Return to Transcripts main page

CNN Saturday Morning News

Interview with Lida Rodriguez-Taseff, Nelda Blair

Aired June 07, 2003 - 08:11   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: Time now for our Legal Brief. Our focus today, two high profile cases. One involves allegations of murder, the other suspected of insider trading.
Joining us for our roundtable today, civil liberties Attorney Lida Rodriguez-Taseff and former prosecutor Nelda Blair.

Good morning to you both.

We certainly appreciate your time this morning.

Let's go ahead and start, if we could, with the Peterson trial. We know now that the autopsy report and the wiretapping records will remain sealed. I'd like to know what both of you think about the judge's decision on those issues.

Lida, why don't you go ahead and begin.

LIDA RODRIGUEZ-TASEFF, CIVIL LIBERTIES ATTORNEY: Well, I think the decision not to release the autopsy is a bad decision. Parts of it have already been leaked. We need to see the autopsy in its entirety in order to be able to comment on it. So it doesn't really help the case or help the public or help civil liberties not to release the autopsy.

COLLINS: And Nelda?

NELDA BLAIR, FORMER PROSECUTOR: Yes, I don't completely disagree with that because, because of the fact that pieces of it have already been leaked, particularly pieces that are appropriate to the defense and not the prosecution, I think it would have been a good idea to let it out. But I fully understand, you know, most judges like complete control of their courtroom. This judge is already losing control of some of his evidence and he wants it back.

COLLINS: And speaking of losing control, usually that's what happens and then the judge goes ahead and orders a gag order on the case.

BLAIR: Right.

RODRIGUEZ-TASEFF: Correct. Sure.

COLLINS: But that did not happen. Your reaction to that, as well?

BLAIR: Well, he didn't order that this time. Of course, he might still do that. He said he's delaying that decision. It really wouldn't surprise me, again, because judges usually like to keep tight control, whether they let cameras in or not, whether they let evidence out or not, they still like to make those decisions themselves and have that complete manipulation of the case, of the trial. And this judge doesn't have it right now.

COLLINS: Lida, what do you see as problems so far in this case? I mean are we looking at a case that already has some very clear issues here?

RODRIGUEZ-TASEFF: Sure. You have a couple of really clear issues, including the issue of the wiretaps and the conversations between the lawyers that were, and Peterson that were taped. Now, the allegation of the government, which basically the judge accepted as accurate, was the factor that there were over 3,000 conversations that were listened to, but only three of which the defense actually had an argument.

So the, you know, the issue of the wiretaps might possibly taint the case. Now the defense is trying to make an issue out of the fact that the Peterson family, that the Laci Peterson's family walked into the home and took some evidence, including some shoes. That may or may not be an issue. But one of the most interesting issues, of course, is the right of the journalist to get access to their taped conversations. They were wiretapped also and many of them want to have access to their taped conversations with Scott Peterson but they don't want that information released.

And now that's a very interesting issue for the media to take the position that we want to see the autopsy, we want to see all the reports, we want no gag order, but at the same time, we don't want you releasing our conversations with Mr. Peterson.

COLLINS: So, Nelda, whose case is this, the media's or the family of Laci Peterson?

BLAIR: Well, right now it's the media's. You know, of course, the media won't be the one making the decision. Twelve jurors will make a decision. But, you know, all those issues that we just went through are really peripheral. This is a murder case. This is about whether or not Scott Peterson murdered his wife and whether 12 jurors can be convinced of that or whether they're going to be convinced by the defense that a cult or some other person or the milk man or another lady hidden somewhere did this, and not Scott.

That's the real issue.

COLLINS: All right, let's go ahead and move on to the next case that we have been looking at quite a bit in the media, as well, Martha Stewart's case. We know that she now has been found -- actually, she has pleaded not guilty. The most interesting thing to me is that she has not been charged with insider trading. But there have been nine other indictments.

What exactly does this mean, Nelda? BLAIR: Well, the fact that they first started off with insider trading certainly caught everyone's attention. I do think that to some extent Martha Stewart will probably be used as an example. That's part of what punishment is, is deterrent for others. And the fact that they found nine things to charge her with, whether or not it's insider trading, that's a lot of counts filed by them.

