Return to Transcripts main page

CNN Wolf Blitzer Reports

Jury Deliberates Peterson's Fate; Hassoun to Be Charged With Desertion

Aired December 09, 2004 - 17:00   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.


WOLF BLITZER, HOST: And there we have Judge Alfred Delucchi giving instructions, final instructions to members of the jury in the Scott Peterson murder trial. Scott Peterson will either live or die depending on what these 12 jurors decide in the coming hours. Thanks very much for joining us. I'm Wolf Blitzer. Let's go right out to Redwood City in California. Rusty Dornin is standing by. Rusty, we saw Scott Peterson sitting there. I saw no emotion as the judge was reading these very formal, very specific instructions to members of this jury. Did you?
RUSTY DORNIN, CNN CORRESPONDENT: No. Now when I was in the courtroom earlier because I just came out when the judge started reading the instructions. When he first came into court, when Mark Geragos, his attorney was going to begin giving his closing arguments he had a big smile on his face and seem relaxed. He sat down but from then on you just never saw any emotion on his face. The rest of his family seemed to be very affected by not only Mark Geragos' speech, but by the judge's instructions to the jury. Members of his family breaking down when he was talking to them about what they were considering, this incredible decision that they were facing. Now whether or not to sentence Scott Peterson to death. There was a lot of emotion in that courtroom, but you were not seeing it on Scott Peterson's face, Wolf.

BLITZER: The whole notion of the enormity of what's at stake right now in practical terms at least over the years is not necessarily going to have that much of an impact whether he gets the death sentence or gets life without the possibility of parole, but in the long term it certainly could given California's record on this issue, but there was a clear difference whether he spends life on death row awaiting execution or whether he serves some sort of maximum security prison as a convicted murderer. Talk a little bit about the practical differences for Scott Peterson's life in the coming years.

DORNIN: Well, the practical differences are -- even Mark Geragos talked about them in the closing arguments, trying to convince the jury really to sentence him to life in prison saying this man is going to be in a cell about the size of a king-sized bed. He's going to share it with someone else. He's going to have a cold, hard metal toilet. Every time he goes out on that prison yard he'll have to look over his shoulder. His life will always be in danger. He will be a marked man.

Of course, Mark Geragos didn't talk about what death row would be like in San Quentin, but there they're all in their own cells. They are isolated while they await appeal after appeal. Of course in California, it's 18 to 20 years at this point before someone is ever put to death, only 10 people have been put to death since the death penalty became effective in California again.

So it would be a long waiting game. It would be very tough, I'm sure on the families, in some ways on the Rocha family awaiting during the death penalty, awaiting -- not sure if at any time his conviction could be overturned because in California a death penalty sentence is immediately mandatory that they file an appeal with the supreme court. That starts that whole appeal process. So the Rocha family would be going through a lot of agony, wondering whether this will be overturned and of course, the Peterson family very upset, very fearful that indeed their son might be put to death some day.

BLITZER: The only two option before these jurors is the possibility of execution, the death sentence or life without the possibility of parole. Is that right?

DORNIN: That's right. This is a recommendation, Wolf, too, that in California the jury will recommend life or death. If they recommend a death sentence the judge in California is allowed to change that to life, but if they recommend life he cannot elevate that to death.

So if they come back with a death sentence after they've begun their deliberations the judge -- and they come back, the judge will not sentence Scott Peterson until February 25. If they sentence him to death he could come back on February 25 and say no, I have decided that he should have life in prison without parole.

BLITZER: What was the main argument of the prosecutor Dave Harris in his argument saying that this man should be executed?

DORNIN: He talked about Scott Peterson being the worst of the worst. That all these people talking about what a great guy he was, they didn't know the Scott Peterson that lived with Laci and Con -- and murdered his wife Laci and his unborn son. They didn't know the man that, you know, when they played these tapes of him being at the vigil for his missing wife then they played those tapes and also the tape of him calling his girlfriend during the middle of the vigil, calling Amber Frey and saying he was in Paris. He talked about just that he didn't deserve to live. That it was only the death penalty. Don't let the defense make you feel guilty for doing the right thing. Very powerful, very concise. It took less than an hour to sum up his argument, but it was very dramatic and very powerful argument.

BLITZER: One of the defense attorneys literally begged the jurors to spare his life, Scott Peterson's life. Talk a little bit about that.

DORNIN: Yes. That was Pat Harris. It was interesting because the defense divided up the closing arguments. First it was Pat Harris, the co-counsel. He came out, a very soft voice, at times it was very difficult for any of us to hear what he was saying. He said, look, I'm not asking you for Scott Peterson's life, I am begging you for his life. Don't do this. Both of them talked about don't continue this cycle of death. Mark Geragos talked about that in his closing arguments. Don't put Scott Peterson to death and continue this cycle after Laci Peterson and Conner also died, her unborn son. Stop the cycle of death now is what Mark Geragos said as well. He also said don't kill him, there's no reason to put him to death. I don't think the death of Scott Peterson will bring the Rocha family one moment of solace. Those were some of the closing statements he made before the judge gave the instructions.

BLITZER: So now the jurors go into their chambers, into their room and they begin their deliberation. Is there any way of predicting how long this would take? A matter of hours or perhaps even a matter of days? Court observers, what are they suggesting to you, Rusty?

DORNIN: What's interesting is court observers are saying more about how long it will take than what it will actually be. There's more of a consensus. The consensus is that it will be a very short time that they're going to deliberate, but as far as what that verdict is going to be, very widespread. Ted Rowlands and I both differ on it. My colleague, I asked people all of the time, the reporters around here, and everyone's got a different idea. There is no real majority here on what they think is going to happen. So it's very interesting.

BLITZER: Well, we're going to get a lot more on this. We have a panel of defense attorneys, former prosecutors standing by to assess what might happen in this high profile case. Rusty Dornin, I'm going to ask you to stand by in Redwood City, as well. Rusty Dornin.

The judge in this case, Alfred Delucchi, just within moments ago as you saw live on CNN giving final instructions to members of the jury to go forth and come up with a decision whether Scott Peterson should live life in prison without the possibility of parole or die, be executed by the state of California. Much more on this coming up, but there's another story that's breaking right now.

I want to turn to a case that has literally baffled the Pentagon for months. A United States marine who went missing in Iraq and turned up more than two weeks later in Lebanon. Now he's facing very, very serious charges. For details, breaking story, let's go to our senior Pentagon correspondent, Jamie McIntyre. What are you hearing?

