Return to Transcripts main page
CNN Saturday Morning News
Legal Briefs
Aired July 05, 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.
FREDRICKA WHITFIELD, CNN ANCHOR: Well, it's time to take a look at legal moves that made headlines in the past week. On our docket, a ruling in Alabama and a judge decides to kind of overrun it. It involves the Ten Commandments. And then, of course, there's the life sentencing for spitting.
Here's our legal roundtable, CNN contributor Michael Smerconish and civil rights attorney Lida Rodriguez-Taseff.
Good to see both of you.
MICHAEL SMERCONISH, RADIO TALK SHOW HOST: Good morning.
LIDA RODRIGUEZ-TASEFF, CIVIL RIGHTS ATTORNEY: Good morning.
WHITFIELD: All right, let's tackle the Ten Commandments first, since this judge doesn't seem to want to, even though an appellate court says it's a violation of church and state to have this two and a half ton granite piece of Ten Commandments right in the middle of the Judicial Center in Alabama.
So, Lida, let me begin with you.
How in the world is it that this judge can override a higher court?
RODRIGUEZ-TASEFF: Well, you know, these Ten Commandment cases are a dime a dozen and what makes this one special in the negative sense is that this judge has decided not to follow the law. Now, this is a problem. This reminds you -- and this is what the appellate court said -- this reminds you of the southern governors who didn't want to uphold civil rights laws in the '50s and '60s.
This is a travesty. No judge is above the law, and especially a judge who has sworn to apply the law needs to be sworn to uphold it.
WHITFIELD: And, Michael, we're talking about a judge setting an example, isn't he? He is telling, you know, the citizens there that it's OK to not only challenge the law, but you can defy it, isn't he?
SMERCONISH: Well, the guy's a knucklehead. I mean that's clear. I like the idea of some of these criminals having to walk into a courthouse and see a message that says don't murder, don't steal, don't cheat on your wife. I mean I think that's all the right thing.
But, you know, he brings it in surreptitiously after hours. It's not something you can do in this era.
Interestingly, this very same case, except involving Ten Commandments that were posted more than 70 years ago in the suburbs of Philadelphia, were upheld by another federal appellate court opinion just this week. So you have this one decision that says get it out of there and then closer to Philadelphia you have a decision that says it can stay because it has now taken on a historical significance.
WHITFIELD: And you know...
SMERCONISH: Bottom...
WHITFIELD: I'm sorry. Go ahead.
SMERCONISH: The bottom line is you can't today just show up with the Ten Commandments, but if it's been there for a long, long time, let it stay.
WHITFIELD: OK. All right, well, I'm being asked to move on. I had another question for you, because that issue is just unbelievable, isn't it?
All right, let's talk about this young man who apparently, a 35- year-old guy who spits, as well as bites a police officer and lo and behold, he ends up getting a life sentence for that.
Is that, Michael, simply because he already had a rather lengthy felony criminal record? I mean does sentence seem to fit the crime?
SMERCONISH: Well, I think that if someone who did not have a rap sheet were to spit at a police officer they'd be punished, but not a life sentence. In this particular case, this individual had a rap sheet a mile long and I like the fact that this jury said, you know, enough already. We're sick and tired of having all this recidivism and having individuals like this continually come back to the judicial system. Put him away for the rest of his life.
I know it sounds harsh...
WHITFIELD: But doesn't it still have to be appropriate? I mean you can't just -- just because you feel like setting an example or making someone an example, doesn't the punishment have to fit the crime? And this is a person who did not have a communicable disease. That was not the issue.
SMERCONISH: The jury was able to take a look at this history, this person's background, and obviously they used that to come to the conclusions that no longer should the individual be walking -- look, I don't want the person as one of my neighbors. I'm glad that they put him away for life.
WHITFIELD: All right, Lida, you like this?
RODRIGUEZ-TASEFF: Can I chime in now, please?
This is an eighth amendment issue. The eighth amendment says cruel and unusual punishment is a no-no. A punishment is cruel or unusual if it is disproportionate to the crime. As you said, Fredricka, he did not have a communicable disease. No disease was transmitted to the police officer.
And, more importantly, this man, hello, was arrested for beating his wife and breaking her arm. If Michael's theory held, then he would have been sentenced to life for that. He wasn't. What was he sentenced to? He was sentenced to one year for beating his wife. Life in prison...
WHITFIELD: But assaulting a police officer, he gets life.
RODRIGUEZ-TASEFF: And life in prison for spitting at the police officer.