COLLINS: But we're talking about $47,000 to a woman who's potentially a billionaire.

BLAIR: Right.

COLLINS: What's $47,000?

BLAIR: But that's the whole point, the whole point is no matter who you are, no matter how famous or rich you are, or no matter how perfect you happen to be on camera, you still are subject to the laws of this country. And Martha Stewart is no different.

COLLINS: Lida?

RODRIGUEZ-TASEFF: Well, what this case is really about is the fact that Martha Stewart was indicted for protesting her innocence publicly at a time when the government was investigating her. The issue here is whether or not her protestation of innocence could constitute a crime under the securities laws and, if so, doesn't that clash with the constitutional right that she must have to declare her innocence publicly?

Why should she have to wait until she's indicted to declare her innocence in a courtroom? Why is she not permitted to declare her innocence and this rule? Because this is what this is basically based on, is a securities law that says that officers of corporations are not allowed to make material misstatements of fact.

The material misstatement that the government is alleging occurred here is Martha Stewart's statement that she is innocent. And the other question that arises is can that possibly be a material misstatement when no jury has found her guilty? Isn't she innocent until proven guilty, and therefore there is no way that they could have charged her with lying about her innocence when nobody had convicted her of anything?

BLAIR: Well, they charged her with a lot more than just saying I'm innocent.

COLLINS: Go ahead, Nelda, finish your thought.

BLAIR: Well, they've charged her with quite a bit more than that, so there's a little more to it than Martha just came on TV and said I'm innocent and so they've charged her. This is the same law that everyone else in the United States is subject to, as well, and granted, it may be worth a challenge, because this is a particularly public case. But she's been treated no different than anyone else when it comes to application of the law.

COLLINS: All right, ladies, we are going to have to leave it there this morning.

We certainly appreciate your insights.

Lida Rodriguez-Taseff, thank you this morning, and also, Nelda Blair.

We will talk to you both, I'm sure, one day very soon.

BLAIR: OK.

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 June 7, 2003 - 08:11   ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
HEIDI COLLINS, CNN ANCHOR: Time now for our Legal Brief. Our focus today, two high profile cases. One involves allegations of murder, the other suspected of insider trading.
Joining us for our roundtable today, civil liberties Attorney Lida Rodriguez-Taseff and former prosecutor Nelda Blair.

Good morning to you both.

We certainly appreciate your time this morning.

Let's go ahead and start, if we could, with the Peterson trial. We know now that the autopsy report and the wiretapping records will remain sealed. I'd like to know what both of you think about the judge's decision on those issues.

Lida, why don't you go ahead and begin.

LIDA RODRIGUEZ-TASEFF, CIVIL LIBERTIES ATTORNEY: Well, I think the decision not to release the autopsy is a bad decision. Parts of it have already been leaked. We need to see the autopsy in its entirety in order to be able to comment on it. So it doesn't really help the case or help the public or help civil liberties not to release the autopsy.

COLLINS: And Nelda?

NELDA BLAIR, FORMER PROSECUTOR: Yes, I don't completely disagree with that because, because of the fact that pieces of it have already been leaked, particularly pieces that are appropriate to the defense and not the prosecution, I think it would have been a good idea to let it out. But I fully understand, you know, most judges like complete control of their courtroom. This judge is already losing control of some of his evidence and he wants it back.

COLLINS: And speaking of losing control, usually that's what happens and then the judge goes ahead and orders a gag order on the case.

BLAIR: Right.

RODRIGUEZ-TASEFF: Correct. Sure.

COLLINS: But that did not happen. Your reaction to that, as well?

BLAIR: Well, he didn't order that this time. Of course, he might still do that. He said he's delaying that decision. It really wouldn't surprise me, again, because judges usually like to keep tight control, whether they let cameras in or not, whether they let evidence out or not, they still like to make those decisions themselves and have that complete manipulation of the case, of the trial. And this judge doesn't have it right now.

