Return to Transcripts main page

CNN Saturday Morning News

Legal Briefs

Aired August 30, 2003 - 08:10   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: It's time to open our Legal Briefs, to talk about some of the legal issues in the headlines. And, of course, we have our roundtable this morning of ladies to talk about this, civil liberties attorney Lida Rodriguez-Taseff and former prosecutor Nelda Blair.
Ladies, thanks for being here.

Always good to see you.

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

NELDA BLAIR, FORMER PROSECUTOR: Good morning.

ROBERTS: OK, we have a bunch of stuff to talk about, but first off, let's talk about the Blaster and the kid, this 18-year-old Minnesota kid that is now taken into custody, charged with starting this whole worm.

Ladies, what do you think about this? What type of case can they have against him and are they going to make this kid a scapegoat?

BLAIR: Well, the question is...

RODRIGUEZ-TASEFF: Well, you know...

BLAIR: Go ahead, Lida.

RODRIGUEZ-TASEFF: Go ahead, Nelda.

BLAIR: The question is how much, of course, evidence they have against him in order to convict him. But if, indeed, this kid has, is the one that has -- is the one that spread this worm, he has got to be used as an example and he's got to be shown that you have to have accountability for your actions, particularly at that young an age with the Internet, computer access that we have. We have got to hold people accountable and I don't care what their age is.

ROBERTS: Lida, is that your take, too?

RODRIGUEZ-TASEFF: Well, you know, I've got to say this. This isn't a Blaster. This is maybe a Blaster light, if you believe everything that they're saying. What he did infected about 7,000 computers in comparison to the 500,000 that were infected by the person who is still at large.

More importantly, what safeguards are police using and investigators using in investigating these cyber crimes? One of our biggest concerns has always been to make sure that the Bill of Rights and the constitution still applies even in cyberspace. So the issue with this young man is whether or not what he did, which is essentially not even creating the virus, it's essentially putting his name on the virus as it was spreading, whether or not that is sufficient to make him a scapegoat or whether what we really need to do is protect privacy and find the real worm blaster.

ROBERTS: Nelda, is it a case, though, where, I guess the situation is so fresh and young for our environment now, our community, being that we're not all technically savvy in terms of the law books...

BLAIR: That's right.

ROBERTS: Is this a situation where we're going to have to come up with new laws for privatization as well as new criminal laws to stop this kind of activity?

BLAIR: Absolutely. And, as a matter of fact, this young man, the maximum he can get is 10 years. Now, that may sound like a lot to some people, but with the damage that was caused by this, I would say to a lot of folks who were hurt by it, that's not a lot of time. And we will definitely have to make it -- it'll have to make its way through the courts. We'll have to not only make new legislation, but the courts will have to interpret that and it's a whole new field for us.

So, yes, that's the way it'll happen.

ROBERTS: All right, let's move on and talk about education. You know a lot of kids back to school around the country, and we're talking here about the no child left behind situation, where some teachers don't have to have a certification, certified to be teaching in schools. Now, how does this make a difference, I guess, in the classroom? And what are some people saying about it out there, Lida?

RODRIGUEZ-TASEFF: Well, you know, it's assume -- it's like having your pilot fly your airplane without ever having a license to fly. We don't want our children being taught by people who aren't certified, but that's exactly what's happening with this privatization move. Now, why would our politicians think that it's OK to take public monies from a place where public schools are accountable and put them in private hands where private schools are not accountable, where they can hire teachers that don't have college degrees, that don't have certification, that are not accountable to anybody for what's going on?

So I think this is going to be, there's going to be a backlash against vouchers, against all this privatization stuff, because this is Enron waiting to happen in education.

ROBERTS: Nelda?

BLAIR: No, I've got to disagree with that to some extent, if I can. President Bush and Secretary of Education Rod Paige have initiated this no child left behind movement for that exact purpose, and that's to make sure that all children are educated, whether it's public or private. I disagree that the private schools are not held accountable. They are held accountable at the state level.

It's dependent on the states to make sure that they have the right credibility and the right test scores, that they pass certain levels. And I think that that is accountability.

Now, whether or not they should have certified teachers is, the problem was that some of the schools weren't meeting the levels that they were expected to meet and that's being blamed on not having certified teachers. But the whole point is that they get to the level where children are learning as they need to learn.

ROBERTS: Well, doesn't this all come back to the fact that there really is no national curriculum out there for a lot of students, that they have to be -- that they're not all being taught the same way, and especially by different teachers, if some are certified and some aren't?

BLAIR: Well, that's the independence of our nation. Each state has the right to make its own laws and has the right to educate its own children. And unless we want nationalized everything, from education down to medicine, then I don't think we want to change that.

ROBERTS: Well, and last but not least, we want to split the ticket here and split ourselves between Maryland and Texas and talk about the Carlton Dotson situation. On Wednesday he was indicted on one charge of murder for Patrick Dennehy. But he remains in Maryland.

