Jayne, arrogance isn't a crime and it's not, you know, unfortunately, it just happens to be the nature of our human based jury system that we judge each other harshly if we think, you know, you're acting arrogantly in the courtroom. Unfortunately, that worked against them. But at the end of the day, if you just look objectively at the evidence, this was a very strong prosecution case and I think that although most dog owners were watching this case wondering, oh my goodness, could this happen to me, at the end of the day, most dog owners around the country said that has nothing to do with the way I manage my dogs and my lifestyle. I'm far more responsible. And I don't care if they go to prison because their behavior was absolutely criminal.
O'BRIEN: Jayne, the defendants in this case were both lawyers and the defense didn't seem very well organized. They didn't represent themselves, I should note. But nevertheless, you would think that they would have had a more coherent defense than what I read about.
WEINTRAUB: Well, it did not appear to be a very cohesive defense and I'm not privy to the legal pretrial motions. But what I will say is that I think it is horrendous and a horrific outreach from the prosecution to go for a murder conviction, an intentional malice on this woman. And her husband? Her husband wasn't even there. Perhaps it was more appropriate for the husband's charge, Mr. Noel, to be charged with the ownership of the dogs or breeding the dog. But to have him charged with the absolute act of manslaughter when he wasn't even present and he couldn't prevent it, I think, is outrageous. And it shows...
MURPHY: Well, you know what? But it's not...
WEINTRAUB: It shows the government's ability to overreach and to obtain their goal.
MURPHY: Look, Jayne...
WEINTRAUB: And that's scary.
MURPHY: ... the idea that dogs were involved is a little bit unusual, but it's not unlike, in the theoretical sense it's not unlike what we do when homeowners leave guns and weapons in their house and a child walks in and...
WEINTRAUB: It is because Robert Noel...
MURPHY: ... takes the gun and then goes and shoots someone. Yes, you, the homeowner doesn't have to be there...
WEINTRAUB: And have you seen any murder cases like that?
MURPHY: But if a child kills a person with their gun and they know that that's a likely result...
WEINTRAUB: That's a civil lawsuit.
MURPHY: ... that's a manslaughter case.
WEINTRAUB: It's a tragedy.
MURPHY: No, that's a manslaughter case, Jayne, and you know it.
WEINTRAUB: That's an accident.
O'BRIEN: Ladies, ladies, we've got...
MURPHY: Oh, give me that case any day.
O'BRIEN: Let's muzzle that one for a moment and move on, shall we? Yates. Is there anything left to say about this that hasn't been said?
MURPHY: Rusty Yates should have been indicted.
O'BRIEN: OK, I think that has been said. What do you think, Wendy? Any further thoughts?
MURPHY: Well, you know, one of the things I think that hasn't been said is however you feel about the result, I think we have to have a different national conversation about the definition of insanity. I mean it's a sort of old standard. It's really very simple in Texas -- did she know right from wrong? And reasonable people can argue and do argue that that's the wrong question, because you can be extremely mentally ill, the kind of person we think should not be held criminally responsible yet, you know, just because the question is did you know right from wrong, we treat you as if you are just as morally responsible as a person who has no mental illness at all.
So it seems to me we have to ask this question -- should we change the standard so that more people like Andrea Yates in fact at the end of the day end up in a mental hospital instead of a prison? And if so, what are we going to ask of the mentally ill population in exchange? And I think the answer is we have to be willing, as a society, to medicate people against their will. We don't do that and we should. And we have to be willing to lock people up in a medical sense even under a tougher standard than we now have so that these people are less free to kill. And then if they do something wrong criminally, we might give them a walk at the end of the day.
O'BRIEN: I mean I sort of agree with that. If Andrea Yates cannot be found insane by a jury, no one can. So maybe the whole idea should be abolished. What do you think, Jayne, just... WEINTRAUB: Miles, I think that if the jury were told that a not guilty by reason of insanity would mean that she would not walk out the door, perhaps you would have had that verdict. For example, if people knew or focused on the fact that John Hinckley is still in prison 20 years later after the attempted assassination of the president, then things would have been different.
Nobody's going to give her a walk -- nobody -- on five killings, especially of children. But not guilty by reason of insanity doesn't mean not guilty and walking out the door and I think that was the problem in the jury instructions.
MURPHY: Yes, you know, but not guilty does mean...
WEINTRAUB: Knowing right from wrong...
MURPHY: Jayne, but, come on, be honest about it.
WEINTRAUB: ... Dr. Dietz, who was there on...
