Return to Transcripts main page
CNN Saturday Morning News
Legal Briefs
Aired September 20, 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: Two high profile cases are on the docket today for our legal experts. In California, punch card balloting is threatening to delay the rollercoaster recall campaign. And in New York, a convicted cop killer gets paroled and police are furious.
Joining us this morning to discuss these cases is Lida Rodriguez- Taseff, a civil rights attorney who joins us from Palm Beach, Florida this morning. Hello to you, Lida.
LIDA RODRIGUEZ-TASEFF, CIVIL LIBERTIES ATTORNEY: Good morning
COLLINS: And a former prosecutor, Nelda Blair, who is joining us from Houston, Texas. Good morning to you.
NELDA BLAIR, FORMER PROSECUTOR: How are you?
COLLINS: I'm great, thanks.
Let's go ahead and start, if we could, in New York. We have set the story up a little bit, just reminding everybody, the 1960s radical that we're talking about is Kathy Boudin, released from prison on Wednesday after serving 22 years for murder in an armored car heist that left two policemen and a security guard dead. Cops are suing the parole board over her release. Do they have a case, Nelda?
BLAIR: I absolutely think they do. This lady is nothing short of a terrorist and we do not condone terrorism in our country these days. And we do not let people out of jail who are still capable of coordinating such things like that. And she is.
Note the things she was involved in was violence, bombings. This particular incident where three officers were killed, one security guard and two police officers, her gang members broke out of the back of an armored truck they had stolen with automatic weapons going off. Nothing short of a Middle Eastern scenario. The woman ought to be kept in jail.
COLLINS: Lida, your thoughts on this.
RODRIGUEZ-TASEFF: Well, good morning, Nelda. I'm glad you're up to speed on this one. I absolutely disagree. What happened here was, she was sentenced to 20 years with the possibility of parole. It was clear at the time that the prosecutor took the deal that there was an agreement that she would have an opportunity to seek parole, and that's exactly what happened in this case. Let's not forget that whether we -- whatever we think of her actions, and they were horrific and horrible, two parole commissioners reviewed her application for parole in August, and after that, 19 of the commissioners, the entire commission board approved the decision to release her. Not only that, after that, a judge refused to stop the release.
Therefore, whatever we think of what she did, the question is, did the government apply its own rules and play by its own rules when determining this release and the answer is yes. They agreed to sentence her to 20 years to life, knowing she would have an opportunity for parole, and they then agreed that she should be released. The process has worked here just fine. The police officers do not have a case.
BLAIR: Let me emphasize that she was not sentenced to 20 years. She was sentenced to 20 years to life in prison. She's being released after only serving 22 years, barely the minimum of a sentence where she was a part in killing three officers. You know, in the commission of another felony. In many states, that would carry the death penalty. I don't think that she's had enough.
COLLINS: Thanks so much to both of you on that topic.
I want to go now to the California recall we've been talking about for such a very long time. Most recently, the update, I want to give all of our viewers, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals will appoint an 11-judge panel to reconsider a decision on postponing the October 7th California recall election until March. And the court decided this on Friday.
What is this case really about in your mind, Lida?
RODRIGUEZ-TASEFF: This case is about whether or not we're going to count the votes of every voter. What is at stake here is not just the punch card system, you know, that system that give us the pregnant chads and dangling and hanging chads in 2000. What's at stake here is, the punch card system was decertified, that means it's not to be used.
In 2001, the ACLU brought a lawsuit to make sure the system wasn't used in California. The court at that time agreed, and the state agreed with the ACLU position. It was agreed that the machines would be replaced by March of 2004. So the only question here is, are we prepared to disenfranchise 40,000 Californians, whichever way they vote, whether it's for the Democrats, for the Republicans in favor of a recall, against a recall, are we prepared to disenfranchise 40,000 Californians? Are we prepared to ask 44 percent of the voting population of California to vote in these machines that are outdated, outmoded. They don't work, and they disenfranchise voters.
COLLINS: All right, Nelda, do you think it's hard to use a punch card ballot?
BLAIR: Well, I think it's hard to use them, we still have some in Texas here, as well but the whole point is there's much more to this case than should we use a punch card ballot. There's much more legal problems with this particular matter, because the three judge panel that ruled that there would be no October 7th election based it on what many experts are saying is erroneous information. You've heard many voting experts, and many legal experts, say the California court said the punch card ballot is one of the most erroneous voting methods. That's simply not true. Many other methods have worse records for their accuracy.
So the problem is, how the three panel based their decision, and that's exactly why this 11-member panel is reviewing it. The 11- member panel in the 9th circuit reviews very few rulings, they usually overturn them, and I can assure you this case is headed for the Supreme Court no matter what happens. The U.S. Supreme Court.
COLLINS: Guess what, we will hear more about it, I can guarantee you that.
Thank you so much to the both of you this morning. Nelda Blair is from Houston, and Lida Rodriguez-Taseff is from Palm Beach this morning.