Lida, how can this happen? Why isn't he going back to Texas faster?

RODRIGUEZ-TASEFF: Well, the Texas people didn't want him to go faster because they wanted to hand down the indictment before he was extradited. That's exactly what has happened. A grand jury heard testimony for about 90 minutes and handed down the indictment. Two police officers testified and Dotson's estranged wife had testified a couple of weeks before.

Now, the process begins, not a extradition process begins. The State of Texas is likely to ask, in the next couple of days, the State of Maryland, to turn him over. And if he resists, there will be hearings in Maryland to determine whether or not he should be extradited.

ROBERTS: Nelda, one thing that we don't understand or have more insight on in this situation is actual motive here. No one's talking about that.

BLAIR: Well, you know, all that we've heard from Dotson is that perhaps it was self-defense, that maybe Dennehy was threatening him or someone else was threatening him and this was a self-defense case. I really feel that that's what they'll plead.

The problem is Dennehy was shot twice in the head, not just once. It's going to be difficult to get around that particular piece of evidence. It's going to be difficult for a defense attorney to come up with a convincing argument to a jury that yes, he was just trying to protect himself. And as far as motive, you know, we don't have to have a motive in Texas to have murder.

RODRIGUEZ-TASEFF: And, you know...

ROBERTS: But in most cases, though, a lot of prosecutors put it out there, I guess to get the buzz going about how things actually have unfolded.

BLAIR: Right.

ROBERTS: In most big cases, anyway, we learn the motive up front.

RODRIGUEZ-TASEFF: Absolutely, Nelda.

BLAIR: Well, it certainly helps us convince a jury.

RODRIGUEZ-TASEFF: Right. But, you know, Nelda is right, they don't have to prove motive. But if -- without an allegation of motive, there's no strong indicia of why this even happened. They were very good friends, supposedly. And you don't just go shooting a friend without there being some allegation of motive.

So in order for the prosecution to really succeed, they've got to come up with a motive here, whether it is they were having a fight, whether this is deeply rooted in the Baylor basketball program. Who knows? But they need a motive to convict.

ROBERTS: Ladies, we've run out of time. But, as always, thank you very much, Nelda Blair and Lida Rodriguez-Taseff.

BLAIR: Thanks.

ROBERTS: Have a great Labor Day weekend.

Enjoy yourselves.

BLAIR: Thank you.

RODRIGUEZ-TASEFF: Thanks, Thomas.

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 August 30, 2003 - 08:10   ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
THOMAS ROBERTS, CNN ANCHOR: It's time to open our Legal Briefs, to talk about some of the legal issues in the headlines. And, of course, we have our roundtable this morning of ladies to talk about this, civil liberties attorney Lida Rodriguez-Taseff and former prosecutor Nelda Blair.
Ladies, thanks for being here.

Always good to see you.

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

NELDA BLAIR, FORMER PROSECUTOR: Good morning.

ROBERTS: OK, we have a bunch of stuff to talk about, but first off, let's talk about the Blaster and the kid, this 18-year-old Minnesota kid that is now taken into custody, charged with starting this whole worm.

Ladies, what do you think about this? What type of case can they have against him and are they going to make this kid a scapegoat?

BLAIR: Well, the question is...

RODRIGUEZ-TASEFF: Well, you know...

BLAIR: Go ahead, Lida.

RODRIGUEZ-TASEFF: Go ahead, Nelda.

BLAIR: The question is how much, of course, evidence they have against him in order to convict him. But if, indeed, this kid has, is the one that has -- is the one that spread this worm, he has got to be used as an example and he's got to be shown that you have to have accountability for your actions, particularly at that young an age with the Internet, computer access that we have. We have got to hold people accountable and I don't care what their age is.

ROBERTS: Lida, is that your take, too?

RODRIGUEZ-TASEFF: Well, you know, I've got to say this. This isn't a Blaster. This is maybe a Blaster light, if you believe everything that they're saying. What he did infected about 7,000 computers in comparison to the 500,000 that were infected by the person who is still at large.

More importantly, what safeguards are police using and investigators using in investigating these cyber crimes? One of our biggest concerns has always been to make sure that the Bill of Rights and the constitution still applies even in cyberspace. So the issue with this young man is whether or not what he did, which is essentially not even creating the virus, it's essentially putting his name on the virus as it was spreading, whether or not that is sufficient to make him a scapegoat or whether what we really need to do is protect privacy and find the real worm blaster.

ROBERTS: Nelda, is it a case, though, where, I guess the situation is so fresh and young for our environment now, our community, being that we're not all technically savvy in terms of the law books...

BLAIR: That's right.

ROBERTS: Is this a situation where we're going to have to come up with new laws for privatization as well as new criminal laws to stop this kind of activity?

