Return to Transcripts main page
CNN Saturday Morning News
Nelda Blair, Lida Rodriguez-Taseff
Aired December 20, 2003 - 08:14 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.
ANDREA KOPPEL, CNN ANCHOR: In Eagle County, the Kobe Bryant sexual assault case is moving at a snail's pace. In an all day hearing, the defense moved to get the medical history of Bryant's accuser admitted as evidence. Bryant's attorneys say the 19-year-old woman has tried to kill herself twice. The prosecution and the accuser's attorney object, and the judge has scheduled another hearing for January 23rd.
Bryant was 35 minutes late for the Lakers game against Denver, but he scored 13 points and the game winning shot.
Also on the docket today, Michael Jackson molestation charges, a court ruling that suspected al Qaeda dirty bomber Jose Padilla must be released from military custody and the penalty phase for newly convicted sniper Lee Boyd Malvo.
We toss those issues into the legal mix for our regular guests.
In Miami, civil liberties attorney Lida Rodriguez-Taseff and in San Antonio, former Texas prosecutor Nelda Blair.
Ms. Taseff, let's begin with you.
On, what was it, Friday, we heard, or Thursday, seven counts of child molestation brought against Michael Jackson.
What kind of case can we tell that the prosecution might have?
LIDA RODRIGUEZ-TASEFF, CIVIL RIGHTS ATTORNEY: We can tell very little right now about the case. The charges were basically the language lifted right out of the statute. There were no facts provided. The name of the victim wasn't even -- the alleged victim -- wasn't even given. He was treated as John Doe. And in two of the charges dealing with alleged intoxicants that were given to the alleged victim, they didn't even name what the intoxicants were. We suspect it's wine, because that's what we've heard previously, but there was not even an indication of that.
So we actually know very little other than that there were at least seven instances where Michael Jackson was alleged to have molested this victim.
KOPPEL: But would we have heard the name of a now 14-year-old victim cited in this brief?
RODRIGUEZ-TASEFF: Absolutely not. You wouldn't have. This is a child under the age of 14, so you weren't going to get that information anyway.
But with regard to the detail of the charges, you have nothing other than basically the standard language lifted from the statutes under which he is being charged.
KOPPEL: Ms. Blair, it was a surprise to me to hear that Michael Jackson was getting his passport back considering that the sheriff took his passport when he first was arrested.
Is he a flight risk now that he's headed to London on business?
NELDA BLAIR, FORMER PROSECUTOR: Well, evidently, the prosecution didn't think so because they agreed to allow to have his passport back. I think it shows some good faith on the part of the district attorney, Sneddon, that shows that he's not out to completely destroy Michael Jackson, otherwise he could very easily have argued no, I don't want him to go to Europe, I don't want him to be able to make a living, which is what Jackson said he needed to do in Europe, and I want him to stay here.
But he didn't say that. He said, look, we don't think he's going anywhere, he's recognizable, obviously we can find him, and we think that he'll be back for trial. I think it was probably a good move on the part of the prosecution. It certainly shows that they're busy putting their case together and they're not trying to try it in the media.
KOPPEL: Ms. Rodriguez-Taseff, the Second Circuit U.S. court ruled that Jose Padilla must be released from military prison, where he's been held for 18 months, in the next 30 days.
So what next? Does that mean he's free to go?
RODRIGUEZ-TASEFF: Absolutely not. The prosecution will -- the government will have the opportunity prosecute him in regular court. What the court, the Second Circuit actually said was you have 30 days to either release him, charge him in court and try him, or treat him as a material witness in a grand jury proceeding or in a proceeding with regard to other terrorism suspects.
So, this is by far does not mean that he will be released. What this essentially means is that if he really is a terrorist, all of America will know it, because at least we'll know he will be charged and prosecuted.
KOPPEL: Ms. Blair, what kind of impact can this have on other enemy combatants that the U.S. has so designated, for instance, Yaser Hamdi, another American who was arrested in Afghanistan for allegedly cooperating with the Taliban?
