Return to Transcripts main page
CNN Saturday Morning News
Interview with Lida Rodriquez-Taseff, Nelda Blair
Aired October 04, 2003 - 08:12 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.
KELLI ARENA, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Two high profile court cases are on our docket this morning. One involves the only suspect charged in connection with the September 11 terrorist attacks. The other is an NBA star who got some news from a judge that he likely did not want to hear.
Let's talk both cases over with civil liberties attorney Lida Rodriguez-Taseff and former prosecutor Nelda Blair.
LIDA RODRIGUEZ-TASEFF, CIVIL RIGHTS ATTORNEY: Good morning.
ARENA: Thank you for joining us this morning.
NELDA BLAIR, FORMER PROSECUTOR: Thanks.
ARENA: Why don't we start with Kobe Bryant. Supposed to have a preliminary hearing this October 9.
Do we think it'll happen?
RODRIGUEZ-TASEFF: Not, absolutely not happening. Last week the judge ruled that Kobe Bryant's accuser did not have to testify at the preliminary hearing. And that is basically going to put the kibosh on Kobe Bryant going forward. He is going to waive the preliminary hearing and -- because he's confronted with this choice. The prosecution really does want the victim, or the alleged victim, to testify at the photograph. They just don't want Kobe's lawyers to be able to cross-examine her.
So they have crafted a nifty little argument where they offer the judge the opportunity to have, to present videotaped testimony, evidence, of the woman. But you can't cross-examine a videotape and the defense cannot go forward and have this preliminary hearing.
BLAIR: Lida...
ARENA: That's right. What...
BLAIR: ... you and every other defense lawyer in the country is whining about this preliminary hearing and you know the rules. It's an opportunity not for the defense to try their case. All it is is a requirement for the prosecution to show that they have enough evidence to go forward to trial. It's not a chance for the defense to show their stuff. It's not a chance for the defense to cross-examine anyone or get someone on the stand that doesn't have to be there, like the victim of a rape.
All it is...
RODRIGUEZ-TASEFF: But, you know...
BLAIR: ... that's the rules. Quit whining about it.
(CROSSTALK)
ARENA: Ladies, let me interrupt for one second, though...
BLAIR: If you want to cancel it, cancel it.
ARENA: ... there's also another issue. The judge did not grant the defense's request to allow her medical records to be shown.
BLAIR: Right.
ARENA: What is the -- what will the ramifications of that be?
BLAIR: Well...
RODRIGUEZ-TASEFF: Well, supposedly...
BLAIR: Go ahead, Lida.
RODRIGUEZ-TASEFF: Supposedly the whole issue -- thank you, Nelda.
And, by the way, I completely disagree with Nelda. I don't whine on a regular basis, just sometimes, especially when the judges are wrong.
But going back to this issue of the medical records, the issue is going to come up again at trial. The judge simply said that the medical records, the medical history of the alleged victim was not relevant at the time of the preliminary hearing. But that did not close the door that this information would be available to the defense at trial. And it should be available to the defense at trial in order for them to test the state of mind of the victim as well as the state of mind of the accused in order to determine whether or not there was a crime that was committed here.
So this is another issue that's not gone yet.
BLAIR: The only reason that we have anything about the victim is whether or not she consented to this sex. The state of mind of the victim is whether or not she said no. It has nothing to do with whether she called 9/11 a year ago, 10 years ago, whether she visited a hospital. It has nothing to do with that unless the defense is trying to say that the woman is completely insane. The judge was right keeping them out of these medical records and I think that he'll keep them out in the future, as well, and that's also right.
ARENA: All right, well, let's move on to Zacarias Moussaoui. This week, Judge Leonie Brinkema said, OK, as a punishment for not allow Moussaoui access to al Qaeda detainees, there will be no mention of any knowledge that he may have had or involvement in the September 11 attacks and no death penalty.
Can the government prosecute this case?
RODRIGUEZ-TASEFF: Absolutely, they can. And this is exactly the point. The judge said to them, you know, you've said all along, prosecution, that you can prove this case, you can prove that he's part of a greater al Qaeda conspiracy without proving that he's in any way involved in the September 11 attacks. So go ahead and do it.
And the reason the judge did this makes complete sense. The prosecution had refused access to Mr. Moussaoui of witnesses that he said would prove that he was not involved in the September 11 attacks. The prosecution did not want to make those available. And, as a result, the prosecution said, well, you know, you're putting us in a really bad bind, we either open up the door to national security secrets or this guilty terrorist goes free. And the judge said no, no, there's a third option. You can go forward. I'm not dismissing the case. This alleged terrorist is not going free. Prove the case that you said you could prove. And that's all that the judge did.
It's a very fair ruling.
