Return to Transcripts main page

CNN Saturday Morning News

Interview with Lida Rodriguez-Taseff, Nelda Blair

Aired September 06, 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: It's time to open our Legal Briefs. On the docket this morning, the repeal of more than 100 death penalty sentences in three states. Plus, a deal is struck in a Utah case where parents of a boy have fought a court order on chemotherapy for him.
Civil liberties attorney Lida Rodriguez-Taseff joins us now from Miami.

Hello to you, Lida.

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

COLLINS: And former Texas prosecutor Nelda Blair coming to us this morning from Houston.

Hello to you, Nelda.

NELDA BLAIR, FORMER PROSECUTOR: Good morning.

COLLINS: Ladies, let's talk, if we could, right off the bat here about this repeal of more than 100 death penalty sentences across three different states. What does this say to the legal system? Sorry for such a vague question, but I'm sure that's one that people are thinking of this morning.

Lida?

RODRIGUEZ-TASEFF: Well, what, basically what this says is that juries, a jury of your peers is the appropriate person to decide whether or not somebody lives or dies, not a politician. Because judges are elected in most states, and certainly in these three states they're elected. They run for political office. They open up campaign funds. They raise money. They go to the voters to ask for votes.

We don't want people who are politicians because they're not juries and they're not juries of your peers. We don't want politicians deciding whether or not somebody lives or dies.

This isn't going to open the jailhouse door and let these people free. All this means is that these people, in three states, about 100 of them who were sentenced by judges, will now be resentenced by juries. That's all this means.

COLLINS: But, Nelda, if you could tell me what you think about it, because I know that you've been saying that this is the way the law was before.

BLAIR: That's exactly right. This is not what it means. I completely disagree with Lida. What it means is these people have to be resentenced. They're not automatically resentenced. And already some of the defense attorneys out there -- Lida, I'm sure you've already heard this -- are claiming oh, no, you can't resentence these people, that would be double jeopardy.

We don't apply laws retroactively in the United States. When we change a speed limit, we don't let all those people that were speeding on the lower speed limit go free. We don't dismiss their tickets. And just like...

COLLINS: But are we letting guilty people...

BLAIR: Let me...

COLLINS: ... go free?

RODRIGUEZ-TASEFF: No.

BLAIR: But let me say, let me put it -- let me ask you this. If we have a state that instituted the death penalty, that didn't have it before and then instituted the death penalty, should we go back and retroactively apply it to all those people who have committed a capital murder? No. Because we don't apply laws retroactively. If we do...

RODRIGUEZ-TASEFF: Nelda...

BLAIR: ... it completely undermines everything that we do, every time we make a law.

RODRIGUEZ-TASEFF: Nelda, you know very well that we do apply laws retroactively when they have to do with the substance of the law rather than the procedure.

BLAIR: No.

RODRIGUEZ-TASEFF: This law relates to the substance because juries, not judges, under the constitution, are the people who are supposed to be the juries of your peers or the people that are supposed to decide whether or not you live or die. This is not about...

BLAIR: You know, some of these...

RODRIGUEZ-TASEFF: This is not about a simple procedural rule that says well...

BLAIR: No.

RODRIGUEZ-TASEFF: ... you had 10 days before, now you have 20 days.

BLAIR: No, that's incorrect. RODRIGUEZ-TASEFF: This is about a substantive legal issue that provides people with certainty about whether or not the people that we're putting to death are people who should be put to death.

BLAIR: I don't disagree that juries to decide. What I disagree with is that the law should be applied retroactively. Some of these people who are being -- whose sentences are being overturned -- and that's what they're being -- have committed capital offenses. Some have committed more than one felony at a time. Some of them have committed more than one murder. And we are overturning a penalty that was imposed on them that was law at the time -- and good law -- at the time it was imposed. I disagree with that.

COLLINS: All right, ladies, let's go ahead and talk about the next issue, if we could. I want to tell you about the little boy in Utah who had been diagnosed by doctors with cancer. They told the parents that he needed chemotherapy. The parents said, effectively, that they didn't really believe that he had cancer. He had too much energy. He wasn't acting like someone who had cancer.

What sort of rights does the child have in all of this?

Nelda?

BLAIR: The child absolutely has the right, like any human being, to medical treatment, no matter what age the person is. You know, parents have the responsibility for children, but they don't have complete and totally unlimited rights. We don't, here we don't give parents the right to beat their children. We don't give them the right to starve their children. And we don't give them the right to withhold medical treatment.

