Return to Transcripts main page

CNN Saturday Morning News

Interview with Nelda Blair, Lida Rodriguez-Taseff

Aired January 24, 2004 - 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.


HEIDI COLLINS, CNN ANCHOR: New jurors, new evidence and a new judge. We're not talking about one court case, though. We're talking about three different ones. The cases against Martha Stewart, Kobe Bryant and Scott Peterson saw plenty of activity this past week.
So here to help us out and sort it all out this morning are former Texas prosecutor Nelda Blair in Houston.

Good morning to you, Nelda.

NELDA BLAIR, FORMER PROSECUTOR: Good morning.

COLLINS: And Lida Rodriguez-Taseff, a civil liberties attorney, who joins us this morning live from Miami.

Lida, good morning to you, as well.

Ladies, I'd like to start with Kobe Bryant, if we could. We know that there has been quite a bit of -- I'm not sure I should even call it evidence at this point -- but information that has been brought about unknowingly and apparently sort of unplanned, if you will.

Should the victim's medical records actually be admitted now at this point in this case?

Nelda?

BLAIR: No, I don't think they should at all. And the prosecution is still going to continue arguing that they shouldn't. You know, what we've heard is that the hospital records were accidentally released by the hospital to the prosecution, who accidentally released them to the defense.

COLLINS: Yes, how does that happen anyway?

BLAIR: This is a mess. I don't know. I cannot imagine how that kind of piece of evidence could accidentally be given to the defense. And what's more, now the judge has said that she wants all the lawyers to wipe it totally from their minds. I've got a real, real problem with this.

COLLINS: Well, we always talk about, at least in this business, you know, communication is irreversible once it's out there.

BLAIR: Absolutely. COLLINS: You can't take it back.

How is this going to impact the case at this point, as you see it, Lida?

LIDA RODRIGUEZ-TASEFF, CIVIL RIGHTS ATTORNEY: Well, absolutely important that the records get released. This is not a who done it sort of case. This is a case of he said/she said. The only way to test the credibility of this woman, the woman that is currently accusing Kobe Bryant, is through these records. Should they be released? Absolutely. Should they always be released in every case? No, that's not what this is about.

BLAIR: No.

RODRIGUEZ-TASEFF: This is about relevant documents that have to do with the mental state and the motive that the victim or the alleged victim may have had for bringing these charges. And they absolutely should be released now.

BLAIR: No. It's a smokescreen by the defense.

COLLINS: Well, let me ask you this. If, in fact, when this said victim would have gotten on the stand, if that were the way that they played it out, would the defense not have asked these types of questions anyway?

BLAIR: Well, they could have asked them.

RODRIGUEZ-TASEFF: Absolutely.

COLLINS: I'm sorry, Nelda.

RODRIGUEZ-TASEFF: Absolutely.

COLLINS: Go ahead.

RODRIGUEZ-TASEFF: And you know...

BLAIR: They could have asked them, but they're still protected by privacy, by the doctor-client relationship. And she does not have to still release her medical records just because she gets on the stand.

COLLINS: Lida?

RODRIGUEZ-TASEFF: Patient-client privilege is not absolute in a case where you're testing the credibility of the witness, where you're testing her motive and her intent in bringing these charges. You absolutely can bring them. And the defense made a very good argument that she waived it anyway because she's been telling everybody who would listen about her medical problems, therefore why is she claiming privacy now?

COLLINS: All right, quickly, one more question about this before we move on to the next case. Rape shield laws we've been talking about for quite a while, because they are quite a bit different in Colorado. How should they protect her as far as these medical records are concerned?

BLAIR: A lot better than they have so far. I'll say this, there's law makers all across the country, but particularly in Colorado, that are outraged by actions such as the defense lawyers repeating the victim's name in the hearings. Absolutely uncalled -- the judge even threatened to muzzle that defense lawyer. And there are people right now trying to strengthen those defense -- those rape protection laws because of that very thing.

COLLINS: All right, guys...

RODRIGUEZ-TASEFF: Rape shield laws are not impacted here.

COLLINS: OK.

You don't think so.

All right, well, let's move on because we want to make sure we have time for the other cases, as well.

Martha Stewart, now, the jurors a little confused here. Can you break this down for us, Lida?