BLAIR: Oh, I find this really absolutely outrageous. We are in the midst of a war on terrorism. This man is an avowed terrorist, an admitted al Qaeda member. He admits to having planned attacks on innocents, terrorist attacks. He's been to two flight schools in the United States. He wanted to crash a plane into the White House. And this judge wants us to allow him to conspire with his cohorts on some defense that he's going to come up with to this -- to the allegations?
What else is he going to conspire on? Why would we allow our homeland security to be completely usurped by him? Why would we completely have the war on terrorism against this man and other people like him, why would we allow them to get together? Why would a federal judge do that in the midst of a war like we've got going on now?
ARENA: Well, the government...
RODRIGUEZ-TASEFF: Well, Nelda, you know very well that the judge wasn't going to allow them to "get together." All the judge said was you can do this via a videotaped deposition.
BLAIR: In Moussaoui's presence.
ARENA: But, of course, the government's argument, though, at that point, though, was that it would interrupt an interrogation.
BLAIR: Absolutely.
ARENA: But, you know, the government is expected to appeal this ruling. Do you think they'll get a more sympathetic ear?
BLAIR: I really do think they will.
RODRIGUEZ-TASEFF: No. BLAIR: Yes, I do think they will. In the midst of what we are in the midst of, which is a war against terrorism, which is attacks against our own country, we have every right to the United States security and I think that a more fair judge and a more rational judge will not allow these men to get together. And that's exactly what it would be in Moussaoui's presence.
You know, he could hire counsel right now with security clearance and get the -- and most likely get those depositions. But, no, he wants to be there himself. What does that tell us?
RODRIGUEZ-TASEFF: He, first of all, he has a right to be there. Second of all, Nelda, you know very well that the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals, the court that would likely review this issue, if it goes up on appeal, is the most conservative court in the country. And I guarantee you, guarantee you that they will uphold this decision because it is a logical decision, it is a fair decision and it is a decision that balances the government's interest in national security and the defendant's interest in not having -- in not being prosecuted without having an opportunity to call witnesses in his favor.
The Fourth District...
BLAIR: Nobody said he couldn't call these witnesses. What they said is he can't get together with them and take depositions. And, absolutely. He has an opportunity to conspire with them. No one said he can't call them at trial.
ARENA: Well, ladies, you know, but neither side has been willing to budge at all on this issue. So this either goes two ways. Either it gets appealed all the way up the Supreme Court...
BLAIR: Right.
ARENA: ... or possibly the government moves Moussaoui out of the civilian court system and into military custody as an enemy combatant.
What's your call?
BLAIR: They can try to do that.
RODRIGUEZ-TASEFF: Well, you know, that's basically -- that's going to be probably basically bad P.R. for the government because the government chose this form to begin with. They could have gone to military court from the beginning. They chose not to. They brought this case in civilian court. And let's not forget that before September 11, we tried many cases, many cases of terrorism in civilian courts and, in fact, the government was batting a thousand with 13 out of 13 convictions.
So the bottom line here is it's going to be bad P.R. for the government to say...
ARENA: Is it really bad P.R.? I was in the courtroom...
RODRIGUEZ-TASEFF: Absolutely, because... ARENA: ... when Moussaoui stood up and said, "I pledge allegiance to Osama bin Laden and I am a member of al Qaeda and death to America."
BLAIR: I don't think the government...
ARENA: I mean is that really bad P.R. for the government?
BLAIR: I don't think the government's, the government's not worried about P.R. The government's worried about protecting our country and convicting this man who theyve directly connected with the 9/11 attacks.
RODRIGUEZ-TASEFF: Yes, but the reason...
BLAIR: They're going to do it in any way they can.
RODRIGUEZ-TASEFF: But...
BLAIR: But what I do think that...
RODRIGUEZ-TASEFF: But, Nelda...
BLAIR: What I do think they'll do is wait for the appeal, because I believe that they'll prevail in the appeal. And, Lida, if you guarantee anything in law, good luck to you.
RODRIGUEZ-TASEFF: But, Nelda, you know very well that the reason the government would be moving this case to a military court would be because they want to be able to take advantage of the more lax rules and the more pro-prosecution rules of a military court.
BLAIR: Right. Absolutely.
RODRIGUEZ-TASEFF: That's where the bad P.R. comes in...
BLAIR: And if they have to do it, I suggest they do it.
ARENA: OK...
RODRIGUEZ-TASEFF: That's where the bad P.R. comes in.
ARENA: All right, well, on that point, Lida Rodriguez-Taseff and Nelda Blair, I thank you both for joining us this morning.
BLAIR: Thank you.
RODRIGUEZ-TASEFF: Thank you.
ARENA: We will be back in a moment.