JAMIE MCINTYRE, CNN SR. PENTAGON CORRESPONDENT: That's right, Wolf, CNN has learned that Corporal Wassef Ali Hassoun, the U.S. marine who mysteriously disappeared from his camp in Iraq back during the summer and then turned up in Lebanon a couple of weeks later will be charged with desertion, this after a month's long investigation and also the discovery of some of his personal effects in a house in Falluja. Pentagon sources tell CNN that Hassoun will be charged with desertion as well as larceny and wrongful disposition of military property, that's for taking his service weapon with him when he left camp.

He will now face an Article 32 hearing which is a legal proceeding to decide if there's enough evidence to proceed to court- martial. He is not being confined. He remains at the base at Camp LeJeune, but Corporal Hassoun who claimed he was abducted and not a deserter will now face desertion charges -- Wolf.

BLITZER: What are the potential penalties that he's facing?

MCINTYRE: Well, the ultimate penalty in desertion is you can be executed. There hasn't been such a case in quite a while in the U.S. military and realistically he's not facing that, but he could face considerable time in a military prison if convicted.

BLITZER: Jamie, stand by for a moment. I want to get back to you. The Pentagon has been scrambling in recent days to come up with some answers for a question that rocked the Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld only yesterday. You heard a United States soldier in Kuwait ask the defense secretary about the lack of armor for vehicles in Iraq. The ripples went all of the way to the commander-in-chief.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

GEORGE W. BUSH, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: The concerns expressed are being addressed and that is that we expect our troops to have the best possible equipment, and if I were a soldier overseas wanting to defend my country. I'd want to ask the secretary of defense the same question and that is are we getting the best we can get us? And they deserve the best.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BLITZER: But yet now there are more questions about that question asked by the soldier to Donald Rumsfeld. For that let's go back to Jamie McIntyre at the Pentagon. What's the latest on that front, Jamie?

MCINTYRE: We thought it was a question that spontaneously came from one of the soldiers there. In fact when he asked there was a chorus of support from his fellow soldiers. But now it may turn out that this question was in effect a set-up.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

(voice-over): As questions go, this one was loaded.

SPEC. THOMAS WILSON, U.S. ARMY: Now why do we soldiers have to dig through local landfills for pieces of scrap metal and compromised ballistic glass to help armor our vehicles?

MCINTYRE: And Rumsfeld was as he himself might say inelegant.

DONALD RUMSFELD, DEFENSE SECRETARY: You know, you go to war with the army you have, not the army you might want.

MCINTYRE: That response was called cruel and callous by Senator Edward Kennedy who claimed the exchange showed that frustration of the troops had finally boiled over and that they were, quote, "obviously fed up with Rumsfeld."

Now it turns out the question read by Specialist Thomas Wilson was planted by a newspaper reporter. According to his e-mail to the staff at the "Chattanooga Times Free Press" posted on the journalism Web site, Poynteronline.

In the e-mail, military writer reporter Lee Pitt crows, I just had one of my best days as a journalist. Pitt says that after learning only soldiers could ask questions, he brought two along as escorts. "Before hand we worked on questions to ask Rumsfeld," he writes, and says, "I found the sergeant in charge and made sure he knew to get my guys." The Pentagon says it's not investigating the incident and everyone from the president on down agrees it's a legitimate question.

BUSH: If I were a soldier overseas wanting to defend my country I'd want to ask the secretary of defense the same question and that is are we getting the best we can get us? And they deserve the best.

MCINTYRE: But the complaint that troops don't have the best has put the Pentagon on the defensive, and in an effort to damage control it quickly arranged a video link for a three-star general in Kuwait to brief reporters at the Pentagon.

LT. GEN. STEVEN WHITCOMB, U.S. ARMY: We're not lacking at this point for our kits, our steel plating to fabricate the level three kits or the personnel to apply those kits. Our goal in what we're working for is a no-wheeled vehicle that leaves Kuwait going into Iraq is driven by a soldier that does not have some level of armor protection on it.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

MCINTYRE: CNN has contacted the publisher and executive editor of the Chattanooga, Tennessee "Times Free Press" and he told CNN that the question was legitimate and he is, quote, supportive of the way his reporter managed to get it asked of the secretary -- Wolf.

BLITZER: All right. Jamie McIntyre doing some excellent reporting for us as usual. Jamie, thank you very much.

To our viewers, here's your chance to weigh in on the story. Our web question of the day is this. Do you think the military is providing U.S. troops with enough resources? You can vote right now. Go to CNN.com/wolf. We'll have the results later in this broadcast.

Coming up, much more on the Scott Peterson decision. Will he live or will he die? It's now in the hands of a jury in California. We'll go back out there. Get some more word on the judge's final instructions to the jury and the last-minute appeals from both sides.

Also, U.S. casualties in Iraq. The numbers are growing, but so are the numbers of survivors. We'll look at the efforts to save and rebuild lives.

Also this...

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: He ran onstage and just started shooting people. I mean, a lot of people thought it was just a hoax. (END VIDEO CLIP)

BLITZER: But this was no hoax. This was no joke. Four people killed at a concert including a popular musician.

Plus, details of the surprising possible side effect from laptop computers. Stay with us.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BLITZER: In Iraq, no letup in the pre-election violence. Mortar fire raining down around an Iraqi national guard headquarters in Baghdad. Witnesses say most of the shells landed in a residential neighborhood. At least two civilians and a guardsman were reported killed and a number of other people were wounded.

The combat in Iraq and Afghanistan is taking a heavy toll among U.S. troops. More than 10,000 have been wounded, but medical personnel are saving their lives and helping them lead new lives. Our Pentagon correspondent, Barbara Starr reports.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

BARBARA STARR, CNN PENTAGON CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): Army Specialist Kevin Panel (ph) lost both his legs in Iraq when his unit was hit by grenades. Now he has the best technology available to America's young veterans, a $48,000 high tech prosthetic limb driven by computer technology. Today, U.S. military personnel have a better chance of surviving war than ever before. In Vietnam, 24 percent of the wounded died. Today in Iraq and Afghanistan, 10 percent of the wounded do not survive. Now, forward surgical teams go right to the front lines to provide immediate care, keeping troops alive until they can be quickly moved to hospitals in Germany and the U.S. Dr. John Cassler (ph) recently retired from the army, a surgical rotation on the front lines in Iraq left a lasting impression.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I recall being called to the emergency room early one morning to take care of a wounded soldier who was injured in the face from an RPG. He had been wounded 15 minutes prior to seeing me in the emergency room and then within another 10 to 15 minutes has been stabilized and was on his way toward more definitive care.

