Return to Transcripts main page
CNN Wolf Blitzer Reports
A Guilty Verdict Has Been Reached in the Alex and Derek King Trial; What Was the Verdict in Ricky Chavis' Trial For the Same Crime?
Aired September 06, 2002 - 17:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
WOLF BLITZER, CNN ANCHOR: Now on WOLF BLITZER REPORTS: a verdict late today in the trial of two brothers accused of killing their father.
President Bush tries to make the case for U.S. action against Iraq in calls to France, China, Russia. Will world leaders see things his way?
Just days before the September 11 anniversary, disturbing signs about new al Qaeda threats. Is it just talk, or something more ominous?
A CNN exclusive: video from a U.S. spyplane pinpointing Taliban targets in Afghanistan. An inside look at how the images on the screen turn into strikes on the ground.
You have seen him as a crime victim and you have seen him as a crime fighter. Can you see John Walsh with a TV talk show? Find out what's next for the host of "America's Most Wanted."
And the season finale for "Sex And The City." Meet the man behind the women.
It's Friday, September 6, 2002. I'm Wolf Blitzer in Washington.
A verdict by a second set of Florida jurors in a complicated murder case. They have decided two teenagers, Alex and Derek King, killed their father.
Another jury has already reached a decision against another suspect for the same murder. That decision is to be unsealed momentarily. We will have live coverage.
But let's begin with CNN's Mark Potter. He's joining us from just outside the courthouse in Pensacola, Florida. Mark a dramatic day where you are.
MARK POTTER, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Absolutely, and lots of answers to the questions that we've been having about what these jurors are going to do. We have half the answers now.
We heard that there was indeed a verdict in the case of Alex and Derek King and now that we have that verdict, we are standing by once again outside the courthouse awaiting the verdict in the second case involving Ricky Chavis.
The courtroom is filling up. People are coming in. We are told that this could happen shortly and so we are standing by and we will break in, of course, when that happens.
This is the other case, and this is a case that has the lawyers here and around the country shaking their heads. The boys were tried on murder and arson charges but their defense attorneys said that there was another man that they believe was responsible for the killings, not the boys.
He is 40-year-old Ricky Chavis. He was indicted separately by a Grand Jury here in Escambia County on exactly the same charges facing the boys. He was tried separately. That occurred last week. The trial ended. There was a verdict but the verdict was sealed so that it would not taint the results of this trial involving the boys, which was completed today. Now that we have the verdict in the case of the boys, the verdict in the case of Ricky Chavis will be unsealed momentarily.
Now a while ago we got word that after the jury in the King case, the case of the two boys ages 13 and 14, that jury after deliberating about five hours, a little less than that, had a verdict. Everybody swarmed into the courtroom. They young boys themselves were brought in to sit there for a while until everyone else could come in.
Judge Frank Bell walked into the courtroom. They brought the jury in. He asked the jurors "do you have a verdict?" They said "yes we do," and the verdict was published by the court and that occurred about an hour ago and we have tape of that. Let's listen in.
(JOINED IN PROGRESS)
BAILIFF: In the Circuit Court in and for Escambia County, Florida, State of Florida, Plaintiff v. Derek King, Defendant, Case No. 015612-B. Verdict: We the jury find as follows as to Count 1 of the indictment; guilty of second-degree murder, a lesser included offense without a weapons. We the jury find as follows as to Count 2 of the indictment; guilty of Arson as charged, so say we all this 6th day of September, 2002, Foreperson Lynn Schwartz (ph).
State of Florida, Plaintiff v. Alex King, Defendant, Case No. 015612-B: We, the jury find as follows as to Count 1 of the indictment; guilty of second-degree murder, a lesser included offense without a weapon. We the jury find as follows as to Count 2 of the indictment; guilty of Arson as charged, so say we all this 6th day of September, 2002, Foreperson Lynn Schwartz.
POTTER: Now, we are seeing live pictures in the courtroom. Ricky Chavis himself has now come in. He is the man seated in the middle next to his attorney leaning back right now. He is awaiting the verdict in his own case.
Back to the case of the boys for a moment, they were convicted of second-degree murder not first-degree murder as asked by the prosecution, but the prosecutor himself said that he is happy with this verdict. He is satisfied with the verdict.
What it means is that the boys do not face the mandatory life prison sentence without parole that they would have gotten if they had been convicted of first-degree murder. The judge now has some leeway to consider their ages and the fact that these are first offenders. We don't know what exactly that leeway is. That will be researched, but he does have some leeway.
A person convicted of second-degree murder in Florida can get up to life in prison but with parole, but that person can also get less, so we have to see what happens now. We are looking at people filing into the courtroom, presumably family members and spectators. The media has been allowed in there. The judge must come in next and then the jury, and that's expected to happen shortly and then we will have that verdict.
Now the defense attorneys, back to the case of the boy, have not spoken publicly. They had a chance to do that but they chose not to. They have said they are still deciding whether they want to speak publicly right now. They did say that they will ask for a new trial and that they are likely to appeal, so that's the development there.
We do not know yet when the sentencing will occur but the defense attorneys for the boy are in the courtroom now awaiting the Chavis verdict and we are told that they have come here because they expect an announcement on a sentencing date for the two boys. So, we are standing by right now awaiting the second verdict in this very complicated scenario, which may lead to the boys convicted of murder, which we have had, and perhaps Mr. Chavis himself.
We don't know that that could happen, but if it does, that will certainly head this to an appeals court and it already has the lawyers scratching their head about how this could happen, two people accused of exactly the same crime that could have only been committed by one or a group of them not separately. Wolf.
BLITZER: All right, Mark Potter stand by because we're going to be coming back to you as we await the unsealing of this verdict against Ricky Chavis, the 40-year-old former so-called friend of the King family.