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 October 4, 2003 - 08:12 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
KELLI ARENA, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Two high profile court cases are on our docket this morning. One involves the only suspect charged in connection with the September 11 terrorist attacks. The other is an NBA star who got some news from a judge that he likely did not want to hear.
Let's talk both cases over with civil liberties attorney Lida Rodriguez-Taseff and former prosecutor Nelda Blair.
LIDA RODRIGUEZ-TASEFF, CIVIL RIGHTS ATTORNEY: Good morning.
ARENA: Thank you for joining us this morning.
NELDA BLAIR, FORMER PROSECUTOR: Thanks.
ARENA: Why don't we start with Kobe Bryant. Supposed to have a preliminary hearing this October 9.
Do we think it'll happen?
RODRIGUEZ-TASEFF: Not, absolutely not happening. Last week the judge ruled that Kobe Bryant's accuser did not have to testify at the preliminary hearing. And that is basically going to put the kibosh on Kobe Bryant going forward. He is going to waive the preliminary hearing and -- because he's confronted with this choice. The prosecution really does want the victim, or the alleged victim, to testify at the photograph. They just don't want Kobe's lawyers to be able to cross-examine her.
So they have crafted a nifty little argument where they offer the judge the opportunity to have, to present videotaped testimony, evidence, of the woman. But you can't cross-examine a videotape and the defense cannot go forward and have this preliminary hearing.
BLAIR: Lida...
ARENA: That's right. What...
BLAIR: ... you and every other defense lawyer in the country is whining about this preliminary hearing and you know the rules. It's an opportunity not for the defense to try their case. All it is is a requirement for the prosecution to show that they have enough evidence to go forward to trial. It's not a chance for the defense to show their stuff. It's not a chance for the defense to cross-examine anyone or get someone on the stand that doesn't have to be there, like the victim of a rape.
All it is...
RODRIGUEZ-TASEFF: But, you know...
BLAIR: ... that's the rules. Quit whining about it.
(CROSSTALK)
ARENA: Ladies, let me interrupt for one second, though...
BLAIR: If you want to cancel it, cancel it.
ARENA: ... there's also another issue. The judge did not grant the defense's request to allow her medical records to be shown.
BLAIR: Right.
ARENA: What is the -- what will the ramifications of that be?
BLAIR: Well...
RODRIGUEZ-TASEFF: Well, supposedly...
BLAIR: Go ahead, Lida.
RODRIGUEZ-TASEFF: Supposedly the whole issue -- thank you, Nelda.
And, by the way, I completely disagree with Nelda. I don't whine on a regular basis, just sometimes, especially when the judges are wrong.
But going back to this issue of the medical records, the issue is going to come up again at trial. The judge simply said that the medical records, the medical history of the alleged victim was not relevant at the time of the preliminary hearing. But that did not close the door that this information would be available to the defense at trial. And it should be available to the defense at trial in order for them to test the state of mind of the victim as well as the state of mind of the accused in order to determine whether or not there was a crime that was committed here.
So this is another issue that's not gone yet.
BLAIR: The only reason that we have anything about the victim is whether or not she consented to this sex. The state of mind of the victim is whether or not she said no. It has nothing to do with whether she called 9/11 a year ago, 10 years ago, whether she visited a hospital. It has nothing to do with that unless the defense is trying to say that the woman is completely insane. The judge was right keeping them out of these medical records and I think that he'll keep them out in the future, as well, and that's also right.
ARENA: All right, well, let's move on to Zacarias Moussaoui. This week, Judge Leonie Brinkema said, OK, as a punishment for not allow Moussaoui access to al Qaeda detainees, there will be no mention of any knowledge that he may have had or involvement in the September 11 attacks and no death penalty.
Can the government prosecute this case?
RODRIGUEZ-TASEFF: Absolutely, they can. And this is exactly the point. The judge said to them, you know, you've said all along, prosecution, that you can prove this case, you can prove that he's part of a greater al Qaeda conspiracy without proving that he's in any way involved in the September 11 attacks. So go ahead and do it.
And the reason the judge did this makes complete sense. The prosecution had refused access to Mr. Moussaoui of witnesses that he said would prove that he was not involved in the September 11 attacks. The prosecution did not want to make those available. And, as a result, the prosecution said, well, you know, you're putting us in a really bad bind, we either open up the door to national security secrets or this guilty terrorist goes free. And the judge said no, no, there's a third option. You can go forward. I'm not dismissing the case. This alleged terrorist is not going free. Prove the case that you said you could prove. And that's all that the judge did.
It's a very fair ruling.