RODRIGUEZ-TASEFF: Yes, this is all one word -- read my lips, Martha Stewart is not charged with insider trading. The judge committed a big oops. She told a bunch of jurors that she was charged with securities fraud. That made it very unclear for the jury as to what she is charged with and the defense has been crying foul and asking for a corrective instruction so that the jurors understand or the potential jurors understand. She's not charged with insider trading.

COLLINS: All right, can you do that without any repercussions, Nelda?

BLAIR: Sure. Sure. The judge can, she can remedy that. I don't think that's a big problem. What she said is this a securities fraud case and now a bunch of jurors evidently have indicated they think it might be an insider trading case. But it's not. There are several counts against Martha Stewart, but none of them are insider trading and when the prosecution gets started on its case, they'll make that clear.

COLLINS: All right, we'll be watching that one, of course.

Let's move on to Scott Peterson now. Some pretty big news here, a new judge.

What is this going to mean for the defense in particular, Lida?

RODRIGUEZ-TASEFF: Well, the prosecution -- it shows that the prosecution is not ready. This is a delay tactic. The prosecution asked to recuse the judge because this judge, who has served on the bench for 40 years, has tried tons of murder cases, is now all of a sudden biased, according to the prosecution. This is merely a delay tactic and it shows the defense that the prosecution is scared.

BLAIR: I absolutely disagree with that.

COLLINS: Nelda, if it's not a delay tactic, though, what is it?

BLAIR: No. It's not a delay tactic at all. Every, each side has the opportunity to object to the appointment of a particular judge, of a new judge. And the prosecution had to feel very strongly that this judge was prejudiced against them, because I can assure you, they wouldn't have objected to him otherwise, because this case right now is a defense attorneys dream. It has no judge, no jury and no courtroom. It's not going anywhere right now.

COLLINS: All right, well, as we always say...

RODRIGUEZ-TASEFF: Oh, Nelda, wrong, wrong, wrong.

COLLINS: Sorry, guys, we're going to have to cut it off there.

And we, of course, will have you back next weekend to break down everything that happens this week in those cases.

Lida Rodriguez-Taseff coming to us from Miami this morning and Nelda Blair. We certainly appreciate your time, as well.

BLAIR: Thank you.

COLLINS: Thanks, guys.

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 January 24, 2004 - 08:14   ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
HEIDI COLLINS, CNN ANCHOR: New jurors, new evidence and a new judge. We're not talking about one court case, though. We're talking about three different ones. The cases against Martha Stewart, Kobe Bryant and Scott Peterson saw plenty of activity this past week.
So here to help us out and sort it all out this morning are former Texas prosecutor Nelda Blair in Houston.

Good morning to you, Nelda.

NELDA BLAIR, FORMER PROSECUTOR: Good morning.

COLLINS: And Lida Rodriguez-Taseff, a civil liberties attorney, who joins us this morning live from Miami.

Lida, good morning to you, as well.

Ladies, I'd like to start with Kobe Bryant, if we could. We know that there has been quite a bit of -- I'm not sure I should even call it evidence at this point -- but information that has been brought about unknowingly and apparently sort of unplanned, if you will.

Should the victim's medical records actually be admitted now at this point in this case?

Nelda?

BLAIR: No, I don't think they should at all. And the prosecution is still going to continue arguing that they shouldn't. You know, what we've heard is that the hospital records were accidentally released by the hospital to the prosecution, who accidentally released them to the defense.

COLLINS: Yes, how does that happen anyway?

BLAIR: This is a mess. I don't know. I cannot imagine how that kind of piece of evidence could accidentally be given to the defense. And what's more, now the judge has said that she wants all the lawyers to wipe it totally from their minds. I've got a real, real problem with this.

COLLINS: Well, we always talk about, at least in this business, you know, communication is irreversible once it's out there.

BLAIR: Absolutely. COLLINS: You can't take it back.

How is this going to impact the case at this point, as you see it, Lida?

LIDA RODRIGUEZ-TASEFF, CIVIL RIGHTS ATTORNEY: Well, absolutely important that the records get released. This is not a who done it sort of case. This is a case of he said/she said. The only way to test the credibility of this woman, the woman that is currently accusing Kobe Bryant, is through these records. Should they be released? Absolutely. Should they always be released in every case? No, that's not what this is about.

BLAIR: No.