I want to bring in our legal analyst Jeffrey Toobin. Let's have a little analysis. The two boys, Derek and Alex King, convicted of second-degree murder and arson. The prosecution had sought first- degree murder. In connection with Ricky Chavis basically the same prosecution team seeking first-degree murder against him. How unusual is this, Jeff?
JEFFREY TOOBIN, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: Well, as far as I can tell, Wolf, it's completely without precedent to have exactly the same crime charged to two different sets of defendants you know tried within a week of each other. I mean as far as I can tell and based on my research it's never happened before.
But just to say just something that's sort of even more bizarre about the situation right now, it would really be in the prosecution's interest to lose this case now against Ricky Chavis. Their situation would be easier if they were to lose this case against Chavis because if only one set of defendants is guilty, you don't have the problem of the contradiction to defend before an appeals court.
If Chavis is acquitted, there is no contradiction. If they're both convicted, at some point I think the prosecution here is going to have to say what they really believe happened and that may involve dismissing the charges or agreeing to a new trial or something regarding both sets of defendants.
BLITZER: And making this case even more unusual, and correct me if I'm wrong, Jeff the fact that the star witnesses against Ricky Chavis were none other than the two principals, these two teenage boys.
TOOBIN: Wolf, you could get a headache thinking about all the way these cases are bound into each other. It's like an especially twisty pretzel with very serious consequences. That's right. These boys agreed to testify for the prosecution to say yes, Chavis was the one who did it. They did that in the trial which only took place the week before last. We'll see whether the jury believed them, and convicted Chavis.
Interestingly, you can sort of see how the prosecution feels about the case. The summation in the Chavis case was very brief. I believe it was only about five minutes long. The summation in the case against the brothers was much longer and much more impassioned, so it seems like if the prosecution has to choose which ones they really believe are guilty, they seem to believe that it's the King brothers, the two boys who are guilty rather than Chavis, the child molester.
BLITZER: Well is it possible, Jeffrey, and maybe I'll bring Mark Potter in as well to ask him this question, that the two boys already convicted second-degree murder and arson, is it possible that Ricky Chavis could be convicted of first-degree murder and the prosecution argue that there's a consistency here?
TOOBIN: Boy, I don't think so. I think you know they presented these cases and it would be one thing if they presented them in such a way that they argued, for example, that all three, Chavis and the two brothers killed the father together. That happens all the time. There are joint prosecutions where they say that the three acted in -- you know groups of people acted in concert. Here, they just didn't argue that, so I don't see how they could say that what the juries did, if there were two convictions here, was consistent.
BLITZER: What about that? Let me bring back Mark Potter who's been covering this trial. What do you hear, if anything, from the prosecution side in their decision to make this extraordinary two separate track trial unfold?
POTTER: Well they're pretty much laying this on the Grand Jury and on the young boys. Their position is that the young boys said one thing in their original confession but then before the Grand Jury later changed their story, said that they were not responsible, and they blamed Ricky Chavis and then the Grand Jury indicted him. The judge also has waited on this, basically saying that he's been handed these cases and it's quite difficult.
I wanted to bring somebody else in who's been talking about this. This is an attorney here that we've been talking to who has been consulting with us, David Woodward.
David, what do you think about this, the oddity of this case where Chavis is charged with exactly the same thing as the two boys? How are the lawyers in this town dealing with this?
DAVID WOODWARD, ATTORNEY: Well, we're looking at it much as curious becoming bizarre. None of us in our memory here or anyone else know of a case that panned out and played out like this one has.
POTTER: Absolutely and what do you think about the prospect of the boys now convicted and maybe Mr. Chavis also convicted of exactly the same thing? What does that lead to?
WOODWARD: Well, they haven't charged him with conspiracy, so that's usually the easy way out. It looks here as if we're going to wind up with a situation where we're going to have one bizarre and unusual appellate case.
POTTER: Leading obviously right away to the appeals court?
WOODWARD: Right to the appeals court.
POTTER: Because what that might say is the boys held the bat and Ricky Chavis held the bat at the same time. How could that be?
WOODWARD: It's tough to do when they never found the bat I understand.
POTTER: Now you know this judge, how do you think he might handle this case now that it's murder two, second-degree murder, rather than first-degree murder where his hands would be tied in terms of the sentence?
WOODWARD: Well, Frank Bell is a very, very fine thinking jurist who goes through things very well. I tried a case of a different type in front of him about a year ago. I found him to be thoughtful and decisive. I think he'll do his homework before he does any kind of sentencing where he has discretion.
POTTER: And he has a history with juvenile cases, is that right?
WOODWARD: Well, yes. In this county, the judges sit rotation, which means they sit in family law for a while. They sit in criminal law for a while. They sit in general civil litigation for a while, and they sit as juvenile judges. So, he's dealt with children and children's problems historically so it's not a new concept for him.
POTTER: Now I know this needs to be researched. You can't have the exact answer but he will have some leeway in this most likely, do you think? WOODWARD: He does and someone was mentioning just a few minutes ago that there's even maybe the possibility the boys can be sentenced as youthful offenders, which is a whole different ballgame.
POTTER: And what ultimately might that mean for the boys, that as adults they would -- when they become adults they would get out?
WOODWARD: Well, under the old Juvenile Court system, had this case been tried in the Juvenile Court, they would have been set loose when they reach majority.
POTTER: But again, this is still to be researched.
WOODWARD: That's right.
POTTER: But there is some wiggle room on the part of the judge now to play with this?
WOODWARD: There is wiggle room, a lot of wiggle room.
POTTER: But these are both still very serious charges. Nobody on the defense side is celebrating over this.
WOODWARD: Not at all. I just saw Jim Sultz (ph) walk by and he looked very methodical and grim as he walked up the sidewalk.