STARR: The New England Journal of Medicine reports that with 10,000 troops wounded, the largest number since Vietnam, surgical teams are saving nine out of every 10 wounded soldiers, but The Journal also notes that means a new generation of veterans that may need medical care for decades to come.

Now the Department of Veterans Affairs is funding leading edge research on so-called biohybrid limbs, a radical technique to surgically lengthen bone stumps, add tissue and then use titanium prosthetics and sensors planted in the body to control movement of an artificial limb. If it all works, medical experts say it may provide new technologies, even for those needing knee and hip replacement and robotic joints for people immobilized by strokes, cerebral palsy and multiple sclerosis. (on camera): This generation of veterans is surviving because of unprecedented armor protection and medical care, but they are still dealing with a generation of the aftermath of serious battle injuries.

Barbara Starr, CNN, the Pentagon.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

BLITZER: And this issue of injured veterans wounded on the battlefields will be very high, of course, on the agenda of Jim Nicholson, he's the man the president today nominated to become the next secretary of veterans affairs, succeeding Anthony Principi who announced yesterday he was resigning.

Nicholson is a former U.S. Army Ranger and paratrooper, most recently served as the United States ambassador to the Vatican. He also was a former chairman of the Republican National Committee. Accepting the nomination, he pledged not to let America's veterans down.

A nightclub nightmare, deadly gunfire and a hostage taking during a show by a popular band. We'll show you how it ended.

Also, happening right now, the jury in the Scott Peterson case deciding whether he will spend life in prison or face the death penalty. I'll speak with someone who was in the courtroom only minutes ago when they heard the final arguments on both sides.

Plus, parents on strike. Find out why and what their demands are.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BLITZER: Police are looking for the motive, but say so far they have no clues as to what prompted last night's concert killings in Columbus, Ohio. A man stormed the stage and gunned down a well-known guitarist and three others before being shot and killed himself by a police officer. CNN's Keith Oppenheim is in Columbus, he's joining us now live with the latest -- Keith.

KEITH OPPENHEIM, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Wolf, there are 60 detectives in Columbus working on this case, searching for answers as to why this happened, but that won't be easy because the gunman, the person who would know the answers better than anyone as to the central questions to why he did what he did, that gunman is dead.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

OPPENHEIM (voice-over): Just as the heavy metal band Damageplan started to play at the Alrosa nightclub Wednesday night, witnesses and police say they saw a man in a hooded sweatshirt jump the stage and fire several shots at close range at this man, Darrell Abbott, the band's lead guitarist. He also fired at the crowd, sending about 250 people scrambling.

ADAM VANOVER, FAN: They were just kind of like ducking, trying to find place for cover because, like, the way out you pretty much had to run through the gun fire to get out.

OPPENHEIM: Investigators identified the gunman as 25-year-old Nathan Gale. They say he killed four people and that more might have died if not for Officer James Niggemeyer, who stopped Gale with one shot as the gunman was holding a hostage.

SGT. BRENT MULL, COLUMBUS POLICE: Once the hostage was able to help us out as far as getting out of the way somewhat the officer took advantage of that.

OPPENHEIM: Darrell Abbott was known in the heavy metal world as "Dimebag" Darrell. He and his brother formed Damageplan after their previous plan, the Grammy-nominated Pantera, broke up last year. Suspicious fans have their own theories as to what caused Nathan Gale to kill.

NATHAN HEIBERGER, FAN: It was basically a rumor, nobody was for sure if Pantera ever really broke up, and this kid like took it way too far and put the blame on them and I think he like acted out on it.

OPPENHEIM: Police aren't jumping to the same conclusion. They say they don't know what led Nathan Gale to kill a man who to many fans was an icon of hard core rock music.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

OPPENHEIM: And police say they're also trying to get their hands on some amateur video that they believe was shot inside the nightclub around or at exactly the time of the incident, the video that could give them an inside look of what actually took place. Wolf, back to you.

BLITZER: All right. Keith Oppenheim with that sad story. Keith, thanks very much.

A CIA operative suing the spy agency. The latest fallout from the hunt for weapons of mass destruction. We'll get some details.

Also, a crucial vote for the Israeli prime minister, Ariel Sharon, and the future of peace between Israel and the Palestinians.

Laptop warning. Why some users might want to put that computer some place else.

And more on our top story, the fate of Scott Peterson. The jury in that case now deliberating whether he will receive a life in prison sentence or the death sentence. We're standing by. Stay with us.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BLITZER: Welcome back.

It's now in the hands of the jury. Will Scott Peterson live or die? I'll speak with a panel of lawyers, one of whom was in the courtroom today. We'll get to all of that.

First, though, a quick check of some other stories now in the news.

Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon's plan to bolster support for a Gaza pullout by expanding his coalition government as been endorsed by his conservative Likud Party. In a vote of the party's Central Committee, 62 percent favored Sharon's proposal. By inviting the more dovish Labor Party into his government, a Gaza pullout plan is now expected to be backed by a solid majority in the Knesset.

A simulated dirty bomb explosion was part of a terrorism response drill in Los Angeles. Emergency personnel practiced procedures for responding to an attack during a large public gathering. Under a three-year preparedness program, responders in the county are being trained to deal with the potential for a chemical, biological, radiological or nuclear attack.

Six people are missing after a U.S. Coast Guard helicopter crashed in the Bering Sea off Alaska's coast. The helicopter was ferrying crew members off a stranded freighter. Four people, including three Coast Guard personnel, were rescued after the crash. The Malaysian-flagged freighter later ran aground and split apart, spurring concerns about a possible fuel spill near a sensitive wildlife habitat.

Canada's prime minister says he plans to introduce legislation legalizing gay marriage. The announcement follows a Canadian Supreme Court ruling that the country's constitution does not, repeat not, ban gay marriage. The court stopped short of saying the constitution requires that same-sex couples be permitted to wed. Lower court decisions have legalized gay marriages in six of the 10 Canadian provinces.

There's an intriguing new development in the long-running debate over intelligence. A CIA operative has filed suit against the agency, claiming he was pressured to falsify reports about weapons of mass destruction and punished when he refused to do so. The operative's identity remains secret.

But his lawyer, Roy Krieger, is here to discuss the case.

Roy, thanks very much for joining us.

What is your client, this former CIA case officer, an operative, allege?

ROY KRIEGER, ATTORNEY: He alleges that on several instances in the prewar period, he was instructed either to not report information, intelligence, that he had collected that was contrary to the prevailing CIA assessments of weapons of mass destruction or in some instances he was instructed to falsify his intelligence, and he refused on each occasion.