MURPHY: Every time a defense attorney says oh, come on, she might sit in a nut house for the rest of her life, you're not, you're not answering the more important question, which is but do we hold her criminally individually responsible? And the answer is no. Insanity means you have been excused under the law, forgiven your misdeeds.
WEINTRAUB: But Wendy, you're assuming that jurors are going to be reasonable people and excuse the conduct of the killing.
MURPHY: I don't think...
WEINTRAUB: Wasn't it clear this was a compromise verdict without deliberation? Wasn't it clear that...
MURPHY: No, I think under the law --
WEINTRAUB: ... that if you asked any of these people...
MURPHY: I think under the law it was really a very simple case, did she know right from wrong? Absolutely. Should she die? Absolutely not.
WEINTRAUB: But that, I don't agree with you, Wendy.
(CROSSTALK)
O'BRIEN: All right...
MURPHY: It's a very simple...
WEINTRAUB: I think it is...
(CROSSTALK)
O'BRIEN: We're running out of time, unfortunately, ladies. There is still a lot more to say about that, I guess, so let's, we'll put that on the back burner for now. Move onto the, the Bush administration is not calling them tribunals. They'll be commissions. I'm not sure why, what the semantic difference really is. I think it probably is just about maybe a little bit of spin. But the fact is it's kind of a hybrid between a military tribunal with some civil jurisprudence injected into it. Is it a good compromise?
WEINTRAUB: I think it's horrific. I think that the best way to demonstrate that America...
MURPHY: Surprise.
WEINTRAUB: ... has been unchanged by the horrible events of 9/11 is to show the world we have the best court system in the universe. And that's to demonstrate it without any exceptions. Leave due process and the constitution intact. Try the individuals as they should be, in a regular course of our criminal justice system. And that will say that we win.
MURPHY: Oh, please, Jayne...
WEINTRAUB: Because if the government has a case...
MURPHY: Please...
WEINTRAUB: ... and if the government can meet its burden of proof, justice will be served.
MURPHY: I think there are other ways we can teach the rest of the world how great our justice system is...
WEINTRAUB: By having the victim...
MURPHY: ... than giving non-citizens...
WEINTRAUB: ... the military, be the judge and jury
(CROSSTALK)
O'BRIEN: All right, let, wait. Let Wendy talk for a second.
MURPHY: You know, one of the things that I, that just makes me crazy about this issue is that people are out there saying let's give these non-citizens access to the same standards under the Bill of Rights that we give people who live by the rules in this country, who love the rules in this country and in the terms of social contract, you know, understand the notion of benefits and burdens.
You live in this country, you have certain responsibilities and you get the benefits of the Bill of Rights and due process.
If you're not subject to those benefits and burdens, if you're from another country and you're not a citizen, you don't get the same advantages. That's a simple idea and it's been in the law for a long time.
O'BRIEN: Yes, but, wait a minute. Wendy, Wendy. MURPHY: We don't even give...
O'BRIEN: Shouldn't...
MURPHY: ... children that are American citizens the kind of due process Jayne wants to give illegal people who hate our laws.
O'BRIEN: Wendy, but don't you think, Bill of Rights should be considered human rights?
MURPHY: Well, no, not entirely, because the Bill of Rights is unique to the American justice system. It is specifically designed by...
WEINTRAUB: For people that are tried in the American justice system...
MURPHY: ... its plain language to apply in certain circumstances...
WEINTRAUB: And you're going to take that away with a military tribunal.
MURPHY: ... to citizens only. Look, let's make one thing clear. We're not saying these people should be tried with judges who have blankets over their heads and should be shot at sunrise after there's no fact finding. They are going to get extremely...
WEINTRAUB: No, that was Laurie Berenson, another American.
MURPHY: They're going to get a very fair trial.
O'BRIEN: All right...
MURPHY: What they're not going to get is the kind of super fair trial we save for people who live by this country's rules, respect them and care about them.
O'BRIEN: All right...
MURPHY: This is not necessary. You're just making stuff up, Jayne, that this is somehow a violation of human rights. The Bill of Rights is much better, much more generous to people in terms of due process than any definition of human rights.
O'BRIEN: All right, Wendy and Jayne, I'm going to have to end it there, unfortunately. I apologize for cutting it off, but actually we went a little longer than expected. But we appreciate your insights on all those legal subject matters. We hope you'll come back and join us again some time soon.
MURPHY: Thanks.
WEINTRAUB: Thank you, Miles.
O'BRIEN: All right. TO ORDER A VIDEO OF THIS TRANSCRIPT, PLEASE CALL 800-CNN-NEWS OR USE OUR SECURE ONLINE ORDER FORM LOCATED AT www.fdch.com