POTTER: And they're talking appeal of course?
WOODWARD: Yes, certainly they are.
POTTER: OK, well David thank you so much for your time.
WOODWARD: Certainly.
POTTER: Wolf, back to you. We've been hearing from lawyers here this very same thing and I'm told in my ear that the judge has just come in. I think we're about to start this next proceeding shortly, Wolf.
BLITZER: All right, Mark Potter thank you very much. We'll, of course, be coming back to you once that camera moves to the judge and I think it's beginning to move now. Let's listen to Judge Frank Bell.
(JOINED IN PROGRESS)
JUDGE FRANK BELL: ... give me some better information that they had but they have no prior record, so under the rule, the criminal rule, they would be entitled and a PSI would be required?
DAVID RIMMER, PROSECUTOR: Yes, Your Honor.
BELL: OK, does the defense understand it that way?
SHARON POTTER, DEFENSE ATTORNEY: Yes, sir.
BELL: OK. Well, what we'll do on Derek and Alex King, a minute ago when we broke I went upstairs to try to find a date where we could order a PSI, and set a date for sentencing, give the probation department who does the PSIs an opportunity to complete it, prepare it, and furnish copies to everyone.
I have a date of October the 17th at 9:00 in mind for sentencing. That's on a Thursday. If we go ahead and order a pre-sentence investigation now, ask them to actually have the PSIs done on both Derek and Alex and furnish copies to the court, the state, and defense counsel no later than October the 10th.
That's about a month from now. That would give us enough time to read the PSIs and prior to the sentencing on October the 17th at 9:00, and on that date we any aggravation that the state wants to present, they'll have an opportunity to do that and any mitigation that the defense wants to present, they'll have an opportunity to do that and that should give us enough time on that date to do it.
Do you happen to know if you all have a conflict or anything? I know I just gave you that date and I don't know what your schedules are. Do any of you know if that's going to be a conflict with anyone? I don't want to set a date and we run into a problem. You know I need to go ahead and order the PSI, but is that date, are you aware of whether or not that's going to create a problem for anybody's schedule as far as a conflict is concerned?
RIMMER: I don't think it will for me, judge. If there is something, I'm sure I can work around it.
POTTER: I'm not aware of a conflict, your Honor.
JAMES STOKES, DEFENSE ATTORNEY: Your Honor, I think we can work around it.
BELL: OK. We'll set sentencing then on October the 17th, order the PSI. We would like copies by the 10th of October, and any evidence or any witnesses that the state or the defense wants to present in aggravation and mitigation will start at 9:00 on the 17th after we have the PSIs on both Alex and Derek.
It's my understanding, moving over to Mr. Chavis' trial, that one of the jurors -- we thought that we would have all but one here at 4:00. It's my understanding that the 11th one is on the way. I don't know whether or not she's here or not now. Security was upstairs kind of waiting for her. If you all want to wait, you know, a few minutes until she arrives then we'll bring those folks in here and announce the verdict on Mr. Chavis.
RIMMER: May I approach the bench?
BELL: Sure.
BLITZER: So it looks like we're going to have to wait a few more minutes to get the verdict on Ricky Chavis, the 40-year-old so-called former friend of the father of these two young boys convicted today of second-degree murder, Derek and Alex King. Jeffrey Toobin, October 17 will be the day they'll begin the sentencing hearing for these two young boys. What kind of sentence can they anticipate in Florida if this verdict of second-degree murder plus arson holds?
TOOBIN: Well, there are a lot of factors in play here. Just for the benefit of our viewers, they heard a lot of talk about PSIs. They kept talking about PSIs, the judge and the lawyers.
A PSI is a pre-sentence investigation. The probation department does a report on the defendant to assist the judge in sentencing, talking about a defendant's background, his education, factors that may make a sentence longer or shorter, so it's a very important part of sentencing. They have to establish a time to have one prepared in time for everybody to analyze it in time for the sentence which is October 17.
I think there's going to be a lot of legal wrangling about this sentence because the defendants are juveniles and because they escaped the first-degree murder charge which would require life without parole. Now there's a little more play in the joints so the defense can argue that they are, in fact, juveniles and the sentence could be more like a juvenile sentence.
But I mean no one should mistake this as any sort of victory for the defense. Second-degree murder is a life sentence and usually -- is often a life sentence in Florida and parole is something that is granted less and less often.
BLITZER: And as we await the sentence -- the verdict, excuse me of the convicted child molester Ricky Chavis, he is now in that courtroom. We're waiting for the final member of the jury to show up. This is a very, very complicated case in that those two boys were the star witnesses against Ricky Chavis even though four months earlier they had taken responsibility for the murder of their dad.
TOOBIN: It's just incredibly complicated and the implications are even more complex. I mean here you have a situation where the week before the boys went on trial themselves, they were critical assistants to the prosecutors, the very same prosecutors who would try them themselves.
It's hard to imagine, I mean one of the things that really I think you have to think about here is how much these two brothers really understood about the legal machinations going on around them. I mean one of the big issues involving juveniles is they don't really understand Miranda warnings. They don't really understand when they are told they have the right to remain silent when a police officer says you know we'd really like you to tell us the story anyway.
Here, they were given Miranda warnings and they decided to waive their rights and talk but it really is an open question, especially looking and listening to these kids to whether they understood the implications of what they did, and you have a situation where their confessions, their statements to the police was virtually the only evidence against them, or certainly the most important evidence against them. The fact that they are juveniles was critical to this case.
BLITZER: And let me bring back our Mark Potter. He's outside the courthouse standing by. I think you still have a guest with you, Mark, and as we await the judge -- well actually, let's go back to Judge Frank Bell. He's resuming this hearing.