BLITZER: And who specifically gave him these instructions? Do you name names?

KRIEGER: I can't name names, but I can name positions. And they were his supervisors at the Counterproliferation Division of the Directorate of Operations.

BLITZER: Now, you know the CIA totally denies this. They allege in their response that he was disciplined, nothing to do with his political views or his intelligence reporting. He was disciplined for totally unrelated matters, namely that he stole U.S. government, money he was supposed to use to recruit spies abroad and that he was improperly having some sort of sexual affair with a so-called asset, another undercover agent.

KRIEGER: Well, first of all, my client denies those allegations. Second of all, this is a prevalent pattern that we see at the CIA. In the past seven or eight years, I've represented probably in excess of 100 employees of the Central Intelligence Agency.

And, in our experience, when an operative at the agency falls into disfavor or gets himself a position of opposition to the agency, one of two things, sometimes both of them, happen. Either he's subjected to a counterintelligence investigation based upon trumped-up allegations or he's referred to the Office of Inspector General for investigation of his travel expenses, his finances, in this case, payments made to an asset.

BLITZER: Was he having a sexual relationship with this -- the woman?

KRIEGER: No, he was not.

BLITZER: Did he take money for personal use, money that had been given to him, U.S. taxpayer dollars, that was supposed to be used to recruit spies abroad?

KRIEGER: No. He has denied those allegations. And, in fact, we met with two investigators from the Office of Inspector General yesterday for nearly an hour, and he gave them detailed information that he believes will refute those allegations.

BLITZER: The whole nature, though, of -- if he sensed that there was no, for example, weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, based on what I know, covering the CIA for many, many years, if a case officer reports that, what -- it doesn't pass the smell test that they would simply punish him for giving his honest opinion of what's going on, even if that differed from the national intelligence estimate, which suggested there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.

KRIEGER: Well, first of all, Wolf, unfortunately, I can't confirm or deny any specific countries.

The CIA, as you may be aware from looking at the declassified complaint, has classified almost all of the details of this case. And I can't speak to specifics, whether it's Iraq or any other country, other than a location in the Near East. Now, if a CIA operations officer attempts to report information that's contrary to what the CIA wants to hear, he does so at his peril, in my view.

BLITZER: Well, that's a bureaucratic issue that goes across the federal government. If lower-level bureaucrats, for example, say things their superiors don't like, they potentially could run afoul.

But what you're suggesting is much more serious: They trumped up charges against him and fired him simply because he was trying to -- the reporting he was doing did not follow their standard line. That's an extremely serious allegation.

KRIEGER: We realize that. We do not make it lightly. And before the suit became public, we sent a letter to the acting general counsel -- that was last Friday -- requesting to meet with the director of central intelligence or his designate to discuss the case, and no response was forthcoming.

The CIA has been aware of this case for some period of time.

BLITZER: Has he been formally charged with any criminal wrongdoing?

KRIEGER: No, none whatsoever.

BLITZER: He was simply fired from his job.

KRIEGER: He was fired from his job about three months ago.

BLITZER: Roy Krieger, thanks very much for joining us.

KRIEGER: Thank you, Wolf.

BLITZER: Was the defense strong enough to persuade the jury to spare Scott Peterson's life? In the last half-hour, the case went back to the jury for sentencing.

Let's get some analysis now from Robert Talbot. He's a law professor at the University of San Francisco. He was in the courtroom for today's dramatic closing arguments.

Robert, thanks very much for joining us.

ROBERT TALBOT, LAW PROFESSOR, UNIVERSITY OF SAN FRANCISCO: Good afternoon.

BLITZER: Well, what do you think? How did both sides do in their summations?

TALBOT: I thought both sides did well.

David Harris did a very good job at beginning. I thought Mark Geragos' closing was absolutely brilliant. He hit a brilliant tone. He said just the right things in just the right way.

BLITZER: Well, talk a little bit about -- we were not in the courtroom. We heard what the judge in his instructions -- the instructions he gave the jury, but we didn't hear Mark Geragos give his final appeal to the jury to spare Scott Peterson's life. Summarize, briefly, what Mark Geragos said.

TALBOT: OK. He did a number of things. First of all, he was extremely low key at the beginning. This wasn't the confident, cock-of-the-walk Mark Geragos that we saw at the beginning of the trial. He begged, he begged for Scott Peterson's life about five times, and he said he would get down on his knees and beg if the jury wouldn't feel it was staged.

He put the death penalty on trial in a very effective way. He brought, through a number of people who had testified and through one newspaper account, how it does not bring closure. It does not bring solace to the people involved, to the victims' families. He talked about what life without possibility of parole would be like for Scott Peterson, that he would be in the cell the size of a king-sized bed, and when his mother died, when Jackie Peterson, one of the most sympathetic figures in the trial, died, there would be a knocking on the door announcing that his mother died and that would be it.

So those were a number of things he did, and he did it in an extremely effective manner.

BLITZER: Well, what about the prosecution in saying this is a monster of the worst order and he deserves to die? How did they do in their final arguments before the jury?

TALBOT: The prosecution in the morning was very effective also. He stood right behind Scott Peterson and he said, this is the man whose fault it is. If it's a big problem for Jackie, if it's horrible for Jackie, if it's horrible for all the people involved with Scott Peterson, this is the person that caused it. This is the worst of the worst.

He took a woman and her unborn child and killed them. They trusted him. He betrayed them. He's the worst of the worst.

BLITZER: From where you were sitting, Robert, did you get a chance to look at the faces of the jurors to try to surmise, to try to get a little sense of what they were feeling as they listened to all of these arguments?

TALBOT: Yes, I did.

I had an excellent view of the jury. I was sitting, in fact, facing them. In the morning, they were paying careful attention. They were very grave, paying careful attention to David Harris. In the afternoon, they hung on Mark Geragos' every word, which is -- remember, this is the jury that has rejected all of Mark Geragos' arguments. They've rejected everything he said. He said stone-cold innocence. They came in almost no time with a guilty verdict.

But every single juror was looking at Mark Geragos and paying careful, careful attention to every word he said.

BLITZER: You listened also to the instructions that the judge gave to these jurors. These are specific instructions. Some of them, I understand, are sort of standard that you would give a jury before this kind of a deliberation on their part. What sense did you get from the judge's instructions as to which way he may be pushing the jurors, if in fact he was pushing them one way or another?