BLAIR: Absolutely. And, as a matter of fact, this young man, the maximum he can get is 10 years. Now, that may sound like a lot to some people, but with the damage that was caused by this, I would say to a lot of folks who were hurt by it, that's not a lot of time. And we will definitely have to make it -- it'll have to make its way through the courts. We'll have to not only make new legislation, but the courts will have to interpret that and it's a whole new field for us.

So, yes, that's the way it'll happen.

ROBERTS: All right, let's move on and talk about education. You know a lot of kids back to school around the country, and we're talking here about the no child left behind situation, where some teachers don't have to have a certification, certified to be teaching in schools. Now, how does this make a difference, I guess, in the classroom? And what are some people saying about it out there, Lida?

RODRIGUEZ-TASEFF: Well, you know, it's assume -- it's like having your pilot fly your airplane without ever having a license to fly. We don't want our children being taught by people who aren't certified, but that's exactly what's happening with this privatization move. Now, why would our politicians think that it's OK to take public monies from a place where public schools are accountable and put them in private hands where private schools are not accountable, where they can hire teachers that don't have college degrees, that don't have certification, that are not accountable to anybody for what's going on?

So I think this is going to be, there's going to be a backlash against vouchers, against all this privatization stuff, because this is Enron waiting to happen in education.

ROBERTS: Nelda?

BLAIR: No, I've got to disagree with that to some extent, if I can. President Bush and Secretary of Education Rod Paige have initiated this no child left behind movement for that exact purpose, and that's to make sure that all children are educated, whether it's public or private. I disagree that the private schools are not held accountable. They are held accountable at the state level.

It's dependent on the states to make sure that they have the right credibility and the right test scores, that they pass certain levels. And I think that that is accountability.

Now, whether or not they should have certified teachers is, the problem was that some of the schools weren't meeting the levels that they were expected to meet and that's being blamed on not having certified teachers. But the whole point is that they get to the level where children are learning as they need to learn.

ROBERTS: Well, doesn't this all come back to the fact that there really is no national curriculum out there for a lot of students, that they have to be -- that they're not all being taught the same way, and especially by different teachers, if some are certified and some aren't?

BLAIR: Well, that's the independence of our nation. Each state has the right to make its own laws and has the right to educate its own children. And unless we want nationalized everything, from education down to medicine, then I don't think we want to change that.

ROBERTS: Well, and last but not least, we want to split the ticket here and split ourselves between Maryland and Texas and talk about the Carlton Dotson situation. On Wednesday he was indicted on one charge of murder for Patrick Dennehy. But he remains in Maryland.

Lida, how can this happen? Why isn't he going back to Texas faster?

RODRIGUEZ-TASEFF: Well, the Texas people didn't want him to go faster because they wanted to hand down the indictment before he was extradited. That's exactly what has happened. A grand jury heard testimony for about 90 minutes and handed down the indictment. Two police officers testified and Dotson's estranged wife had testified a couple of weeks before.

Now, the process begins, not a extradition process begins. The State of Texas is likely to ask, in the next couple of days, the State of Maryland, to turn him over. And if he resists, there will be hearings in Maryland to determine whether or not he should be extradited.

ROBERTS: Nelda, one thing that we don't understand or have more insight on in this situation is actual motive here. No one's talking about that.

BLAIR: Well, you know, all that we've heard from Dotson is that perhaps it was self-defense, that maybe Dennehy was threatening him or someone else was threatening him and this was a self-defense case. I really feel that that's what they'll plead.

The problem is Dennehy was shot twice in the head, not just once. It's going to be difficult to get around that particular piece of evidence. It's going to be difficult for a defense attorney to come up with a convincing argument to a jury that yes, he was just trying to protect himself. And as far as motive, you know, we don't have to have a motive in Texas to have murder.

RODRIGUEZ-TASEFF: And, you know...

ROBERTS: But in most cases, though, a lot of prosecutors put it out there, I guess to get the buzz going about how things actually have unfolded.

BLAIR: Right.

ROBERTS: In most big cases, anyway, we learn the motive up front.

RODRIGUEZ-TASEFF: Absolutely, Nelda.

BLAIR: Well, it certainly helps us convince a jury.

RODRIGUEZ-TASEFF: Right. But, you know, Nelda is right, they don't have to prove motive. But if -- without an allegation of motive, there's no strong indicia of why this even happened. They were very good friends, supposedly. And you don't just go shooting a friend without there being some allegation of motive.

So in order for the prosecution to really succeed, they've got to come up with a motive here, whether it is they were having a fight, whether this is deeply rooted in the Baylor basketball program. Who knows? But they need a motive to convict.

ROBERTS: Ladies, we've run out of time. But, as always, thank you very much, Nelda Blair and Lida Rodriguez-Taseff.

BLAIR: Thanks.

ROBERTS: Have a great Labor Day weekend.

Enjoy yourselves.

BLAIR: Thank you.

RODRIGUEZ-TASEFF: Thanks, Thomas.

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