(JOINED IN PROGRESS)
RIMMER: The gag order as to the Murder charges against the King boys and Mr. Chavis after Mr. Chavis' verdict is published would be lifted and then I'll be free to talk about those cases. I do not intend to talk about the pending cases against Mr. Chavis and I would instruct law enforcement officers involved also not to talk about the pending cases. But I would like to know if I am free now to talk about the murder cases?
BELL: Mr. Rollo?
MICHAEL ROLLO, CHAVIS' ATTORNEY: Judge, since I was the party that originally moved the court for the gag order, I don't have any problem whatsoever with Mr. Rimmer discussing whatever he feels he thinks he should with respect to the homicide charges or the jury verdict in the Alex King case.
And, I think after this verdict is rendered in Mr. Chavis' case, that with respect to the homicide charges, I would think that there wouldn't be any further need for the gag order to remain.
BELL: Well, I agree as far as the cases that have been assigned to my division. Once these cases are concluded, I don't think there's any necessity for a gag order. That was only to prevent pretrial publicity. Post trial doesn't make any sense to have a gag order in. It should be a freedom of speech situation, so if people want to talk about it they can. If people don't want to talk about it they're free not to do so.
As far as Mr. Chavis' pending cases, that's another matter. That's not in my division. That's in Judge Ken Bell's division. It's not in my division and he does have a gag order as it relates to the accessory after the fact. I would assume that he has that other case but I don't know. Do you know Mr. Rollo?
ROLLO: Judge, I think that one is also in your division, correct me if I'm wrong.
RIMMER: I think so too but I'm not positive. But like I said, I don't intend to talk about those cases since they are pending.
BELL: Those cases that are still pending concerning Mr. Chavis, I think the gag orders that were originally entered by Judge Scavaski (ph) and Judge Ken Bell and modified -- I later modified it, those should remain in effect as it relates to Mr. Chavis' pending cases.
RIMMER: Yes, sir.
BELL: But the ones that are going to be resolved, I see no need to have any gag order because you know the cases are over with and people that are involved they're free to, you know, discuss the matter or not discuss the matter. It's up to them.
ROLLO: Thank you, Your Honor.
RIMMER: Thank you, Your Honor.
BELL: OK, thank you.
Did the 11th lady every get here?
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: As of five minutes ago, no sir. Let me check.
BELL: OK.
BLITZER: So we're still awaiting the arrival of the final juror in the case of Ricky Chavis the convicted child molester accused of first-degree murder in connection with Terry King, the father of these two boys, 13 and 14-year-old Derek and Alex King.
Mark Potter, our reporter on the scene, has been covering this trial. Mark, I assume what the judge just said that after we know the decision, the verdict as far as Ricky Chavis is concerned the gag order will be lifted. We'll be hearing from all sides of this very, very complicated set of trials.
POTTER: Well, we presume so and it's funny that they were talking about the gag order a moment ago because we just had an incident while that was occurring that affects you and I directly.
The defense attorneys walked down this sidewalk. Our producer Mike Falen (ph) walked up to him and asked would you like to come talk to us live on CNN, talk to Wolf Blitzer, and they said no, we can't do it because of a gag order.
So we directly have just been affected by this gag order which now seems like it's going to be lifted. Timing is everything and ours was bad by about five minutes or so, and yes they'll be free to talk soon, but they said they were not free to talk just a minute ago when they were walking past us.
One other thing, Wolf, you and Jeffrey Toobin were talking about the odd nature of this case. Contemplate this. In the trial of the boys, the centerpiece of the prosecution's case was the boys' confession, which was given in November in which they said they killed their father by beating him to death with a baseball bat, planning it in advance and then doing it.
In the trial of Ricky Chavis, the prosecution of course did not play the confession because that goes against the theory that he was responsible for it. The confession was played, however, but by the defense; again a very unusual case here that -- like I said before, everybody is shaking their head.
BLITZER: Mark, I don't know if you know the answer but maybe the consultant that we have, the attorney who's been watching this case who's been with you, maybe he knows the answer. It seems to me strictly as someone on the outside that this was a case that almost cried for a plea agreement between these two little boys, their attorneys, and the prosecution. Why wasn't there one?
WOODWARD: I don't know. Facts occur in very strange situations and the way this ball gets unraveled it's still to be done because I think we've only seen phase one or act two. It's almost Shakespearian.
BLITZER: Were you surprised why there wasn't a plea agreement that these boys confessed originally, why the prosecution didn't seek and the defense attorneys didn't seek some sort of plea, guilty plea agreement for the two young boys?
WOODWARD: I don't know. No one's been privy to the way the defense counsel has handled this case. They've held it very, very close to the vest. I don't know if there was any possibility of a plea agreement or anything in that regard. It simply came to trial and we all watched with great curiosity as it advanced.
BLITZER: I guess in part this is the result of that gag order on all sides not so speak to the news media. That's why we don't know precisely why there was no plea agreement. Let me bring back our Jeffrey Toobin, our CNN Legal Analyst, as we await the verdict of Ricky Chavis. He's the man with the darker hair sitting on that screen, sitting in that courtroom awaiting word of his fate. Jeffrey, were you surprised there wasn't a plea agreement early on in this proceeding?
TOOBIN: Well, I guess but I think what is likely to have happened, and again I wasn't privy to the negotiations is, the recantation by the two kids probably happened pretty quickly. The interrogation where they gave their confessions was immediately after the murder, I mean within a day. So they've had a long time to think about it.
The likely answer as to why they didn't reach a plea agreement is that they say they didn't do it and you can't really plead guilty even to a lesser charge if you say you had nothing to do with something especially as serious as murder. So, you know, they are quite firm in their position now that they didn't do it and it's very hard to plead guilty if you simply insist that you did nothing wrong.
BLITZER: All right. We're going to continue to watch this. Jeffrey Toobin stand by. Mark Potter please also stand by. He's in Pensacola.