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 20, 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: Two high profile cases are on the docket today for our legal experts. In California, punch card balloting is threatening to delay the rollercoaster recall campaign. And in New York, a convicted cop killer gets paroled and police are furious.
Joining us this morning to discuss these cases is Lida Rodriguez- Taseff, a civil rights attorney who joins us from Palm Beach, Florida this morning. Hello to you, Lida.
LIDA RODRIGUEZ-TASEFF, CIVIL LIBERTIES ATTORNEY: Good morning
COLLINS: And a former prosecutor, Nelda Blair, who is joining us from Houston, Texas. Good morning to you.
NELDA BLAIR, FORMER PROSECUTOR: How are you?
COLLINS: I'm great, thanks.
Let's go ahead and start, if we could, in New York. We have set the story up a little bit, just reminding everybody, the 1960s radical that we're talking about is Kathy Boudin, released from prison on Wednesday after serving 22 years for murder in an armored car heist that left two policemen and a security guard dead. Cops are suing the parole board over her release. Do they have a case, Nelda?
BLAIR: I absolutely think they do. This lady is nothing short of a terrorist and we do not condone terrorism in our country these days. And we do not let people out of jail who are still capable of coordinating such things like that. And she is.
Note the things she was involved in was violence, bombings. This particular incident where three officers were killed, one security guard and two police officers, her gang members broke out of the back of an armored truck they had stolen with automatic weapons going off. Nothing short of a Middle Eastern scenario. The woman ought to be kept in jail.
COLLINS: Lida, your thoughts on this.
RODRIGUEZ-TASEFF: Well, good morning, Nelda. I'm glad you're up to speed on this one. I absolutely disagree. What happened here was, she was sentenced to 20 years with the possibility of parole. It was clear at the time that the prosecutor took the deal that there was an agreement that she would have an opportunity to seek parole, and that's exactly what happened in this case. Let's not forget that whether we -- whatever we think of her actions, and they were horrific and horrible, two parole commissioners reviewed her application for parole in August, and after that, 19 of the commissioners, the entire commission board approved the decision to release her. Not only that, after that, a judge refused to stop the release.
Therefore, whatever we think of what she did, the question is, did the government apply its own rules and play by its own rules when determining this release and the answer is yes. They agreed to sentence her to 20 years to life, knowing she would have an opportunity for parole, and they then agreed that she should be released. The process has worked here just fine. The police officers do not have a case.
BLAIR: Let me emphasize that she was not sentenced to 20 years. She was sentenced to 20 years to life in prison. She's being released after only serving 22 years, barely the minimum of a sentence where she was a part in killing three officers. You know, in the commission of another felony. In many states, that would carry the death penalty. I don't think that she's had enough.
COLLINS: Thanks so much to both of you on that topic.
I want to go now to the California recall we've been talking about for such a very long time. Most recently, the update, I want to give all of our viewers, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals will appoint an 11-judge panel to reconsider a decision on postponing the October 7th California recall election until March. And the court decided this on Friday.
What is this case really about in your mind, Lida?
RODRIGUEZ-TASEFF: This case is about whether or not we're going to count the votes of every voter. What is at stake here is not just the punch card system, you know, that system that give us the pregnant chads and dangling and hanging chads in 2000. What's at stake here is, the punch card system was decertified, that means it's not to be used.
In 2001, the ACLU brought a lawsuit to make sure the system wasn't used in California. The court at that time agreed, and the state agreed with the ACLU position. It was agreed that the machines would be replaced by March of 2004. So the only question here is, are we prepared to disenfranchise 40,000 Californians, whichever way they vote, whether it's for the Democrats, for the Republicans in favor of a recall, against a recall, are we prepared to disenfranchise 40,000 Californians? Are we prepared to ask 44 percent of the voting population of California to vote in these machines that are outdated, outmoded. They don't work, and they disenfranchise voters.
COLLINS: All right, Nelda, do you think it's hard to use a punch card ballot?
BLAIR: Well, I think it's hard to use them, we still have some in Texas here, as well but the whole point is there's much more to this case than should we use a punch card ballot. There's much more legal problems with this particular matter, because the three judge panel that ruled that there would be no October 7th election based it on what many experts are saying is erroneous information. You've heard many voting experts, and many legal experts, say the California court said the punch card ballot is one of the most erroneous voting methods. That's simply not true. Many other methods have worse records for their accuracy.
So the problem is, how the three panel based their decision, and that's exactly why this 11-member panel is reviewing it. The 11- member panel in the 9th circuit reviews very few rulings, they usually overturn them, and I can assure you this case is headed for the Supreme Court no matter what happens. The U.S. Supreme Court.
COLLINS: Guess what, we will hear more about it, I can guarantee you that.
Thank you so much to the both of you this morning. Nelda Blair is from Houston, and Lida Rodriguez-Taseff is from Palm Beach this morning.
TO ORDER A VIDEO OF THIS TRANSCRIPT, PLEASE CALL 800-CNN-NEWS OR USE OUR SECURE ONLINE ORDER FORM LOCATED AT www.fdch.com