BLAIR: I think it's a terrible decision by the court and it can have -- wreak havoc on the president's ability to control terrorism in this country. I think that the U.S. district judge who first said that this man could be held was right. The court of appeals only decided, this three judge panel only decided 2-1 that he had to be released or charged. And I think that when the government appeals -- and they will -- that the higher court will rule that he can be held.
Under the terrorism laws, the president has the right to hold someone who is considered a grave danger to the national security. This man is not a former murderer, but he also has been trained by al Qaeda. He's known to have discussed planting a dirty bomb in U.S. hotels. He's known to have something to do with the 9/11 terrorist attacks.
And I'll tell you what, anybody who had something to do with that, in my view, ought to be held and the president ought to have the right to hold him.
KOPPEL: And yet no charges have been brought.
Let's move on to the third case, Lee Boyd Malvo, who was found guilty this week on three charges.
What is your sense -- let's start with you, Ms. Rodriguez-Taseff -- as to how the jury is going to rule, death penalty or life in prison?
RODRIGUEZ-TASEFF: I think what -- what's most determinative in this case is the fact that the victims, the victims' families had an opportunity to testify. And that was very, very painful, emotional testimony. And you can't help, if you're a juror sitting there listening to that testimony, but probably sentence him to death. That's the danger of having these victim impact statements allowed at the penalty phase.
In my opinion, what should have been done is the court should have considered the aggravating and the mitigating circumstances and basically looked at future dangerousness and the vileness of the crimes without necessarily putting those families through that.
KOPPEL: OK.
Ms. Blair, we've got about 15 seconds.
A final thought?
BLAIR: I've got to disagree. The court, the jury has the right to hear it all. I think since Muhammad got the death penalty, this jury will feel they have the permission to give it, as well.
KOPPEL: Nelda Blair, you even came in under the wire there, I want to thank you, and Lida Rodriguez-Taseff, two of the real pros.
Thank you both for coming in this morning.
BLAIR: 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 December 20, 2003 - 08:14 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
ANDREA KOPPEL, CNN ANCHOR: In Eagle County, the Kobe Bryant sexual assault case is moving at a snail's pace. In an all day hearing, the defense moved to get the medical history of Bryant's accuser admitted as evidence. Bryant's attorneys say the 19-year-old woman has tried to kill herself twice. The prosecution and the accuser's attorney object, and the judge has scheduled another hearing for January 23rd.
Bryant was 35 minutes late for the Lakers game against Denver, but he scored 13 points and the game winning shot.
Also on the docket today, Michael Jackson molestation charges, a court ruling that suspected al Qaeda dirty bomber Jose Padilla must be released from military custody and the penalty phase for newly convicted sniper Lee Boyd Malvo.
We toss those issues into the legal mix for our regular guests.
In Miami, civil liberties attorney Lida Rodriguez-Taseff and in San Antonio, former Texas prosecutor Nelda Blair.
Ms. Taseff, let's begin with you.
On, what was it, Friday, we heard, or Thursday, seven counts of child molestation brought against Michael Jackson.
What kind of case can we tell that the prosecution might have?
LIDA RODRIGUEZ-TASEFF, CIVIL RIGHTS ATTORNEY: We can tell very little right now about the case. The charges were basically the language lifted right out of the statute. There were no facts provided. The name of the victim wasn't even -- the alleged victim -- wasn't even given. He was treated as John Doe. And in two of the charges dealing with alleged intoxicants that were given to the alleged victim, they didn't even name what the intoxicants were. We suspect it's wine, because that's what we've heard previously, but there was not even an indication of that.
So we actually know very little other than that there were at least seven instances where Michael Jackson was alleged to have molested this victim.
KOPPEL: But would we have heard the name of a now 14-year-old victim cited in this brief?
RODRIGUEZ-TASEFF: Absolutely not. You wouldn't have. This is a child under the age of 14, so you weren't going to get that information anyway.
