Return to Transcripts main page

CNN Saturday Morning News

Legal Briefs

Aired June 14, 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.


THOMAS ROBERTS, CNN ANCHOR: Time now this morning for our Legal Briefs, where we're going to talk about this week's hot topics from the courtroom.
Joining us for this with some expert opinions about it is Lida Rodriguez-Taseff. She's a civil liberties attorney and the current president of the ACLU of greater Miami. Also, from Houston, we're joined by Nelda Blair. She's a former Texas prosecutor.

Ladies, good morning.

NELDA BLAIR, FORMER PROSECUTOR: Good morning.

LIDA RODRIGUEZ-TASEFF, CIVIL LIBERTIES ATTORNEY: Good morning.

ROBERTS: All right, Lida, let's get right to it. The gag order that was handed down in the Peterson case, what do you think about that? Good for the prosecution or good for the defense? Who does it behoove?

RODRIGUEZ-TASEFF: Bad for everybody. You know, when we were talking about this last, we talked about the fact that a gag order is completely unwieldy and no sooner was the ink dry on this gag order than the parties were already fighting over what it meant. Only a few hours after the gag order was entered, Amber Frey's lawyer, Gloria Allred, went on television and Mark Geragos, Scott Peterson's lawyer, started to argue wait a second, you're covered by this gag order, you're not supposed to be talking.

Well, is she or isn't she? I don't know. Which side do you want me to argue? You can argue either side. And that's exactly the problem. You have a gag order that has now become a circus within a circus. Litigating issues over this gag order is just going to take up an enormous amount of time and it's going to be completely unwieldy.

ROBERTS: Nelda, the same question to you.

What do you think?

BLAIR: Well, you can't blame the judge for instituting a gag order. He lost control of his courtroom and he needed to gain it back.

But, on the other hand, it's the defense, in my opinion, that's been trying to play this case in the media from day one with the satanic cult, the mysterious woman, blah, blah, blah. So, the gag order itself is an attempt to try to just kind of put a quietus on things.

The prosecution is going to benefit because the prosecution is going to be able to put out its case in full right before a jury and they're not going to have to play it in the media.

ROBERTS: But, ladies, come on, do you really think that it's going to tighten the leaks or it's actually going to encourage these leaks that we've actually seen before?

RODRIGUEZ-TASEFF: It's going to make it all worse. It's going to make it all worse and one of the reasons it's going to make it all worse is because gag orders are addictive. Now that you enter this gag order, the next issue the judge is going to have to address is OK, do I close the proceedings for the preliminary hearing or do I let cameras into the courtroom? And if he closes the proceedings, then that's yet another intrusion on the first amendment and if he allows cameras into the courtroom, then the lawyers are going to try this case in the media and they're going to tailor their argument to sound bites that can be replayed on the evening news.

BLAIR: Well, I agree that it's going to make for more things for the judge to decide. It's going to make for more argument. It's going to make for more issues. But, on the other hand, it does put some teeth into, some punishment into, some possible contempt of court into anyone who wants to try to leak things to the media. Before, there was really no punishment for that. There was really no down side for leaking information.

ROBERTS: Also, Nelda, what's your take on the search warrants that are going to become public July 8? Another judge ruled that they will be unsealed and opened up, but everybody has to wait a month to find out that.

BLAIR: Yes, that's right, and probably that will help kind of quiet things down somewhat, because, as she said, she's right, we are going to be dealing with this gag order situation. But, you know, with those search warrants, well, they'll be made public, just like most evidence in criminal cases are eventually made public to anyone who wants to go look at the file.

So I see nothing wrong with going ahead and making those public. The delay is, you know, that hurts anybody isn't necessarily one way or the other. But I think once the search warrants come out, we'll find that the prosecution is the one that's going to benefit.

ROBERTS: Ladies, I want to shift gears real quickly and get your takes on what's happening in the business world. Sam Waksal, you know, facing seven years, three months behind bars for his situation with the ImClone scandal.