TALBOT: Well, I don't think the judge is pushing the jury one way or another. That would be highly improper.

But one of the things that the judge did in this particular case that the judge doesn't often do and I heard that this judge hadn't done before was, on his own motion, he gave the instruction about lingering doubt and he included it as one of the factors. He added lingering doubt to one of the -- to the factors considered in aggravation and mitigation and said this is one of the things you consider in mitigation, which I think gives a clue as to the judge's feelings.

He didn't have to do that. He wasn't asked for it, but he wanted that instruction in there, that the judge should consider any lingering doubt they have in the direction of mitigation.

BLITZER: In other words, if they had a lingering doubt about what? All these jurors convicted him of first-degree murder of his wife Laci Peterson. Lingering doubt as to what?

TALBOT: Lingering doubt as to whether or not he really committed the murder. There's beyond a reasonable doubt and there's beyond any doubt. And somewhere in that Never-Neverland is a lingering doubt.

And he says, we know you found beyond a reasonable doubt. You don't have to find him without any possibility of any doubt, but somewhere in between, there might be a lingering doubt. And that's one of the factors you should consider when deciding whether the mitigating factors outweigh the aggravating factors.

BLITZER: All of these jurors, when they were initially questioned to become members of this jury, did announce publicly that they do support the death penalty under certain circumstances. Is that right?

TALBOT: Yes. Yes. This is a death-qualified jury.

However, the jurors, in answering those questions, did say they would have to know more than just the fact of the killing. They would have to know more to give the death penalty. So, they didn't say just from the fact of the horrible killing in and of itself they would give the death penalty. They said they needed to know more. And Mark Geragos really played upon that in his closing argument. He brought that up. He brought up the specific answers that the different jurors gave to that question. And they did say they needed to know more than just the killings.

BLITZER: One final question, Robert, before I let you go. If the jurors decide he should get the death sentence, I take it that's a matter that the judge could still have some wiggle room. At the end of February when he announces what's going on, he could reduce that to life without the possibility of parole, whereas, on the other hand, if they give him life, he could not impose the death sentence.

How unusual in California legal history would it be for a judge to soften the penalty in this kind of crime?

TALBOT: There's an automatic, an automatic motion for reconsideration by the judge, that the judge can change it from a death penalty to a life without possibility of parole.

It would be unusual. Judges don't like to step in and overrule what jurors have done, but it's not unheard of. The judge could do it. He has the power to look at those mitigating and aggravating factors and say, the jury was just wrong. They were more mitigating factors than aggravating factors and this is the way it should go.

(CROSSTALK)

BLITZER: Yes, go ahead. Finish your thought.

TALBOT: There's an automatic appeal to the Supreme Court of California on the very same issue, so...

(CROSSTALK)

BLITZER: And it would take -- even if he's given the death sentence, it would take many, many, many years, given California's history, for the California, the state of California to actually go ahead and implement it.

TALBOT: Well, we have 629 people on death row now and the execution rate is about one a year. So, if you work out the numbers, it would be quite a while.

BLITZER: Robert Talbot, thanks very much for joining us.

TALBOT: Thank you, Wolf.

BLITZER: Computers and conception, details of a surprising study that claims one could impact the other.

Also, driven to extremes. Parents protest by going on strike.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BLITZER: Laptop computers seem to be everywhere these days. Sometimes, you see them on desks, but often you see them balanced, as the name suggests, on a user's lap.

Now a study suggests men who use laptops that way may -- repeat, may -- be risking their ability to become fathers.

CNN's Mary Snow, joining us from New York now, she's covering been the story.

What's going on, Mary?

MARY SNOW, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Well, Wolf, this study is believed to be the first of its kind. A number of doctors we spoke with say it is way too early to draw any conclusions, but they say this study raises questions worth exploring. (BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

SNOW (voice-over): Can using a laptop computer make a man infertile? That's the question being raised in the study looking at the effects of laptops and the heat they emit. Dr. Yefim Sheynkin at New York's Stony Brook University says he believes laptops may carry a risk.

YEFIM SHEYNKIN, STONY BROOK UNIVERSITY: This may have negative impact on fertility later on and sperm production.

SNOW: Exercising, biking shorts, saunas, hot tubs, doctors say all of these raised temperatures have been linked to reduced sperm production and male infertility. But, says Dr. Sheynkin, these activities are occasional, allowing the effects to be reversed.

Laptops have become part of everyday life.

SHEYNKIN: If somebody may use this laptop computer for years, the changes that may be incurred by this heat exposure may become irreversible.

SNOW: Some doctors caution, it's too early to link laptops and infertility in men.

DR. CHAD RITENOUR, EMORY UNIVERSITY: I would hope that people would not jump to the conclusion that laptop computers equals male infertility, because I think that's something that we can't state yet.

SNOW: The study is small, only 29 men ages 21 to 35. When participants sat with their legs together to balance the laptop, the study found the temperature in the area around the testicles rose 2.1 degrees centigrade. When the computer was turned on, the rise was 2.8 degrees centigrade. One thing doctors do agree on is that the research is preliminary.

RITENOUR: I think that further studies should be done just looking at the effects of heat in general and perhaps even heat emitted from electronic devices such as computers.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

SNOW: And the doctor here in New York who conducted the study says he plans on doing more extensive research -- Wolf.

BLITZER: This is going to cause a lot of commotion out there, Mary. Thanks very much for that report.

They're in it for the long haul, parents on strike, why they're out of the house and into the headlines. We'll explain.

Stay with us.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BLITZER: When you hear about somebody going out on strike, it's usually labor against management. In a town called Enterprise in central Florida, there's a different kind of strike, parents against children.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

BLITZER (voice-over): Cat Barnard and her husband, Harlan, say they've had it with their kids and the kids' refusal to help out around the house. But instead of sending the kids to their rooms, they've sent themselves to their driveway. Cat and Harlan are living in a tent and they only go inside the house to use the bathroom. These apoplectic parents say they're on strike until the kids sort out doing their fair share of the chores.

CAT BARNARD, MOTHER ON STRIKE: What we're saying is, you need to look outside yourself. If you see mother struggling or trying to do something, how about lending a hand? Or if you see anyone who's thirsty, get them a drink of water. Hello?

BLITZER: The Barnards say there are some signs the kids, 17- year-old Ben and 12-year-old Kit, are beginning to get the message, but not enough yet to call off the strike. How long can it go on?

BARNARD: I'm quite stiff and sore in the morning. But I'm digging in for the long haul. If we have to be out here at Christmas, we have to be out here at Christmas. Whatever it takes.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

BLITZER: And good luck to those parents and the kids. They should have a good conversation, I suspect, among all four of them.