RODRIGUEZ-TASEFF: This is about relevant documents that have to do with the mental state and the motive that the victim or the alleged victim may have had for bringing these charges. And they absolutely should be released now.

BLAIR: No. It's a smokescreen by the defense.

COLLINS: Well, let me ask you this. If, in fact, when this said victim would have gotten on the stand, if that were the way that they played it out, would the defense not have asked these types of questions anyway?

BLAIR: Well, they could have asked them.

RODRIGUEZ-TASEFF: Absolutely.

COLLINS: I'm sorry, Nelda.

RODRIGUEZ-TASEFF: Absolutely.

COLLINS: Go ahead.

RODRIGUEZ-TASEFF: And you know...

BLAIR: They could have asked them, but they're still protected by privacy, by the doctor-client relationship. And she does not have to still release her medical records just because she gets on the stand.

COLLINS: Lida?

RODRIGUEZ-TASEFF: Patient-client privilege is not absolute in a case where you're testing the credibility of the witness, where you're testing her motive and her intent in bringing these charges. You absolutely can bring them. And the defense made a very good argument that she waived it anyway because she's been telling everybody who would listen about her medical problems, therefore why is she claiming privacy now?

COLLINS: All right, quickly, one more question about this before we move on to the next case. Rape shield laws we've been talking about for quite a while, because they are quite a bit different in Colorado. How should they protect her as far as these medical records are concerned?

BLAIR: A lot better than they have so far. I'll say this, there's law makers all across the country, but particularly in Colorado, that are outraged by actions such as the defense lawyers repeating the victim's name in the hearings. Absolutely uncalled -- the judge even threatened to muzzle that defense lawyer. And there are people right now trying to strengthen those defense -- those rape protection laws because of that very thing.

COLLINS: All right, guys...

RODRIGUEZ-TASEFF: Rape shield laws are not impacted here.

COLLINS: OK.

You don't think so.

All right, well, let's move on because we want to make sure we have time for the other cases, as well.

Martha Stewart, now, the jurors a little confused here. Can you break this down for us, Lida?

RODRIGUEZ-TASEFF: Yes, this is all one word -- read my lips, Martha Stewart is not charged with insider trading. The judge committed a big oops. She told a bunch of jurors that she was charged with securities fraud. That made it very unclear for the jury as to what she is charged with and the defense has been crying foul and asking for a corrective instruction so that the jurors understand or the potential jurors understand. She's not charged with insider trading.

COLLINS: All right, can you do that without any repercussions, Nelda?

BLAIR: Sure. Sure. The judge can, she can remedy that. I don't think that's a big problem. What she said is this a securities fraud case and now a bunch of jurors evidently have indicated they think it might be an insider trading case. But it's not. There are several counts against Martha Stewart, but none of them are insider trading and when the prosecution gets started on its case, they'll make that clear.

COLLINS: All right, we'll be watching that one, of course.

Let's move on to Scott Peterson now. Some pretty big news here, a new judge.

What is this going to mean for the defense in particular, Lida?

RODRIGUEZ-TASEFF: Well, the prosecution -- it shows that the prosecution is not ready. This is a delay tactic. The prosecution asked to recuse the judge because this judge, who has served on the bench for 40 years, has tried tons of murder cases, is now all of a sudden biased, according to the prosecution. This is merely a delay tactic and it shows the defense that the prosecution is scared.

BLAIR: I absolutely disagree with that.

COLLINS: Nelda, if it's not a delay tactic, though, what is it?

BLAIR: No. It's not a delay tactic at all. Every, each side has the opportunity to object to the appointment of a particular judge, of a new judge. And the prosecution had to feel very strongly that this judge was prejudiced against them, because I can assure you, they wouldn't have objected to him otherwise, because this case right now is a defense attorneys dream. It has no judge, no jury and no courtroom. It's not going anywhere right now.

COLLINS: All right, well, as we always say...

RODRIGUEZ-TASEFF: Oh, Nelda, wrong, wrong, wrong.

COLLINS: Sorry, guys, we're going to have to cut it off there.

And we, of course, will have you back next weekend to break down everything that happens this week in those cases.

Lida Rodriguez-Taseff coming to us from Miami this morning and Nelda Blair. We certainly appreciate your time, as well.

BLAIR: Thank you.

COLLINS: Thanks, guys.

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