What do you think about that? Also, $4.2 million in fines for this. Justified?

RODRIGUEZ-TASEFF: Probably justified. You know, this is an interesting issue and it's going to be an interesting issue for Martha Stewart, because, look, Sam Waksal pled guilty. He basically rolled over, admitted guilt in October of last year, pled to six charges and the judge still threw the book at him. What does that mean? That means that getting out of serving jail is going to require somebody like Martha to actually go to trial.

So this is probably justified. But the more interesting issue in this case is what implication is that going to have for other cases where parties want to plead guilty?

ROBERTS: Well, Nelda...

BLAIR: I think that's right.

ROBERTS: Nelda, I wanted to ask you, though, what do you think this is going to do for other corporate scandals that are going on out there right now and what type of tone is this going to set for what we're going to see in the courts to come?

BLAIR: It absolutely is the marker for all those corporate cases, including Martha Stewart, because what we've said in the past is that when we go after someone like Martha Stewart, the whole purpose is to show, by the prosecutors, that not, that no one, even mom and apple pie, can get away with fraud or with criminal acts in the corporate world. And that includes people like Martha.

And what's going to happen with this one is, number one, it's going to encourage people to talk to the -- criminal defendants to talk to their prosecutors. I would suspect we will see some plea bargains that don't include jail time because they don't want to risk going in front of a jury and having a jury say look, these other people served jail time and had to pay big fines and we think that that's the right thing to do.

The other thing it's going to do is it's going to force people, as we've just said, like Martha Stewart, if they can't make a plea bargain, to go to a jury. And I think we might be surprised at some of those verdicts that'll come down.

ROBERTS: Ladies, good insight.

Unfortunately, we've run out of time.

Lida Rodriguez-Taseff and Nelda Blair, thank you very much for your insight and I know we'll be talking again soon.

RODRIGUEZ-TASEFF: OK, thanks.

ROBERTS: These stories aren't going away, that's for sure.

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 14, 2003 - 08:13   ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
THOMAS ROBERTS, CNN ANCHOR: Time now this morning for our Legal Briefs, where we're going to talk about this week's hot topics from the courtroom.
Joining us for this with some expert opinions about it is Lida Rodriguez-Taseff. She's a civil liberties attorney and the current president of the ACLU of greater Miami. Also, from Houston, we're joined by Nelda Blair. She's a former Texas prosecutor.

Ladies, good morning.

NELDA BLAIR, FORMER PROSECUTOR: Good morning.

LIDA RODRIGUEZ-TASEFF, CIVIL LIBERTIES ATTORNEY: Good morning.

ROBERTS: All right, Lida, let's get right to it. The gag order that was handed down in the Peterson case, what do you think about that? Good for the prosecution or good for the defense? Who does it behoove?

RODRIGUEZ-TASEFF: Bad for everybody. You know, when we were talking about this last, we talked about the fact that a gag order is completely unwieldy and no sooner was the ink dry on this gag order than the parties were already fighting over what it meant. Only a few hours after the gag order was entered, Amber Frey's lawyer, Gloria Allred, went on television and Mark Geragos, Scott Peterson's lawyer, started to argue wait a second, you're covered by this gag order, you're not supposed to be talking.

Well, is she or isn't she? I don't know. Which side do you want me to argue? You can argue either side. And that's exactly the problem. You have a gag order that has now become a circus within a circus. Litigating issues over this gag order is just going to take up an enormous amount of time and it's going to be completely unwieldy.

ROBERTS: Nelda, the same question to you.

What do you think?

BLAIR: Well, you can't blame the judge for instituting a gag order. He lost control of his courtroom and he needed to gain it back.

But, on the other hand, it's the defense, in my opinion, that's been trying to play this case in the media from day one with the satanic cult, the mysterious woman, blah, blah, blah. So, the gag order itself is an attempt to try to just kind of put a quietus on things.

