Return to Transcripts main page

CNN Saturday Morning News

Interview with Nelda Blair, Lida Rodriguez-Taseff

Aired February 07, 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.


FRANK BUCKLEY, CNN ANCHOR: Now to the Carlie Brucia case in Sarasota. There will be a court hearing this morning but the suspect in the 11-year-old's abduction and murder will not be there.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Amazing grace...

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BUCKLEY: Several hundred people gathered last night to mourn the sixth grader. Her body was found early yesterday in thick brush next to a church parking lot. The site was about two miles from where she was abducted Sunday evening. Police say they were able to find her body based on Joseph Smith's alleged confession to an identified person, who relayed the information to police.

Again, a court hearing set for 9:00 a.m., but Smith is not expected to be present.

CATHERINE CALLAWAY, CNN ANCHOR: The tragic kidnapping and murder of Carlie Brucia and the Martha Stewart trial are both on our legal docket this morning.

As usual, lour guests are civil liberties attorney Lida Rodriguez-Taseff and former prosecutor Nelda Blair.

Thank you very much -- thank you both for being with us this morning.

Lida, I said your name correctly, didn't I?

LIDA RODRIGUEZ-TASEFF, CIVIL RIGHTS ATTORNEY: You got it right.

CALLAWAY: I just, I apologize. I stumbled on it there. I just wanted to make sure I got your name right.

RODRIGUEZ-TASEFF: You did.

Good morning.

CALLAWAY: Good morning to you.

Let's talk a little bit about the Barcia case. And let me give the audience a bit of information on what we know about Joseph Smith. Apparently his own probation officer back in December had asked a judge to put him back in jail for violation of his probation. Judge Harry Rapkin apparently declined to find Smith in violation, which could have returned him to jail, and the judge defended his decision by saying the probation officer never sent him the evidence that he requested that Smith had willfully refused to pay his fines.

Let me start with you, Lida.

You know, can, isn't the judge supposed to listen to the probation officer that is assigned to Smith?

RODRIGUEZ-TASEFF: He is and he tried to listen. But he has to, in order to violate his probation, have evidence before him that there was, indeed, a violation. He asked the probation officer for that evidence and in this case, as you said earlier, it had to do with his failure to pay court costs and restitution that he had been required to pay previously. And the probation officer just did not provide it.

The judge had no choice but to not violate the probation and to let him remain free. And while we are all looking back at this and thinking, gosh, it could have been done better, obviously the judge did all he could.

CALLAWAY: Nelda, do you agree with that?

NELDA BLAIR, FORMER PROSECUTOR: Well, I really don't, because -- and that's no surprise -- but, you know, this judge, obviously he did have some power to revoke this man's probation. Not, granted, even though it may have only been for non-payment of fines or fees, that's still a requirement of probation. Maybe he didn't go out and commit another crime, yet, at that point, but he still is -- was in violation. And I think the judge should have said look, I need some more information, I need the papers on this, I want to hold this man back, I want to make sure that he's -- if he's violating his probation that he's off the streets. Because the man has a criminal record.

CALLAWAY: Yes, I was going to -- that's what I was going to bring up, Lida. I mean the man had been arrested 13 times.

BLAIR: Right.

CALLAWAY: Shouldn't the judge have taken that into account...

BLAIR: Absolutely.

CALLAWAY: ... despite, you know, the fine issue?

RODRIGUEZ-TASEFF: You know, abs -- they can't because at that point all the judge is looking at is that specific violation at that time. So he can't look at the fact, oh, you've made, you know, you're a repeat offender, you've committed 13 crimes, you've been convicted 13 times. He can't do that. He's got to look at that instance in front of him and the probation officer just failed to provide the proof.

BLAIR: He also, he also uses his best judgment. That's what a judge does. And in this case I don't think this judge did that.

CALLAWAY: All right, let's -- you agree to disagree on this one.

Let's go to the Martha Stewart trial very quickly. Let's talk about the testimony that we heard this week.

Is the testimony that we heard so far going to be damaging for Martha from Douglas Faneuil?

BLAIR: Yes, it is. No question about it. This witness has become a very cool cucumber. He's worked very well for the prosecution in this case. You know, usually when the defense gets hold of a witness, and right now it's the defense's game, what they try to do is prove that that person is a liar or is lying to the jury to tell the jury they're not credible, don't believe them, you can't believe what they're saying. But in this case, he's already said, yes, I lied. I'm sorry I lied. And that makes him more believable.

CALLAWAY: Lida, do you agree? And is this a personality issue, because clearly Douglas is not a big fan of Martha Stewart?