SMERCONISH: Hey, Lida...
RODRIGUEZ-TASEFF: There is nothing...
SMERCONISH: Lida...
RODRIGUEZ-TASEFF: ... fair here.
WHITFIELD: Interesting.
SMERCONISH: Listen, maybe you have a condo down there in Miami that you'd like to put this guy up in and he can live in your community, because I'd just as soon not have him around here.
WHITFIELD: All right...
RODRIGUEZ-TASEFF: Well, you know, that or you can send me your Ten Commandments from Philadelphia.
WHITFIELD: All right, Lida, well, maybe you and maybe you, too, Michael, all of us have a can do Spam in our cupboard, right? And we're talking about Hormel's Spam. We're not talking about the spam that we've got in our computer e-mail.
Well, Hormel now has taking, is taking this issue to task. It's saying Spam is its trademark. It is its label and how dare anyone come up with spam now being associated with the e-mail that nobody wants.
So, Lida, does Hormel have a really good case here? Can they protect the rights of the name Spam?
RODRIGUEZ-TASEFF: Well, you know, it's nice to see that they're finally protecting the name Spam after they, you know, hid behind and said, you know, they didn't want anybody to know that was their trademark. You know, there is a legal issue here that's kind of interesting. The word spam has become commonly associated not with gross meat that you eat in college -- and Michael probably still has some in his cupboard -- but with, you know, this Internet activity that is so annoying to all of us. But Hormel's got a good point. They do have a trademark. They do -- and the issue is going to be whether they've protected it all these years. If they're as embarrassed to own the trademark as Michael is to admit that there's some of that stuff in his cupboard, then I don't know that they're going to win here.
WHITFIELD: So, Michael, do they, do you think they have a pretty good shot here?
SMERCONISH: No. The horse has already left the barn and the only issue here is which form of spam would you least want to have? And that's a very close call.
WHITFIELD: All right, Michael Smerconish and Lida Rodriguez- Taseff, good to see both of you.
SMERCONISH: Thank you.
RODRIGUEZ-TASEFF: Thank you.
WHITFIELD: And have a great weekend.
Thanks for being with us.
RODRIGUEZ-TASEFF: Bye.
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 5, 2003 - 08:11 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
FREDRICKA WHITFIELD, CNN ANCHOR: Well, it's time to take a look at legal moves that made headlines in the past week. On our docket, a ruling in Alabama and a judge decides to kind of overrun it. It involves the Ten Commandments. And then, of course, there's the life sentencing for spitting.
Here's our legal roundtable, CNN contributor Michael Smerconish and civil rights attorney Lida Rodriguez-Taseff.
Good to see both of you.
MICHAEL SMERCONISH, RADIO TALK SHOW HOST: Good morning.
LIDA RODRIGUEZ-TASEFF, CIVIL RIGHTS ATTORNEY: Good morning.
WHITFIELD: All right, let's tackle the Ten Commandments first, since this judge doesn't seem to want to, even though an appellate court says it's a violation of church and state to have this two and a half ton granite piece of Ten Commandments right in the middle of the Judicial Center in Alabama.
So, Lida, let me begin with you.
How in the world is it that this judge can override a higher court?
RODRIGUEZ-TASEFF: Well, you know, these Ten Commandment cases are a dime a dozen and what makes this one special in the negative sense is that this judge has decided not to follow the law. Now, this is a problem. This reminds you -- and this is what the appellate court said -- this reminds you of the southern governors who didn't want to uphold civil rights laws in the '50s and '60s.
This is a travesty. No judge is above the law, and especially a judge who has sworn to apply the law needs to be sworn to uphold it.
WHITFIELD: And, Michael, we're talking about a judge setting an example, isn't he? He is telling, you know, the citizens there that it's OK to not only challenge the law, but you can defy it, isn't he?
SMERCONISH: Well, the guy's a knucklehead. I mean that's clear. I like the idea of some of these criminals having to walk into a courthouse and see a message that says don't murder, don't steal, don't cheat on your wife. I mean I think that's all the right thing.
But, you know, he brings it in surreptitiously after hours. It's not something you can do in this era.
Interestingly, this very same case, except involving Ten Commandments that were posted more than 70 years ago in the suburbs of Philadelphia, were upheld by another federal appellate court opinion just this week. So you have this one decision that says get it out of there and then closer to Philadelphia you have a decision that says it can stay because it has now taken on a historical significance.
WHITFIELD: And you know...
SMERCONISH: Bottom...