BLAIR: Oh, I find this really absolutely outrageous. We are in the midst of a war on terrorism. This man is an avowed terrorist, an admitted al Qaeda member. He admits to having planned attacks on innocents, terrorist attacks. He's been to two flight schools in the United States. He wanted to crash a plane into the White House. And this judge wants us to allow him to conspire with his cohorts on some defense that he's going to come up with to this -- to the allegations?
What else is he going to conspire on? Why would we allow our homeland security to be completely usurped by him? Why would we completely have the war on terrorism against this man and other people like him, why would we allow them to get together? Why would a federal judge do that in the midst of a war like we've got going on now?
ARENA: Well, the government...
RODRIGUEZ-TASEFF: Well, Nelda, you know very well that the judge wasn't going to allow them to "get together." All the judge said was you can do this via a videotaped deposition.
BLAIR: In Moussaoui's presence.
ARENA: But, of course, the government's argument, though, at that point, though, was that it would interrupt an interrogation.
BLAIR: Absolutely.
ARENA: But, you know, the government is expected to appeal this ruling. Do you think they'll get a more sympathetic ear?
BLAIR: I really do think they will.
RODRIGUEZ-TASEFF: No. BLAIR: Yes, I do think they will. In the midst of what we are in the midst of, which is a war against terrorism, which is attacks against our own country, we have every right to the United States security and I think that a more fair judge and a more rational judge will not allow these men to get together. And that's exactly what it would be in Moussaoui's presence.
You know, he could hire counsel right now with security clearance and get the -- and most likely get those depositions. But, no, he wants to be there himself. What does that tell us?
RODRIGUEZ-TASEFF: He, first of all, he has a right to be there. Second of all, Nelda, you know very well that the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals, the court that would likely review this issue, if it goes up on appeal, is the most conservative court in the country. And I guarantee you, guarantee you that they will uphold this decision because it is a logical decision, it is a fair decision and it is a decision that balances the government's interest in national security and the defendant's interest in not having -- in not being prosecuted without having an opportunity to call witnesses in his favor.
The Fourth District...
BLAIR: Nobody said he couldn't call these witnesses. What they said is he can't get together with them and take depositions. And, absolutely. He has an opportunity to conspire with them. No one said he can't call them at trial.
ARENA: Well, ladies, you know, but neither side has been willing to budge at all on this issue. So this either goes two ways. Either it gets appealed all the way up the Supreme Court...
BLAIR: Right.
ARENA: ... or possibly the government moves Moussaoui out of the civilian court system and into military custody as an enemy combatant.
What's your call?
BLAIR: They can try to do that.
RODRIGUEZ-TASEFF: Well, you know, that's basically -- that's going to be probably basically bad P.R. for the government because the government chose this form to begin with. They could have gone to military court from the beginning. They chose not to. They brought this case in civilian court. And let's not forget that before September 11, we tried many cases, many cases of terrorism in civilian courts and, in fact, the government was batting a thousand with 13 out of 13 convictions.
So the bottom line here is it's going to be bad P.R. for the government to say...
ARENA: Is it really bad P.R.? I was in the courtroom...
RODRIGUEZ-TASEFF: Absolutely, because... ARENA: ... when Moussaoui stood up and said, "I pledge allegiance to Osama bin Laden and I am a member of al Qaeda and death to America."
BLAIR: I don't think the government...
ARENA: I mean is that really bad P.R. for the government?
BLAIR: I don't think the government's, the government's not worried about P.R. The government's worried about protecting our country and convicting this man who theyve directly connected with the 9/11 attacks.
RODRIGUEZ-TASEFF: Yes, but the reason...
BLAIR: They're going to do it in any way they can.
RODRIGUEZ-TASEFF: But...
BLAIR: But what I do think that...
RODRIGUEZ-TASEFF: But, Nelda...
BLAIR: What I do think they'll do is wait for the appeal, because I believe that they'll prevail in the appeal. And, Lida, if you guarantee anything in law, good luck to you.
RODRIGUEZ-TASEFF: But, Nelda, you know very well that the reason the government would be moving this case to a military court would be because they want to be able to take advantage of the more lax rules and the more pro-prosecution rules of a military court.
BLAIR: Right. Absolutely.
RODRIGUEZ-TASEFF: That's where the bad P.R. comes in...
BLAIR: And if they have to do it, I suggest they do it.
ARENA: OK...
RODRIGUEZ-TASEFF: That's where the bad P.R. comes in.
ARENA: All right, well, on that point, Lida Rodriguez-Taseff and Nelda Blair, I thank you both for joining us this morning.
BLAIR: Thank you.
RODRIGUEZ-TASEFF: Thank you.
ARENA: We will be back in a moment.
TO ORDER A VIDEO OF THIS TRANSCRIPT, PLEASE CALL 800-CNN-NEWS OR USE OUR SECURE ONLINE ORDER FORM LOCATED AT www.fdch.com