RODRIGUEZ-TASEFF: No, he's not, and, you know, in some ways I actually hate to agree with Nelda, but I do this time. This witness has done incredibly well thus far. He painted a -- what appeared to be a very balanced picture of his view of, for example, Peter Bacanovic, which -- he called him the best boss he's ever had. And at the same time, you know, told this story, stuck -- has stuck with it.

CALLAWAY: Right.

RODRIGUEZ-TASEFF: The only issue is whether or not this is ultimately going to be enough for a jury to convict Martha, you know? And the prosecution will try to -- the defense will try to make much of the fact that he...

BLAIR: Yes, right.

RODRIGUEZ-TASEFF: ... that the drug use, etc. But I don't know that that's going to get very far. It's going to be very interesting.

BLAIR: I don't think it's done anything. I don't think it's damaged him at all.

CALLAWAY: I was going to say, Nelda, you know, we still are on the government's case right now. It's the government's case.

BLAIR: Right.

CALLAWAY: Things could be very different by next Friday.

BLAIR: They absolutely could. Remember, only one defense attorney has questioned him so far. Martha Stewart's attorney will begin questioning him on Monday. They're both very seasoned defense attorneys, so we could certainly be singing a different tune in a week.

CALLAWAY: Hey, Lida, are they going to try to disparage Douglas' name? RODRIGUEZ-TASEFF: Absolutely. They have to. I mean what choice do you have?

CALLAWAY: All right, yes or no, this is a quick one. We weren't expected to talk about this. The producers are going to yell at me, but I want to say a lot of discussion this week about Janet Jackson's shenanigans during the half time.

You know, are -- is Janet liable for anything -- doing anything wrong by the FCC?

BLAIR: Well, she very well could be. You know, the FCC laws against obscenity and indecency have long been upheld by the Supreme Court.

CALLAWAY: OK.

BLAIR: And certainly they could go after her for that.

RODRIGUEZ-TASEFF: Not obscene, maybe indecent. I'll stick to a yes or no, no.

CALLAWAY: OK.

Thank you both very much for being with us.

BLAIR: Thank you.

CALLAWAY: Lida Rodriguez-Taseff and Nelda Blair, as always, terrific to have you on this morning.

RODRIGUEZ-TASEFF: Thanks.

CALLAWAY: Have a good day.

RODRIGUEZ-TASEFF: You, too.

BLAIR: Thanks.

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 February 7, 2004 - 08:14   ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
FRANK BUCKLEY, CNN ANCHOR: Now to the Carlie Brucia case in Sarasota. There will be a court hearing this morning but the suspect in the 11-year-old's abduction and murder will not be there.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Amazing grace...

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BUCKLEY: Several hundred people gathered last night to mourn the sixth grader. Her body was found early yesterday in thick brush next to a church parking lot. The site was about two miles from where she was abducted Sunday evening. Police say they were able to find her body based on Joseph Smith's alleged confession to an identified person, who relayed the information to police.

Again, a court hearing set for 9:00 a.m., but Smith is not expected to be present.

CATHERINE CALLAWAY, CNN ANCHOR: The tragic kidnapping and murder of Carlie Brucia and the Martha Stewart trial are both on our legal docket this morning.

As usual, lour guests are civil liberties attorney Lida Rodriguez-Taseff and former prosecutor Nelda Blair.

Thank you very much -- thank you both for being with us this morning.

Lida, I said your name correctly, didn't I?

LIDA RODRIGUEZ-TASEFF, CIVIL RIGHTS ATTORNEY: You got it right.

CALLAWAY: I just, I apologize. I stumbled on it there. I just wanted to make sure I got your name right.

RODRIGUEZ-TASEFF: You did.

Good morning.

CALLAWAY: Good morning to you.

Let's talk a little bit about the Barcia case. And let me give the audience a bit of information on what we know about Joseph Smith. Apparently his own probation officer back in December had asked a judge to put him back in jail for violation of his probation. Judge Harry Rapkin apparently declined to find Smith in violation, which could have returned him to jail, and the judge defended his decision by saying the probation officer never sent him the evidence that he requested that Smith had willfully refused to pay his fines.

Let me start with you, Lida.

You know, can, isn't the judge supposed to listen to the probation officer that is assigned to Smith?

RODRIGUEZ-TASEFF: He is and he tried to listen. But he has to, in order to violate his probation, have evidence before him that there was, indeed, a violation. He asked the probation officer for that evidence and in this case, as you said earlier, it had to do with his failure to pay court costs and restitution that he had been required to pay previously. And the probation officer just did not provide it.