We're going to take a quick break as we await the verdict of Ricky Chavis, the 40-year-old former friend of Terry King, Terry King the father who was bludgeoned, murdered, last November, two sons of his now convicted of second-degree murder and arson in that case. A separate trial, the verdict about to be unsealed, we'll have that right after this.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK) WOLF BLITZER, HOST: A 13 and 14-year-old boy already convicted of second-degree murder and arson earlier today, we're now waiting the verdict of 40-year-old Ricky Chavis. Let's listen in.
(JOINED IN PROGRESS)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Jury's in the box, Your Honor.
BELL: Thank you.
Good evening. Welcome back.
Ladies and gentlemen, what I'd like to do is hand to you the verdict that was given to us last week, last Friday in the case of the state of Florida vs. Chavis. I'd like for you to look and it and I believe last Friday each one of you initialed and signed that verdict.
I wish you'd take it outlook at it and pass it down to your fellow jurors to make sure that we're talking the same verdict here, and...
TOOBIN: OK, what's happening here is the jury is making sure that the verdict form that's been sealed in an envelope for a week is in fact the same verdict form that they all signed, so that when it's announced they won't be surprised that there was some change over the course of the week.
BELL: I believe last week the foreman of the jury indicated that you all had arrived at a verdict, you placed in the envelope. And I ask you sir, that's the verdict that you gave us last Friday?
JURY FOREMAN: Yes sir.
BELL: OK, if you'd give it back to court security right there sir. Again, what I'd like to ask some of the folks in the courtroom, I wish no one would get overly excited once the clerk's office publishes this verdict. It would be appreciated.
The clerk's office would publish that verdict, please.
COURT CLERK: In the circuit court in for Escambia County Florida, State of Florida plaintiff versus Ricky Marvin Chavis, defendant, case number 015612B -- C verdict. We the jury find as follows as to count one of the indictment, not guilty.
We the jury find as follows as to count two of the indictment, not guilty. So say we all this 30th day of August, 2002, foreperson Ralph Lindsey (ph).
BELL: Does the state or the defense want the jury polled?
RIMMER: No your honor.
ROLLO: No your honor.
BELL: OK. All right, let me give this back. OK, as far as Mr. Chavis' cases, he's discharged as to this particular case. I think there are some -- a couple of other pending cases and of course Mr. Chavis will remain in jail pending the disposition of those cases.
Ladies and gentlemen, what I'd like to do is first of all thank you for coming down here last week. We do appreciate it, and I'd like to give you an additional jury instruction in addition to the jury instructions that I gave you last week, and I think it's applicable to this case and I think that you should know this.
Ladies and gentlemen, I wish to thank you for your time and for your consideration in this case. I also wish to advise you of some very special privileges enjoyed by jurors. No juror can ever be required to talk about the discussions that occurred in the jury room, except by court order. For many centuries our society has relied upon juries for considerations of very difficult cases.
We have recognized for hundreds of years that a jury's deliberations, discussions and vote should remain their private affairs as long as they wish it. Therefore, the law gives you a unique privilege not to speak about the jury's work. Although you are at liberty to speak with anyone about your deliberations, you're also at liberty to refuse to speak to anyone.
A request may come from those who are simply curious or from those who might seek to find fault with you. It will be up to you to decide whether to preserve your privacy as a juror. As indicated earlier, we appreciate citizens coming down here every week and helping us with jury duty.
We do this every week. We rotate, I don't do it every week, but we rotate, all the judges do it, picking juries and trying cases, and we could not handle cases and dispose of cases without citizens that are willing to come down here and giving their time, and we are very appreciative for citizens coming in here and helping us resolve cases. It's much appreciated...
BLITZER: And so Judge Frank Bell thanking the jurors for their work, two sets of juries in Florida, two different trials, two very, very different outcomes.
Ricky Chavis, the 40-year-old, he's a convicted child molester, not guilty on the two counts he was accused of, murder and arson. The two sons of Terry King, 13-year-old Alex King and 14-year-old Derek King, both of them convicted of second-degree murder and arson.
Jeffrey Toobin is our legal analyst. A lot of people are going to be surprised, aren't they Jeffrey, that the convicted child molester walks free, at least, on these accusations. He's facing other unrelated charges, and the two boys are going to be presumably going to jail for a long time.
TOOBIN: Certainly it doesn't fit with our preconceptions about either one of the defendants, but I do think people need to remember that the case against the kids was really much stronger than the case against Ricky Chavis, and Ricky Chavis had an alibi. He said he was with his brother, I believe.
I mean it was an alibi with an interested person, but still it was an alibi and most importantly Chavis never confessed to killing the elder Mr. King, and whereas the kids did confess. And so there was really a difference in evidence even though you know obviously he is a far less appealing human being than two kids who are, you know, young teenagers and you know someone with no, with people with no prior record.
But this makes the legal situation of the two boys, Derek and Alex King, much, much worse. They would be better off if they were convicted -- if Chavis had been convicted and there were some sort of conflict. Now there's no longer a conflict. Their appellate argument is it's not gone, but it's weaker.
BLITZER: And let me bring back Mark Potter, our reporter on the scene, who's been covering this as well. I assume you agree with Jeffrey Toobin that now these two boys convicted of second-degree murder and arson facing, what, 20-odd years to maybe even life in prison, they face a much stiffer road ahead in trying to appeal this conviction.
POTTER: Absolutely, the road is now clear. It's not as complicated as it was before, and so I agree with what Jeffrey said.
I would also say, Wolf, that in talking to people here at the courthouse who watched or covered both trials there was not actually, I don't think there was as much surprise as you might think by this verdict.