The results of our Web question of the day, that's coming up next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BLITZER: Here's how you're weighing in on our Web question of the day. Remember, though, this is not a scientific poll.

Our picture of the day, take a look at this, the president and the first lady lighting the menorah.

Happy Hanukkah to all of our Jewish out there.

"LOU DOBBS TONIGHT" starts 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


Aired December 9, 2004 - 17:00   ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
WOLF BLITZER, HOST: And there we have Judge Alfred Delucchi giving instructions, final instructions to members of the jury in the Scott Peterson murder trial. Scott Peterson will either live or die depending on what these 12 jurors decide in the coming hours. Thanks very much for joining us. I'm Wolf Blitzer. Let's go right out to Redwood City in California. Rusty Dornin is standing by. Rusty, we saw Scott Peterson sitting there. I saw no emotion as the judge was reading these very formal, very specific instructions to members of this jury. Did you?
RUSTY DORNIN, CNN CORRESPONDENT: No. Now when I was in the courtroom earlier because I just came out when the judge started reading the instructions. When he first came into court, when Mark Geragos, his attorney was going to begin giving his closing arguments he had a big smile on his face and seem relaxed. He sat down but from then on you just never saw any emotion on his face. The rest of his family seemed to be very affected by not only Mark Geragos' speech, but by the judge's instructions to the jury. Members of his family breaking down when he was talking to them about what they were considering, this incredible decision that they were facing. Now whether or not to sentence Scott Peterson to death. There was a lot of emotion in that courtroom, but you were not seeing it on Scott Peterson's face, Wolf.

BLITZER: The whole notion of the enormity of what's at stake right now in practical terms at least over the years is not necessarily going to have that much of an impact whether he gets the death sentence or gets life without the possibility of parole, but in the long term it certainly could given California's record on this issue, but there was a clear difference whether he spends life on death row awaiting execution or whether he serves some sort of maximum security prison as a convicted murderer. Talk a little bit about the practical differences for Scott Peterson's life in the coming years.

DORNIN: Well, the practical differences are -- even Mark Geragos talked about them in the closing arguments, trying to convince the jury really to sentence him to life in prison saying this man is going to be in a cell about the size of a king-sized bed. He's going to share it with someone else. He's going to have a cold, hard metal toilet. Every time he goes out on that prison yard he'll have to look over his shoulder. His life will always be in danger. He will be a marked man.

Of course, Mark Geragos didn't talk about what death row would be like in San Quentin, but there they're all in their own cells. They are isolated while they await appeal after appeal. Of course in California, it's 18 to 20 years at this point before someone is ever put to death, only 10 people have been put to death since the death penalty became effective in California again.

So it would be a long waiting game. It would be very tough, I'm sure on the families, in some ways on the Rocha family awaiting during the death penalty, awaiting -- not sure if at any time his conviction could be overturned because in California a death penalty sentence is immediately mandatory that they file an appeal with the supreme court. That starts that whole appeal process. So the Rocha family would be going through a lot of agony, wondering whether this will be overturned and of course, the Peterson family very upset, very fearful that indeed their son might be put to death some day.

BLITZER: The only two option before these jurors is the possibility of execution, the death sentence or life without the possibility of parole. Is that right?

DORNIN: That's right. This is a recommendation, Wolf, too, that in California the jury will recommend life or death. If they recommend a death sentence the judge in California is allowed to change that to life, but if they recommend life he cannot elevate that to death.

So if they come back with a death sentence after they've begun their deliberations the judge -- and they come back, the judge will not sentence Scott Peterson until February 25. If they sentence him to death he could come back on February 25 and say no, I have decided that he should have life in prison without parole.

BLITZER: What was the main argument of the prosecutor Dave Harris in his argument saying that this man should be executed?

DORNIN: He talked about Scott Peterson being the worst of the worst. That all these people talking about what a great guy he was, they didn't know the Scott Peterson that lived with Laci and Con -- and murdered his wife Laci and his unborn son. They didn't know the man that, you know, when they played these tapes of him being at the vigil for his missing wife then they played those tapes and also the tape of him calling his girlfriend during the middle of the vigil, calling Amber Frey and saying he was in Paris. He talked about just that he didn't deserve to live. That it was only the death penalty. Don't let the defense make you feel guilty for doing the right thing. Very powerful, very concise. It took less than an hour to sum up his argument, but it was very dramatic and very powerful argument.

BLITZER: One of the defense attorneys literally begged the jurors to spare his life, Scott Peterson's life. Talk a little bit about that.

DORNIN: Yes. That was Pat Harris. It was interesting because the defense divided up the closing arguments. First it was Pat Harris, the co-counsel. He came out, a very soft voice, at times it was very difficult for any of us to hear what he was saying. He said, look, I'm not asking you for Scott Peterson's life, I am begging you for his life. Don't do this. Both of them talked about don't continue this cycle of death. Mark Geragos talked about that in his closing arguments. Don't put Scott Peterson to death and continue this cycle after Laci Peterson and Conner also died, her unborn son. Stop the cycle of death now is what Mark Geragos said as well. He also said don't kill him, there's no reason to put him to death. I don't think the death of Scott Peterson will bring the Rocha family one moment of solace. Those were some of the closing statements he made before the judge gave the instructions.

BLITZER: So now the jurors go into their chambers, into their room and they begin their deliberation. Is there any way of predicting how long this would take? A matter of hours or perhaps even a matter of days? Court observers, what are they suggesting to you, Rusty?

DORNIN: What's interesting is court observers are saying more about how long it will take than what it will actually be. There's more of a consensus. The consensus is that it will be a very short time that they're going to deliberate, but as far as what that verdict is going to be, very widespread. Ted Rowlands and I both differ on it. My colleague, I asked people all of the time, the reporters around here, and everyone's got a different idea. There is no real majority here on what they think is going to happen. So it's very interesting.

BLITZER: Well, we're going to get a lot more on this. We have a panel of defense attorneys, former prosecutors standing by to assess what might happen in this high profile case. Rusty Dornin, I'm going to ask you to stand by in Redwood City, as well. Rusty Dornin.

The judge in this case, Alfred Delucchi, just within moments ago as you saw live on CNN giving final instructions to members of the jury to go forth and come up with a decision whether Scott Peterson should live life in prison without the possibility of parole or die, be executed by the state of California. Much more on this coming up, but there's another story that's breaking right now.