But with regard to the detail of the charges, you have nothing other than basically the standard language lifted from the statutes under which he is being charged.
KOPPEL: Ms. Blair, it was a surprise to me to hear that Michael Jackson was getting his passport back considering that the sheriff took his passport when he first was arrested.
Is he a flight risk now that he's headed to London on business?
NELDA BLAIR, FORMER PROSECUTOR: Well, evidently, the prosecution didn't think so because they agreed to allow to have his passport back. I think it shows some good faith on the part of the district attorney, Sneddon, that shows that he's not out to completely destroy Michael Jackson, otherwise he could very easily have argued no, I don't want him to go to Europe, I don't want him to be able to make a living, which is what Jackson said he needed to do in Europe, and I want him to stay here.
But he didn't say that. He said, look, we don't think he's going anywhere, he's recognizable, obviously we can find him, and we think that he'll be back for trial. I think it was probably a good move on the part of the prosecution. It certainly shows that they're busy putting their case together and they're not trying to try it in the media.
KOPPEL: Ms. Rodriguez-Taseff, the Second Circuit U.S. court ruled that Jose Padilla must be released from military prison, where he's been held for 18 months, in the next 30 days.
So what next? Does that mean he's free to go?
RODRIGUEZ-TASEFF: Absolutely not. The prosecution will -- the government will have the opportunity prosecute him in regular court. What the court, the Second Circuit actually said was you have 30 days to either release him, charge him in court and try him, or treat him as a material witness in a grand jury proceeding or in a proceeding with regard to other terrorism suspects.
So, this is by far does not mean that he will be released. What this essentially means is that if he really is a terrorist, all of America will know it, because at least we'll know he will be charged and prosecuted.
KOPPEL: Ms. Blair, what kind of impact can this have on other enemy combatants that the U.S. has so designated, for instance, Yaser Hamdi, another American who was arrested in Afghanistan for allegedly cooperating with the Taliban?
BLAIR: I think it's a terrible decision by the court and it can have -- wreak havoc on the president's ability to control terrorism in this country. I think that the U.S. district judge who first said that this man could be held was right. The court of appeals only decided, this three judge panel only decided 2-1 that he had to be released or charged. And I think that when the government appeals -- and they will -- that the higher court will rule that he can be held.
Under the terrorism laws, the president has the right to hold someone who is considered a grave danger to the national security. This man is not a former murderer, but he also has been trained by al Qaeda. He's known to have discussed planting a dirty bomb in U.S. hotels. He's known to have something to do with the 9/11 terrorist attacks.
And I'll tell you what, anybody who had something to do with that, in my view, ought to be held and the president ought to have the right to hold him.
KOPPEL: And yet no charges have been brought.
Let's move on to the third case, Lee Boyd Malvo, who was found guilty this week on three charges.
What is your sense -- let's start with you, Ms. Rodriguez-Taseff -- as to how the jury is going to rule, death penalty or life in prison?
RODRIGUEZ-TASEFF: I think what -- what's most determinative in this case is the fact that the victims, the victims' families had an opportunity to testify. And that was very, very painful, emotional testimony. And you can't help, if you're a juror sitting there listening to that testimony, but probably sentence him to death. That's the danger of having these victim impact statements allowed at the penalty phase.
In my opinion, what should have been done is the court should have considered the aggravating and the mitigating circumstances and basically looked at future dangerousness and the vileness of the crimes without necessarily putting those families through that.
KOPPEL: OK.
Ms. Blair, we've got about 15 seconds.
A final thought?
BLAIR: I've got to disagree. The court, the jury has the right to hear it all. I think since Muhammad got the death penalty, this jury will feel they have the permission to give it, as well.
KOPPEL: Nelda Blair, you even came in under the wire there, I want to thank you, and Lida Rodriguez-Taseff, two of the real pros.
Thank you both for coming in this morning.
BLAIR: 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