COLLINS: Lida, what do you see as problems so far in this case? I mean are we looking at a case that already has some very clear issues here?

RODRIGUEZ-TASEFF: Sure. You have a couple of really clear issues, including the issue of the wiretaps and the conversations between the lawyers that were, and Peterson that were taped. Now, the allegation of the government, which basically the judge accepted as accurate, was the factor that there were over 3,000 conversations that were listened to, but only three of which the defense actually had an argument.

So the, you know, the issue of the wiretaps might possibly taint the case. Now the defense is trying to make an issue out of the fact that the Peterson family, that the Laci Peterson's family walked into the home and took some evidence, including some shoes. That may or may not be an issue. But one of the most interesting issues, of course, is the right of the journalist to get access to their taped conversations. They were wiretapped also and many of them want to have access to their taped conversations with Scott Peterson but they don't want that information released.

And now that's a very interesting issue for the media to take the position that we want to see the autopsy, we want to see all the reports, we want no gag order, but at the same time, we don't want you releasing our conversations with Mr. Peterson.

COLLINS: So, Nelda, whose case is this, the media's or the family of Laci Peterson?

BLAIR: Well, right now it's the media's. You know, of course, the media won't be the one making the decision. Twelve jurors will make a decision. But, you know, all those issues that we just went through are really peripheral. This is a murder case. This is about whether or not Scott Peterson murdered his wife and whether 12 jurors can be convinced of that or whether they're going to be convinced by the defense that a cult or some other person or the milk man or another lady hidden somewhere did this, and not Scott.

That's the real issue.

COLLINS: All right, let's go ahead and move on to the next case that we have been looking at quite a bit in the media, as well, Martha Stewart's case. We know that she now has been found -- actually, she has pleaded not guilty. The most interesting thing to me is that she has not been charged with insider trading. But there have been nine other indictments.

What exactly does this mean, Nelda? BLAIR: Well, the fact that they first started off with insider trading certainly caught everyone's attention. I do think that to some extent Martha Stewart will probably be used as an example. That's part of what punishment is, is deterrent for others. And the fact that they found nine things to charge her with, whether or not it's insider trading, that's a lot of counts filed by them.

COLLINS: But we're talking about $47,000 to a woman who's potentially a billionaire.

BLAIR: Right.

COLLINS: What's $47,000?

BLAIR: But that's the whole point, the whole point is no matter who you are, no matter how famous or rich you are, or no matter how perfect you happen to be on camera, you still are subject to the laws of this country. And Martha Stewart is no different.

COLLINS: Lida?

RODRIGUEZ-TASEFF: Well, what this case is really about is the fact that Martha Stewart was indicted for protesting her innocence publicly at a time when the government was investigating her. The issue here is whether or not her protestation of innocence could constitute a crime under the securities laws and, if so, doesn't that clash with the constitutional right that she must have to declare her innocence publicly?

Why should she have to wait until she's indicted to declare her innocence in a courtroom? Why is she not permitted to declare her innocence and this rule? Because this is what this is basically based on, is a securities law that says that officers of corporations are not allowed to make material misstatements of fact.

The material misstatement that the government is alleging occurred here is Martha Stewart's statement that she is innocent. And the other question that arises is can that possibly be a material misstatement when no jury has found her guilty? Isn't she innocent until proven guilty, and therefore there is no way that they could have charged her with lying about her innocence when nobody had convicted her of anything?

BLAIR: Well, they charged her with a lot more than just saying I'm innocent.

COLLINS: Go ahead, Nelda, finish your thought.

BLAIR: Well, they've charged her with quite a bit more than that, so there's a little more to it than Martha just came on TV and said I'm innocent and so they've charged her. This is the same law that everyone else in the United States is subject to, as well, and granted, it may be worth a challenge, because this is a particularly public case. But she's been treated no different than anyone else when it comes to application of the law.

COLLINS: All right, ladies, we are going to have to leave it there this morning.

We certainly appreciate your insights.

Lida Rodriguez-Taseff, thank you this morning, and also, Nelda Blair.

We will talk to you both, I'm sure, one day very soon.

BLAIR: OK.

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