Jeffrey is right, the case against the boys seems to have been much stronger. Also it doesn't seem that the prosecution's was as aggressive in arguing for a conviction in the Chavis case as it was in arguing for one in the boys' case. It appears that the prosecutions belief was in the second trial, in the theory of the second trial, that the boys did it, not Chavis.
The prosecutor, it was reported in the first trial, to have taken the position that look, the boys lied one way or the other either to authorities or to you the jury. You have to sort it out. It wasn't as strong an approach as he took in this case where he said look, these boys did it. Their statement was very strong. They had details that only the killer would have had.
It was a much stronger presentation at the end in terms of the closing argument than we saw in the first case involving Ricky Chavis. There's not as much surprise in Pensacola with this verdict as you might think...
BLITZER: I guess in part...
POTTER: ... at least not at the courthouse.
BLITZER: I guess in part, Mark, because of the way those two young boys look sweet, adorable, cute, almost angelic, but now convicted of second-degree murder. I want to replay for our viewers, who may have missed it, the announcement of the verdict, the not guilty verdict involving Ricky Chavis.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
COURT CLERK: In the circuit court in for Escambia County Florida, the State of Florida plaintiff versus Ricky Marvin Chavis, defendant, case number 015612B -- C verdict. We the jury find as follows as to count one of the indictment, not guilty.
We the jury find as follows as to count two of the indictment, not guilty. So say we all this 30th day of August, 2002 foreperson Ralph Lindsey (ph).
BLITZER: Jeffrey Toobin, yesterday when we spoke 24 hours or so ago you made the point that prosecutors have a responsibility, not just to throw all sorts of wild accusations and charges against the wall and see what sticks.
In this particular case the same team, the same prosecutors, made a case against the two boys, made a similar case against Ricky Chavis. They won in one case against the two boys. They lost in the other one against Ricky Chavis. What are they going to say? What's going to be the reaction to the way the prosecutors behaved in this spectacular case?
TOOBIN: Well I think the reaction in the public and the reaction in court may be somewhat different. And I think the public is probably going to be pretty surprised that prosecutors could do something like this.
When it comes to the appeals court, I think what the prosecutors will do is they'll argue a doctrine that's known as "harmless error", where they may say to the appeals court look, well perhaps we were wrong to charge both these cases. But we -- the jury took care of that problem.
The jury rejected the charges in the Chavis case and convicted the people who were really guilty. We need to respect the jury's verdict and affirm that judgment. That is a much easier argument to make to an appeals court than trying to sustain verdicts that were on their face in consistent.
BLITZER: Well let me bring back our David Mattingly. He was in the courtroom when that verdict, the not guilty verdict against Ricky Chavis was announced. Give us the atmosphere.
Tell us what was going on inside, what you saw and heard, David.
DAVID MATTINGLY, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Well Wolf, a couple things.
You possibly didn't see this on camera, if you were watching, as the verdict was read, Ricky Chavis, himself, becoming emotional, breaking down and crying.
Back in the courtroom where the families were sitting, relatives of the King brothers became visibly angry and at one point, one of the dozen or so uniformed officers that were in the courtroom asked -- seemed to ask them to leave and they all hurriedly left the courtroom after the jury -- after the verdict was read, and the jury had their say.
Now also, what happened, well something of note, prosecutor David Rimmer walked out with a smile on his face not like someone who had just lost a case. I asked him how he felt, he said it was a proper verdict and he said he had no dog in this fight, something he told the jury at the time of his closing arguments in that case. So a verdict, apparently, that he was predicting -- Wolf.
BLITZER: All right, David, when we saw him wiping away tears on our camera, Ricky Chavis, he's still facing other unrelated charges right now. Is that right?
MATTINGLY: That's right. He still faces charges of obstructing justice or obstructing the investigation by hiding the boys at his house...
BLITZER: All right...
MATTINGLY: ... and getting rid of evidence.
BLITZER: All right, the prosecutor...
(CROSSTALK)
BLITZER: ... David, the prosecutor is speaking right now, the assistant state attorney. Let's listen in.
(JOINED IN PROGRESS)
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: (UNINTELLIGIBLE)
RIMMER: Well, I may. I don't know yet. I've got to think about it and talk to the officers involved and everybody else, but the judge, you know, he's the one that imposes the sentence, and he's the one that has to remain neutral, and he is neutral.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: (UNINTELLIGIBLE)
RIMMER: Well, the reason Chavis had to be tried when he did is because he filed a demand for speedy trial and the last day of speedy trial time happened to run out on August the 26th, so we had to go try then.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: But why try both for first-degree murder?
RIMMER: Well...
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: (UNINTELLIGIBLE)
RIMMER: ... because the boys testified under oath in front of a grand jury that Chavis did it, and you know it's up to a jury to decide whether or not they want to believe them or not and so I gave them their opportunity to tell their story in court to a jury, and the jury didn't believe them. UNIDENTIFIED MALE: (UNINTELLIGIBLE) you faced a fir amount of criticism from some people -- while the gag order was on. Lawyers suggesting that you were presenting inconsistent theories and that as a representative of the state, you had an obligation to go with one theory, not just sort of throw it up against the wall and see what stuck.
RIMMER: Well, as you noticed from the King case, you know there's -- a person can be guilty as a principal and a perpetuator, and I felt that there may have been enough evidence to pursue Chavis as a principal, but the judge ruled that the evidence was insufficient on that point, and I respected that ruling.
And so that's why I made the argument that I did, that I'm leaving it up to the jury to decide. I mean the King boys said he was the perpetuator and it's up to the jury whether or not they wanted to believe them. So I, you know, that's the reason why I just left it up to them.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Just your comments on the age of these two people being charged and now convicted of this crime.