The prosecution has actually filed contempt of court charges, kidnapping charges. They've revoked the child's passport. They've gone to great lengths to try to corral these parents in when they basically have violated the law. It is the law that this child has the right to medical treatment. These parents have to follow it.

COLLINS: Lida, do you the parents are doing anything illegal here?

RODRIGUEZ-TASEFF: Oh, you know, for the first time this morning, Nelda, I completely agree with you. The parents are wrong. To paint the picture, three doctors in three different states said that this boy needs chemotherapy in order to treat this cancer. The parents have dragged the legal process out for four months. Four months, to the point where even after these three doctors examined this, the cancer that was removed and said it is cancerous, these parents took this child out of state to Idaho and said oh, he feels fine, honey, honey, come over here. Parker, tell us you feel fine. Tell us you don't think you have cancer.

How does a 12-year-old know whether or not he has cancer?

The parents have gotten more than the white glove treatment. It is incredible that they have been allowed to go this far. Kidnapping their son, demanding, even after three doctors, because what happened on Friday was that they demanded yet another doctor to tell them that Parker needed treatment.

COLLINS: Right. So, how much further can this go? I mean later on, you know, I guess they're going to have to look at all of the medical evidence to support what the doctors are saying. But could the parents actually be charged?

BLAIR: Oh, they've already been charged. In fact...

RODRIGUEZ-TASEFF: Yes. They've been charged with kidnapping and...

BLAIR: And the kidnapping charges still stand right now. They've dismissed the contempt charges and they've pulled the warrant back, but the kidnapping charges have to be dismissed by the district attorney and he says he hasn't decided what he's going to do yet.

COLLINS: What about that child going back to that home? I mean could it escalate into that, issues of the parents still keeping Parker with them?

RODRIGUEZ-TASEFF: It could, but it seems like if this is an isolated incident, I'm sure what they're going to do is they're going to do a study as to whether or not this is an isolated incident of the parents just being recalcitrant about something, being totally ridiculous and wrong, or whether or not these are really unfit parents. That decision is made after looking at what the parents did, the fact that they kidnapped him, how they really are raising their children and whether or not they're negligent parents.

But that decision will come later. The first order of business is to get this kid treatment.

COLLINS: All right, Lida Rodriguez-Taseff, thanks so much for your comments this morning.

And Nelda Blair, we appreciate your time, as well.

BLAIR: Thank you.

COLLINS: Thank you.

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 September 6, 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: It's time to open our Legal Briefs. On the docket this morning, the repeal of more than 100 death penalty sentences in three states. Plus, a deal is struck in a Utah case where parents of a boy have fought a court order on chemotherapy for him.
Civil liberties attorney Lida Rodriguez-Taseff joins us now from Miami.

Hello to you, Lida.

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

COLLINS: And former Texas prosecutor Nelda Blair coming to us this morning from Houston.

Hello to you, Nelda.

NELDA BLAIR, FORMER PROSECUTOR: Good morning.

COLLINS: Ladies, let's talk, if we could, right off the bat here about this repeal of more than 100 death penalty sentences across three different states. What does this say to the legal system? Sorry for such a vague question, but I'm sure that's one that people are thinking of this morning.

Lida?

RODRIGUEZ-TASEFF: Well, what, basically what this says is that juries, a jury of your peers is the appropriate person to decide whether or not somebody lives or dies, not a politician. Because judges are elected in most states, and certainly in these three states they're elected. They run for political office. They open up campaign funds. They raise money. They go to the voters to ask for votes.

We don't want people who are politicians because they're not juries and they're not juries of your peers. We don't want politicians deciding whether or not somebody lives or dies.

This isn't going to open the jailhouse door and let these people free. All this means is that these people, in three states, about 100 of them who were sentenced by judges, will now be resentenced by juries. That's all this means.

COLLINS: But, Nelda, if you could tell me what you think about it, because I know that you've been saying that this is the way the law was before.

BLAIR: That's exactly right. This is not what it means. I completely disagree with Lida. What it means is these people have to be resentenced. They're not automatically resentenced. And already some of the defense attorneys out there -- Lida, I'm sure you've already heard this -- are claiming oh, no, you can't resentence these people, that would be double jeopardy.

We don't apply laws retroactively in the United States. When we change a speed limit, we don't let all those people that were speeding on the lower speed limit go free. We don't dismiss their tickets. And just like...

COLLINS: But are we letting guilty people...

BLAIR: Let me...

COLLINS: ... go free?

RODRIGUEZ-TASEFF: No.