WHITFIELD: I'm sorry. Go ahead.
SMERCONISH: The bottom line is you can't today just show up with the Ten Commandments, but if it's been there for a long, long time, let it stay.
WHITFIELD: OK. All right, well, I'm being asked to move on. I had another question for you, because that issue is just unbelievable, isn't it?
All right, let's talk about this young man who apparently, a 35- year-old guy who spits, as well as bites a police officer and lo and behold, he ends up getting a life sentence for that.
Is that, Michael, simply because he already had a rather lengthy felony criminal record? I mean does sentence seem to fit the crime?
SMERCONISH: Well, I think that if someone who did not have a rap sheet were to spit at a police officer they'd be punished, but not a life sentence. In this particular case, this individual had a rap sheet a mile long and I like the fact that this jury said, you know, enough already. We're sick and tired of having all this recidivism and having individuals like this continually come back to the judicial system. Put him away for the rest of his life.
I know it sounds harsh...
WHITFIELD: But doesn't it still have to be appropriate? I mean you can't just -- just because you feel like setting an example or making someone an example, doesn't the punishment have to fit the crime? And this is a person who did not have a communicable disease. That was not the issue.
SMERCONISH: The jury was able to take a look at this history, this person's background, and obviously they used that to come to the conclusions that no longer should the individual be walking -- look, I don't want the person as one of my neighbors. I'm glad that they put him away for life.
WHITFIELD: All right, Lida, you like this?
RODRIGUEZ-TASEFF: Can I chime in now, please?
This is an eighth amendment issue. The eighth amendment says cruel and unusual punishment is a no-no. A punishment is cruel or unusual if it is disproportionate to the crime. As you said, Fredricka, he did not have a communicable disease. No disease was transmitted to the police officer.
And, more importantly, this man, hello, was arrested for beating his wife and breaking her arm. If Michael's theory held, then he would have been sentenced to life for that. He wasn't. What was he sentenced to? He was sentenced to one year for beating his wife. Life in prison...
WHITFIELD: But assaulting a police officer, he gets life.
RODRIGUEZ-TASEFF: And life in prison for spitting at the police officer.
SMERCONISH: Hey, Lida...
RODRIGUEZ-TASEFF: There is nothing...
SMERCONISH: Lida...
RODRIGUEZ-TASEFF: ... fair here.
WHITFIELD: Interesting.
SMERCONISH: Listen, maybe you have a condo down there in Miami that you'd like to put this guy up in and he can live in your community, because I'd just as soon not have him around here.
WHITFIELD: All right...
RODRIGUEZ-TASEFF: Well, you know, that or you can send me your Ten Commandments from Philadelphia.
WHITFIELD: All right, Lida, well, maybe you and maybe you, too, Michael, all of us have a can do Spam in our cupboard, right? And we're talking about Hormel's Spam. We're not talking about the spam that we've got in our computer e-mail.
Well, Hormel now has taking, is taking this issue to task. It's saying Spam is its trademark. It is its label and how dare anyone come up with spam now being associated with the e-mail that nobody wants.
So, Lida, does Hormel have a really good case here? Can they protect the rights of the name Spam?
RODRIGUEZ-TASEFF: Well, you know, it's nice to see that they're finally protecting the name Spam after they, you know, hid behind and said, you know, they didn't want anybody to know that was their trademark. You know, there is a legal issue here that's kind of interesting. The word spam has become commonly associated not with gross meat that you eat in college -- and Michael probably still has some in his cupboard -- but with, you know, this Internet activity that is so annoying to all of us. But Hormel's got a good point. They do have a trademark. They do -- and the issue is going to be whether they've protected it all these years. If they're as embarrassed to own the trademark as Michael is to admit that there's some of that stuff in his cupboard, then I don't know that they're going to win here.
WHITFIELD: So, Michael, do they, do you think they have a pretty good shot here?
SMERCONISH: No. The horse has already left the barn and the only issue here is which form of spam would you least want to have? And that's a very close call.
WHITFIELD: All right, Michael Smerconish and Lida Rodriguez- Taseff, good to see both of you.
SMERCONISH: Thank you.
RODRIGUEZ-TASEFF: Thank you.
WHITFIELD: And have a great weekend.
Thanks for being with us.
RODRIGUEZ-TASEFF: Bye.
TO ORDER A VIDEO OF THIS TRANSCRIPT, PLEASE CALL 800-CNN-NEWS OR USE OUR SECURE ONLINE ORDER FORM LOCATED AT www.fdch.com