RIMMER: Well it's certainly sad. You know, it's unfortunate. There's really no winners, you know, when this kind of thing happens, and but the jury did the right thing, and I'm proud of them. I have absolutely all respect for the verdict, and I'm happy with it. I think it was the right verdict under the circumstances.
BLITZER: That's David Rimmer, the prosecutor in this case, saying that the jury has made the right decisions, defending the jury, of course, even though he had sought a first-degree murder verdict against Ricky Chavis, not guilty on both counts, and we'll continue to monitor the reaction to this spectacular trial.
Once again, 13-year-old Alex King, 14-year-old Derek King, both convicted of second-degree murder and arson in connection with the bludgeoning, the murder of their father last November, Terry King, 40 years old. Ricky Chavis, who's already a convicted child molester, not guilty on both counts. We'll be right back.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
BLITZER: Welcome back.
Let's turn now to the war on terror. Authorities in Germany say a Turkish man with a large quantity of explosives has been arrested near Heidelberg. He was arrested yesterday with his fiancee, an American civilian employee of the U.S. military. Almost 300 pounds of chemicals and five pipe bombs were discovered in their apartment. The U.S. Army's European headquarters are in Heidelberg.
Meantime, German prosecutors say an Afghan-born German is under arrest at Alexandria, Virginia. German officials say they've been investigating the man since last month for suspected ties to a terrorist organization. The man had been living in Hamburg. Mohamed Atta, the leader of the September 11 hijackers, lived in Hamburg for several years, as did two of the other suspected hijackers involved in last years attacks.
Here in Washington, President Bush is facing what Congress promises will be an intense debate on Iraq, today turned to key members of the United Nations Security Council in a bid for their support to remove Saddam Hussein from power. Just as he has been doing at home, Mr. Bush faces a tough battle around the world.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
BLITZER (voice over): President Bush spent much of this day on the phone calling world leaders to begin pressing his case for a possible war against Iraq. On the speed dial calls to French President Jacques Chirac, Chinese President Jiang Zemin and Russian President Vladimir Putin.
ARI FLEISCHER, WHITE HOUSE SPOKESMAN: There's already a mountain of evidence that Saddam Hussein is gathering weapons for the purpose of using them, and adding additional information is like adding a foot to Mount Everest.
BLITZER: But it was clear the president still has a great deal of work cut out for him, with spokesmen for those leaders continuing to express serious concerns. The president also spoke by phone with U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan, who says he's looking forward to Mr. Bush's September 12 address before the U.N. General Assembly.
KOFI ANNAN, U.N. SECRETARY-GENERAL: I have indicated that it would be unwise to attack Iraq now and it will raise international attention.
BLITZER: Over the weekend, President Bush will meet at his Camp David, Maryland retreat with British Prime Minister Tony Blair, who almost alone among world leaders continues to align himself with U.S. officials.
TONY BLAIR, BRITISH PRIME MINISTER: If I thought they were committing military action in a way that was wrong, I wouldn't support it, but I've never found that and I don't expect to find it in the future.
BLITZER: On Monday the president meets with Canada's Prime Minister Jean Chretien in Detroit. In advance, Canadian officials are warning that any unilateral U.S. preemptive strike would set a dangerous international precedent. Top Bush administration officials are also pressing their case on Capitol Hill, so far meeting with mixed results.
REP. PORTER GOSS (R-FL), INTELLIGENCE CHAIRMAN: The long history of Saddam's activities puts us very much on alert that we have to deal with him, and it's a little bit like a cancer. When you know you've got a malignancy, it's better to get at it sooner rather than later.
REP. JANE HARMAN (D-CA), INTELLIGENCE CMTE: America doesn't support committing 250 or 300,000 grounds troops taking the casualties we might take to take out this one regime without knowing why this is more important than everything else.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
BLITZER: And the debate over what to do about Saddam Hussein may take a major new turn because of what was picked by a commercial satellite. Our national security correspondent David Ensor has been keeping up on these late breaking developments.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
DAVID ENSOR, CNN NATIONAL SECURITY CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): International nuclear weapons inspectors studying these satellite photos from a private company tell CNN they have identified several former nuclear weapons facilities in Iraq where there has been new construction or reconstruction since the last inspections of the sites more than four years ago.
Other non-governmental sources say there has been suspicious recent construction at this facility at al Qa'im near the Syrian border, a complex that once contained a secret uranium-enrichment facility.
Experts at the Vienna based International Atomic Energy Agency stress there is no evidence of advances in the Iraqi program to build a nuclear bomb, just suspicious construction activity on buildings. No one will know for sure, says a former arms inspector, without going in on the ground.
CHARLES DUELFER, FMR. U.N. WEAPONS INSP.: So to look at just pictures and try to draw conclusions from buildings is a very limited window into the process.
ENSOR: Back before they left for safety reasons in 1998, and then were prevented from returning, U.N. weapons inspectors in Iraq searched for chemical and biological weapons as well, finding and destroying many. Back then a former U.S. Marine, Scott Ritter, was admired for his blunt responses when Iraqi officials denied his team's access to a facility.
SCOTT RITTER, FMR. U.N. WEAPONS INSP.: Are you denying me access to this...
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I am not denying you.
RITTER: So let me go.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: You are not allowed to go...
ENSOR: Now, Ritter is on his way to Baghdad as a guest of the Iraqi government to speak, he says, at the Iraqi Parliament and now he strongly opposes military action against Iraq.
RITTER: On the one hand the Bush administration says that inspectors must be allowed in. On the other hand, though, it says that regime removal still is its primary policy. You can't have weapons inspectors go to work in Iraq and still embrace the concept of regime removal because whether inspectors get back to work, it leaves open the possibility that they may, in fact, find Iraq to be compliant, and when that happens, you have to lift sanctions.
ENSOR: Charles Duelfer was Ritter's boss at the U.N.