BLAIR: But let me say, let me put it -- let me ask you this. If we have a state that instituted the death penalty, that didn't have it before and then instituted the death penalty, should we go back and retroactively apply it to all those people who have committed a capital murder? No. Because we don't apply laws retroactively. If we do...

RODRIGUEZ-TASEFF: Nelda...

BLAIR: ... it completely undermines everything that we do, every time we make a law.

RODRIGUEZ-TASEFF: Nelda, you know very well that we do apply laws retroactively when they have to do with the substance of the law rather than the procedure.

BLAIR: No.

RODRIGUEZ-TASEFF: This law relates to the substance because juries, not judges, under the constitution, are the people who are supposed to be the juries of your peers or the people that are supposed to decide whether or not you live or die. This is not about...

BLAIR: You know, some of these...

RODRIGUEZ-TASEFF: This is not about a simple procedural rule that says well...

BLAIR: No.

RODRIGUEZ-TASEFF: ... you had 10 days before, now you have 20 days.

BLAIR: No, that's incorrect. RODRIGUEZ-TASEFF: This is about a substantive legal issue that provides people with certainty about whether or not the people that we're putting to death are people who should be put to death.

BLAIR: I don't disagree that juries to decide. What I disagree with is that the law should be applied retroactively. Some of these people who are being -- whose sentences are being overturned -- and that's what they're being -- have committed capital offenses. Some have committed more than one felony at a time. Some of them have committed more than one murder. And we are overturning a penalty that was imposed on them that was law at the time -- and good law -- at the time it was imposed. I disagree with that.

COLLINS: All right, ladies, let's go ahead and talk about the next issue, if we could. I want to tell you about the little boy in Utah who had been diagnosed by doctors with cancer. They told the parents that he needed chemotherapy. The parents said, effectively, that they didn't really believe that he had cancer. He had too much energy. He wasn't acting like someone who had cancer.

What sort of rights does the child have in all of this?

Nelda?

BLAIR: The child absolutely has the right, like any human being, to medical treatment, no matter what age the person is. You know, parents have the responsibility for children, but they don't have complete and totally unlimited rights. We don't, here we don't give parents the right to beat their children. We don't give them the right to starve their children. And we don't give them the right to withhold medical treatment.

The prosecution has actually filed contempt of court charges, kidnapping charges. They've revoked the child's passport. They've gone to great lengths to try to corral these parents in when they basically have violated the law. It is the law that this child has the right to medical treatment. These parents have to follow it.

COLLINS: Lida, do you the parents are doing anything illegal here?

RODRIGUEZ-TASEFF: Oh, you know, for the first time this morning, Nelda, I completely agree with you. The parents are wrong. To paint the picture, three doctors in three different states said that this boy needs chemotherapy in order to treat this cancer. The parents have dragged the legal process out for four months. Four months, to the point where even after these three doctors examined this, the cancer that was removed and said it is cancerous, these parents took this child out of state to Idaho and said oh, he feels fine, honey, honey, come over here. Parker, tell us you feel fine. Tell us you don't think you have cancer.

How does a 12-year-old know whether or not he has cancer?

The parents have gotten more than the white glove treatment. It is incredible that they have been allowed to go this far. Kidnapping their son, demanding, even after three doctors, because what happened on Friday was that they demanded yet another doctor to tell them that Parker needed treatment.

COLLINS: Right. So, how much further can this go? I mean later on, you know, I guess they're going to have to look at all of the medical evidence to support what the doctors are saying. But could the parents actually be charged?

BLAIR: Oh, they've already been charged. In fact...

RODRIGUEZ-TASEFF: Yes. They've been charged with kidnapping and...

BLAIR: And the kidnapping charges still stand right now. They've dismissed the contempt charges and they've pulled the warrant back, but the kidnapping charges have to be dismissed by the district attorney and he says he hasn't decided what he's going to do yet.

COLLINS: What about that child going back to that home? I mean could it escalate into that, issues of the parents still keeping Parker with them?

RODRIGUEZ-TASEFF: It could, but it seems like if this is an isolated incident, I'm sure what they're going to do is they're going to do a study as to whether or not this is an isolated incident of the parents just being recalcitrant about something, being totally ridiculous and wrong, or whether or not these are really unfit parents. That decision is made after looking at what the parents did, the fact that they kidnapped him, how they really are raising their children and whether or not they're negligent parents.

But that decision will come later. The first order of business is to get this kid treatment.

COLLINS: All right, Lida Rodriguez-Taseff, thanks so much for your comments this morning.

And Nelda Blair, we appreciate your time, as well.

BLAIR: Thank you.

COLLINS: Thank you.

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