I want to turn to a case that has literally baffled the Pentagon for months. A United States marine who went missing in Iraq and turned up more than two weeks later in Lebanon. Now he's facing very, very serious charges. For details, breaking story, let's go to our senior Pentagon correspondent, Jamie McIntyre. What are you hearing?

JAMIE MCINTYRE, CNN SR. PENTAGON CORRESPONDENT: That's right, Wolf, CNN has learned that Corporal Wassef Ali Hassoun, the U.S. marine who mysteriously disappeared from his camp in Iraq back during the summer and then turned up in Lebanon a couple of weeks later will be charged with desertion, this after a month's long investigation and also the discovery of some of his personal effects in a house in Falluja. Pentagon sources tell CNN that Hassoun will be charged with desertion as well as larceny and wrongful disposition of military property, that's for taking his service weapon with him when he left camp.

He will now face an Article 32 hearing which is a legal proceeding to decide if there's enough evidence to proceed to court- martial. He is not being confined. He remains at the base at Camp LeJeune, but Corporal Hassoun who claimed he was abducted and not a deserter will now face desertion charges -- Wolf.

BLITZER: What are the potential penalties that he's facing?

MCINTYRE: Well, the ultimate penalty in desertion is you can be executed. There hasn't been such a case in quite a while in the U.S. military and realistically he's not facing that, but he could face considerable time in a military prison if convicted.

BLITZER: Jamie, stand by for a moment. I want to get back to you. The Pentagon has been scrambling in recent days to come up with some answers for a question that rocked the Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld only yesterday. You heard a United States soldier in Kuwait ask the defense secretary about the lack of armor for vehicles in Iraq. The ripples went all of the way to the commander-in-chief.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

GEORGE W. BUSH, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: The concerns expressed are being addressed and that is that we expect our troops to have the best possible equipment, and if I were a soldier overseas wanting to defend my country. I'd want to ask the secretary of defense the same question and that is are we getting the best we can get us? And they deserve the best.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BLITZER: But yet now there are more questions about that question asked by the soldier to Donald Rumsfeld. For that let's go back to Jamie McIntyre at the Pentagon. What's the latest on that front, Jamie?

MCINTYRE: We thought it was a question that spontaneously came from one of the soldiers there. In fact when he asked there was a chorus of support from his fellow soldiers. But now it may turn out that this question was in effect a set-up.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

(voice-over): As questions go, this one was loaded.

SPEC. THOMAS WILSON, U.S. ARMY: Now why do we soldiers have to dig through local landfills for pieces of scrap metal and compromised ballistic glass to help armor our vehicles?

MCINTYRE: And Rumsfeld was as he himself might say inelegant.

DONALD RUMSFELD, DEFENSE SECRETARY: You know, you go to war with the army you have, not the army you might want.

MCINTYRE: That response was called cruel and callous by Senator Edward Kennedy who claimed the exchange showed that frustration of the troops had finally boiled over and that they were, quote, "obviously fed up with Rumsfeld."

Now it turns out the question read by Specialist Thomas Wilson was planted by a newspaper reporter. According to his e-mail to the staff at the "Chattanooga Times Free Press" posted on the journalism Web site, Poynteronline.

In the e-mail, military writer reporter Lee Pitt crows, I just had one of my best days as a journalist. Pitt says that after learning only soldiers could ask questions, he brought two along as escorts. "Before hand we worked on questions to ask Rumsfeld," he writes, and says, "I found the sergeant in charge and made sure he knew to get my guys." The Pentagon says it's not investigating the incident and everyone from the president on down agrees it's a legitimate question.

BUSH: If I were a soldier overseas wanting to defend my country I'd want to ask the secretary of defense the same question and that is are we getting the best we can get us? And they deserve the best.

MCINTYRE: But the complaint that troops don't have the best has put the Pentagon on the defensive, and in an effort to damage control it quickly arranged a video link for a three-star general in Kuwait to brief reporters at the Pentagon.

LT. GEN. STEVEN WHITCOMB, U.S. ARMY: We're not lacking at this point for our kits, our steel plating to fabricate the level three kits or the personnel to apply those kits. Our goal in what we're working for is a no-wheeled vehicle that leaves Kuwait going into Iraq is driven by a soldier that does not have some level of armor protection on it.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

MCINTYRE: CNN has contacted the publisher and executive editor of the Chattanooga, Tennessee "Times Free Press" and he told CNN that the question was legitimate and he is, quote, supportive of the way his reporter managed to get it asked of the secretary -- Wolf.

BLITZER: All right. Jamie McIntyre doing some excellent reporting for us as usual. Jamie, thank you very much.

To our viewers, here's your chance to weigh in on the story. Our web question of the day is this. Do you think the military is providing U.S. troops with enough resources? You can vote right now. Go to CNN.com/wolf. We'll have the results later in this broadcast.

Coming up, much more on the Scott Peterson decision. Will he live or will he die? It's now in the hands of a jury in California. We'll go back out there. Get some more word on the judge's final instructions to the jury and the last-minute appeals from both sides.

Also, U.S. casualties in Iraq. The numbers are growing, but so are the numbers of survivors. We'll look at the efforts to save and rebuild lives.

Also this...

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: He ran onstage and just started shooting people. I mean, a lot of people thought it was just a hoax. (END VIDEO CLIP)

BLITZER: But this was no hoax. This was no joke. Four people killed at a concert including a popular musician.

Plus, details of the surprising possible side effect from laptop computers. Stay with us.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BLITZER: In Iraq, no letup in the pre-election violence. Mortar fire raining down around an Iraqi national guard headquarters in Baghdad. Witnesses say most of the shells landed in a residential neighborhood. At least two civilians and a guardsman were reported killed and a number of other people were wounded.

The combat in Iraq and Afghanistan is taking a heavy toll among U.S. troops. More than 10,000 have been wounded, but medical personnel are saving their lives and helping them lead new lives. Our Pentagon correspondent, Barbara Starr reports.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

BARBARA STARR, CNN PENTAGON CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): Army Specialist Kevin Panel (ph) lost both his legs in Iraq when his unit was hit by grenades. Now he has the best technology available to America's young veterans, a $48,000 high tech prosthetic limb driven by computer technology. Today, U.S. military personnel have a better chance of surviving war than ever before. In Vietnam, 24 percent of the wounded died. Today in Iraq and Afghanistan, 10 percent of the wounded do not survive. Now, forward surgical teams go right to the front lines to provide immediate care, keeping troops alive until they can be quickly moved to hospitals in Germany and the U.S. Dr. John Cassler (ph) recently retired from the army, a surgical rotation on the front lines in Iraq left a lasting impression.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I recall being called to the emergency room early one morning to take care of a wounded soldier who was injured in the face from an RPG. He had been wounded 15 minutes prior to seeing me in the emergency room and then within another 10 to 15 minutes has been stabilized and was on his way toward more definitive care.