The judge had no choice but to not violate the probation and to let him remain free. And while we are all looking back at this and thinking, gosh, it could have been done better, obviously the judge did all he could.

CALLAWAY: Nelda, do you agree with that?

NELDA BLAIR, FORMER PROSECUTOR: Well, I really don't, because -- and that's no surprise -- but, you know, this judge, obviously he did have some power to revoke this man's probation. Not, granted, even though it may have only been for non-payment of fines or fees, that's still a requirement of probation. Maybe he didn't go out and commit another crime, yet, at that point, but he still is -- was in violation. And I think the judge should have said look, I need some more information, I need the papers on this, I want to hold this man back, I want to make sure that he's -- if he's violating his probation that he's off the streets. Because the man has a criminal record.

CALLAWAY: Yes, I was going to -- that's what I was going to bring up, Lida. I mean the man had been arrested 13 times.

BLAIR: Right.

CALLAWAY: Shouldn't the judge have taken that into account...

BLAIR: Absolutely.

CALLAWAY: ... despite, you know, the fine issue?

RODRIGUEZ-TASEFF: You know, abs -- they can't because at that point all the judge is looking at is that specific violation at that time. So he can't look at the fact, oh, you've made, you know, you're a repeat offender, you've committed 13 crimes, you've been convicted 13 times. He can't do that. He's got to look at that instance in front of him and the probation officer just failed to provide the proof.

BLAIR: He also, he also uses his best judgment. That's what a judge does. And in this case I don't think this judge did that.

CALLAWAY: All right, let's -- you agree to disagree on this one.

Let's go to the Martha Stewart trial very quickly. Let's talk about the testimony that we heard this week.

Is the testimony that we heard so far going to be damaging for Martha from Douglas Faneuil?

BLAIR: Yes, it is. No question about it. This witness has become a very cool cucumber. He's worked very well for the prosecution in this case. You know, usually when the defense gets hold of a witness, and right now it's the defense's game, what they try to do is prove that that person is a liar or is lying to the jury to tell the jury they're not credible, don't believe them, you can't believe what they're saying. But in this case, he's already said, yes, I lied. I'm sorry I lied. And that makes him more believable.

CALLAWAY: Lida, do you agree? And is this a personality issue, because clearly Douglas is not a big fan of Martha Stewart?

RODRIGUEZ-TASEFF: No, he's not, and, you know, in some ways I actually hate to agree with Nelda, but I do this time. This witness has done incredibly well thus far. He painted a -- what appeared to be a very balanced picture of his view of, for example, Peter Bacanovic, which -- he called him the best boss he's ever had. And at the same time, you know, told this story, stuck -- has stuck with it.

CALLAWAY: Right.

RODRIGUEZ-TASEFF: The only issue is whether or not this is ultimately going to be enough for a jury to convict Martha, you know? And the prosecution will try to -- the defense will try to make much of the fact that he...

BLAIR: Yes, right.

RODRIGUEZ-TASEFF: ... that the drug use, etc. But I don't know that that's going to get very far. It's going to be very interesting.

BLAIR: I don't think it's done anything. I don't think it's damaged him at all.

CALLAWAY: I was going to say, Nelda, you know, we still are on the government's case right now. It's the government's case.

BLAIR: Right.

CALLAWAY: Things could be very different by next Friday.

BLAIR: They absolutely could. Remember, only one defense attorney has questioned him so far. Martha Stewart's attorney will begin questioning him on Monday. They're both very seasoned defense attorneys, so we could certainly be singing a different tune in a week.

CALLAWAY: Hey, Lida, are they going to try to disparage Douglas' name? RODRIGUEZ-TASEFF: Absolutely. They have to. I mean what choice do you have?

CALLAWAY: All right, yes or no, this is a quick one. We weren't expected to talk about this. The producers are going to yell at me, but I want to say a lot of discussion this week about Janet Jackson's shenanigans during the half time.

You know, are -- is Janet liable for anything -- doing anything wrong by the FCC?

BLAIR: Well, she very well could be. You know, the FCC laws against obscenity and indecency have long been upheld by the Supreme Court.

CALLAWAY: OK.

BLAIR: And certainly they could go after her for that.

RODRIGUEZ-TASEFF: Not obscene, maybe indecent. I'll stick to a yes or no, no.

CALLAWAY: OK.

Thank you both very much for being with us.

BLAIR: Thank you.

CALLAWAY: Lida Rodriguez-Taseff and Nelda Blair, as always, terrific to have you on this morning.

RODRIGUEZ-TASEFF: Thanks.

CALLAWAY: Have a good day.

RODRIGUEZ-TASEFF: You, too.

BLAIR: Thanks.

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