CHARLES DUELFER, FRM. AMERICAN DEPUTY CHRM. UNSCOM: He was, in my opinion, quite convinced that Iraq was concealing things. Now he seems to be saying something different. I think it's, you know, it's an exercise that you know supports the Iraqi government, him showing up in Baghdad. I wish that Iraqis could come to the United States with equal freedom and speak their minds equally.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
ENSOR: One thing all president former arms inspectors we spoke to agreed on, unless they can get back in on the ground, no one is going to know for sure where Iraq stands on weapons of mass destruction -- Wolf.
BLITZER: And David, I know that you've been hearing from your sources some interesting fears, some suspicions about what they call chatter, electronic intercepts of potential al Qaeda threats out there. What precisely are your sources telling you?
ENSOR: They're saying, Wolf, that the level is back up. It goes up and down. It's been up several times since 9/11. It is back up now, that is the level of information about threats. People talking about plotting nothing specific, no actionable intelligence as they call it in the business, but still a level of concern there that's rising somewhat in recent days as we reach the 9/11 anniversary -- Wolf.
BLITZER: OK, David Ensor, you'll be monitoring for that for us as well. Thank you very much.
And one day after surviving an assassination attempt, the Afghan President Hamid Karzai says his new government is not losing control of the country.
Yesterday's attack in the southern city of Kandahar erupted in a hail of gunfire. The gunman, a member of the security detail, was shot dead by President Karzai's American bodyguards. An Afghan bodyguard and a civilian were also killed.
Seventeen men have been detained for questioning, but it's still unclear who was behind the attack. Meantime, no one has yet claimed responsibility for the twin bombings in the capital city, Kabul. At least 30 people were killed, and more than 150 people were wounded.
In the war against terror in Afghanistan, the U.S. military had a huge advantage in the so-called high tech Predator spyplane. Until now pictures taken by the unmanned Predator were classified, but our senior Pentagon correspondent Jamie McIntyre has this exclusive report on some of the Predator's combat missions. (BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Probably six miles, let me know when you see the target and I'll start the (UNINTELLIGIBLE).
JAMIE MCINTYRE, CNN SENIOR PENTAGON CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): These exclusive pictures are thermal images transmitted by an unmanned spyplane as it loiters over a target in southern Afghanistan one night this past winter.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: You have the two buildings inside. There seems to be...
(CROSSTALK)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: (UNINTELLIGIBLE) lot of vehicles (UNINTELLIGIBLE) those are the only two buildings in the area. Do you see those?
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Roger that, is it on the east side or west side of...
(CROSSTALK)
MCINTYRE: This is the first combat footage from a Predator drone to be released by the Pentagon, and it has been declassified at the request of CNN.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: You have a square building and a rectangle building (UNINTELLIGIBLE) northwest.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Now on the big square building there's a square, rectangular, like holding pod next to it. Do you see that?
MCINTYRE: The voices on the tape are of the crew of an AC-130 gunship, which will use its highly accurate side-mounted 105- millimeter howitzer to take out Taliban vehicles and fighters.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: There's a mosque. Do not engage the mosque.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Roger.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: The square building is the...
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Direct angle. Direct angle.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: The building is the mosque.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Roger that.
MCINTYRE: When the AC-30 gunship arrives on the scene, the Predator is already providing streaming video directly to the AC-130 crew, along with verbal guidance from the Predator operator on the ground.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: OK, (UNINTELLIGIBLE) there's three vehicles pointing to the east west. Do you see those?
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Yes.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: (UNINTELLIGIBLE)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: We've got a vehicle moving about...
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: One of the vehicles is moving right now.
MCINTYRE: To the Predator's infrared camera, the warm bodies of individuals show up as white shapes, and they can be seen scrambling as the AC-130 circles overhead.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: One of the vehicles is moving right now.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Yes, you are clear to engage it.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Let's go.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: That first target is confirmed.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: (UNINTELLIGIBLE)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: (UNINTELLIGIBLE)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: (UNINTELLIGIBLE) ready.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: It's shot.
(CROSSTALK)
MCINTYRE: The result is a deadly accurate fuselage of artillery shells.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: And there are people coming out of the mosque right now.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: (UNINTELLIGIBLE) ready.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: (UNINTELLIGIBLE)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: (UNINTELLIGIBLE) engage.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: (UNINTELLIGIBLE)
(END VIDEOTAPE)
MCINTYRE: The U.S. military has used unmanned spy planes for years, but it was only in the Afghanistan war it was able to get the live video feed directly to pilots for real-time targeting. It is that capability that makes the Predator an indispensable tool in modern warfare especially if the U.S. goes to war against Iraq, where intelligence will be the key to finding and perhaps killing Saddam Hussein.
Jamie McIntyre, CNN, the Pentagon. (END VIDEOTAPE)
BLITZER: And this strange story unveiling at the Bronx zoo is our picture of the day.
A 6,000-pound totem pole now graces the entrance to the New York's famous zoo. The 23-foot healing pole was created by teams in California to commemorate the attacks on September 11. The totem, a tribute, as it's called, is the brainchild of One Voice Arts and Leadership program in Monterey, California. Teens who carved the pole say they're honored and grateful to be part of the project.
And that's all the time we have today. Sunday on "LATE EDITION", the last word in Sunday talk, an exclusive interview with President Bush's National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice.
Plus, Senate Intelligence Committee Chairman Bob Graham and Vice Chairman Richard Shelby. That's Sunday at noon eastern.
Until then, thanks very much for watching. I'm Wolf Blitzer in Washington. "LOU DOBBS MONEYLINE" begins right now.
TO ORDER A VIDEO OF THIS TRANSCRIPT, PLEASE CALL 800-CNN-NEWS OR USE OUR SECURE ONLINE ORDER FORM LOCATED AT www.fdch.com