The prosecution is going to benefit because the prosecution is going to be able to put out its case in full right before a jury and they're not going to have to play it in the media.

ROBERTS: But, ladies, come on, do you really think that it's going to tighten the leaks or it's actually going to encourage these leaks that we've actually seen before?

RODRIGUEZ-TASEFF: It's going to make it all worse. It's going to make it all worse and one of the reasons it's going to make it all worse is because gag orders are addictive. Now that you enter this gag order, the next issue the judge is going to have to address is OK, do I close the proceedings for the preliminary hearing or do I let cameras into the courtroom? And if he closes the proceedings, then that's yet another intrusion on the first amendment and if he allows cameras into the courtroom, then the lawyers are going to try this case in the media and they're going to tailor their argument to sound bites that can be replayed on the evening news.

BLAIR: Well, I agree that it's going to make for more things for the judge to decide. It's going to make for more argument. It's going to make for more issues. But, on the other hand, it does put some teeth into, some punishment into, some possible contempt of court into anyone who wants to try to leak things to the media. Before, there was really no punishment for that. There was really no down side for leaking information.

ROBERTS: Also, Nelda, what's your take on the search warrants that are going to become public July 8? Another judge ruled that they will be unsealed and opened up, but everybody has to wait a month to find out that.

BLAIR: Yes, that's right, and probably that will help kind of quiet things down somewhat, because, as she said, she's right, we are going to be dealing with this gag order situation. But, you know, with those search warrants, well, they'll be made public, just like most evidence in criminal cases are eventually made public to anyone who wants to go look at the file.

So I see nothing wrong with going ahead and making those public. The delay is, you know, that hurts anybody isn't necessarily one way or the other. But I think once the search warrants come out, we'll find that the prosecution is the one that's going to benefit.

ROBERTS: Ladies, I want to shift gears real quickly and get your takes on what's happening in the business world. Sam Waksal, you know, facing seven years, three months behind bars for his situation with the ImClone scandal.

What do you think about that? Also, $4.2 million in fines for this. Justified?

RODRIGUEZ-TASEFF: Probably justified. You know, this is an interesting issue and it's going to be an interesting issue for Martha Stewart, because, look, Sam Waksal pled guilty. He basically rolled over, admitted guilt in October of last year, pled to six charges and the judge still threw the book at him. What does that mean? That means that getting out of serving jail is going to require somebody like Martha to actually go to trial.

So this is probably justified. But the more interesting issue in this case is what implication is that going to have for other cases where parties want to plead guilty?

ROBERTS: Well, Nelda...

BLAIR: I think that's right.

ROBERTS: Nelda, I wanted to ask you, though, what do you think this is going to do for other corporate scandals that are going on out there right now and what type of tone is this going to set for what we're going to see in the courts to come?

BLAIR: It absolutely is the marker for all those corporate cases, including Martha Stewart, because what we've said in the past is that when we go after someone like Martha Stewart, the whole purpose is to show, by the prosecutors, that not, that no one, even mom and apple pie, can get away with fraud or with criminal acts in the corporate world. And that includes people like Martha.

And what's going to happen with this one is, number one, it's going to encourage people to talk to the -- criminal defendants to talk to their prosecutors. I would suspect we will see some plea bargains that don't include jail time because they don't want to risk going in front of a jury and having a jury say look, these other people served jail time and had to pay big fines and we think that that's the right thing to do.

The other thing it's going to do is it's going to force people, as we've just said, like Martha Stewart, if they can't make a plea bargain, to go to a jury. And I think we might be surprised at some of those verdicts that'll come down.

ROBERTS: Ladies, good insight.

Unfortunately, we've run out of time.

Lida Rodriguez-Taseff and Nelda Blair, thank you very much for your insight and I know we'll be talking again soon.

RODRIGUEZ-TASEFF: OK, thanks.

ROBERTS: These stories aren't going away, that's for sure.

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