STARR: The New England Journal of Medicine reports that with 10,000 troops wounded, the largest number since Vietnam, surgical teams are saving nine out of every 10 wounded soldiers, but The Journal also notes that means a new generation of veterans that may need medical care for decades to come.

Now the Department of Veterans Affairs is funding leading edge research on so-called biohybrid limbs, a radical technique to surgically lengthen bone stumps, add tissue and then use titanium prosthetics and sensors planted in the body to control movement of an artificial limb. If it all works, medical experts say it may provide new technologies, even for those needing knee and hip replacement and robotic joints for people immobilized by strokes, cerebral palsy and multiple sclerosis. (on camera): This generation of veterans is surviving because of unprecedented armor protection and medical care, but they are still dealing with a generation of the aftermath of serious battle injuries.

Barbara Starr, CNN, the Pentagon.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

BLITZER: And this issue of injured veterans wounded on the battlefields will be very high, of course, on the agenda of Jim Nicholson, he's the man the president today nominated to become the next secretary of veterans affairs, succeeding Anthony Principi who announced yesterday he was resigning.

Nicholson is a former U.S. Army Ranger and paratrooper, most recently served as the United States ambassador to the Vatican. He also was a former chairman of the Republican National Committee. Accepting the nomination, he pledged not to let America's veterans down.

A nightclub nightmare, deadly gunfire and a hostage taking during a show by a popular band. We'll show you how it ended.

Also, happening right now, the jury in the Scott Peterson case deciding whether he will spend life in prison or face the death penalty. I'll speak with someone who was in the courtroom only minutes ago when they heard the final arguments on both sides.

Plus, parents on strike. Find out why and what their demands are.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BLITZER: Police are looking for the motive, but say so far they have no clues as to what prompted last night's concert killings in Columbus, Ohio. A man stormed the stage and gunned down a well-known guitarist and three others before being shot and killed himself by a police officer. CNN's Keith Oppenheim is in Columbus, he's joining us now live with the latest -- Keith.

KEITH OPPENHEIM, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Wolf, there are 60 detectives in Columbus working on this case, searching for answers as to why this happened, but that won't be easy because the gunman, the person who would know the answers better than anyone as to the central questions to why he did what he did, that gunman is dead.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

OPPENHEIM (voice-over): Just as the heavy metal band Damageplan started to play at the Alrosa nightclub Wednesday night, witnesses and police say they saw a man in a hooded sweatshirt jump the stage and fire several shots at close range at this man, Darrell Abbott, the band's lead guitarist. He also fired at the crowd, sending about 250 people scrambling.

ADAM VANOVER, FAN: They were just kind of like ducking, trying to find place for cover because, like, the way out you pretty much had to run through the gun fire to get out.

OPPENHEIM: Investigators identified the gunman as 25-year-old Nathan Gale. They say he killed four people and that more might have died if not for Officer James Niggemeyer, who stopped Gale with one shot as the gunman was holding a hostage.

SGT. BRENT MULL, COLUMBUS POLICE: Once the hostage was able to help us out as far as getting out of the way somewhat the officer took advantage of that.

OPPENHEIM: Darrell Abbott was known in the heavy metal world as "Dimebag" Darrell. He and his brother formed Damageplan after their previous plan, the Grammy-nominated Pantera, broke up last year. Suspicious fans have their own theories as to what caused Nathan Gale to kill.

NATHAN HEIBERGER, FAN: It was basically a rumor, nobody was for sure if Pantera ever really broke up, and this kid like took it way too far and put the blame on them and I think he like acted out on it.

OPPENHEIM: Police aren't jumping to the same conclusion. They say they don't know what led Nathan Gale to kill a man who to many fans was an icon of hard core rock music.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

OPPENHEIM: And police say they're also trying to get their hands on some amateur video that they believe was shot inside the nightclub around or at exactly the time of the incident, the video that could give them an inside look of what actually took place. Wolf, back to you.

BLITZER: All right. Keith Oppenheim with that sad story. Keith, thanks very much.

A CIA operative suing the spy agency. The latest fallout from the hunt for weapons of mass destruction. We'll get some details.

Also, a crucial vote for the Israeli prime minister, Ariel Sharon, and the future of peace between Israel and the Palestinians.

Laptop warning. Why some users might want to put that computer some place else.

And more on our top story, the fate of Scott Peterson. The jury in that case now deliberating whether he will receive a life in prison sentence or the death sentence. We're standing by. Stay with us.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BLITZER: Welcome back.

It's now in the hands of the jury. Will Scott Peterson live or die? I'll speak with a panel of lawyers, one of whom was in the courtroom today. We'll get to all of that.

First, though, a quick check of some other stories now in the news.

Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon's plan to bolster support for a Gaza pullout by expanding his coalition government as been endorsed by his conservative Likud Party. In a vote of the party's Central Committee, 62 percent favored Sharon's proposal. By inviting the more dovish Labor Party into his government, a Gaza pullout plan is now expected to be backed by a solid majority in the Knesset.

A simulated dirty bomb explosion was part of a terrorism response drill in Los Angeles. Emergency personnel practiced procedures for responding to an attack during a large public gathering. Under a three-year preparedness program, responders in the county are being trained to deal with the potential for a chemical, biological, radiological or nuclear attack.

Six people are missing after a U.S. Coast Guard helicopter crashed in the Bering Sea off Alaska's coast. The helicopter was ferrying crew members off a stranded freighter. Four people, including three Coast Guard personnel, were rescued after the crash. The Malaysian-flagged freighter later ran aground and split apart, spurring concerns about a possible fuel spill near a sensitive wildlife habitat.

Canada's prime minister says he plans to introduce legislation legalizing gay marriage. The announcement follows a Canadian Supreme Court ruling that the country's constitution does not, repeat not, ban gay marriage. The court stopped short of saying the constitution requires that same-sex couples be permitted to wed. Lower court decisions have legalized gay marriages in six of the 10 Canadian provinces.

There's an intriguing new development in the long-running debate over intelligence. A CIA operative has filed suit against the agency, claiming he was pressured to falsify reports about weapons of mass destruction and punished when he refused to do so. The operative's identity remains secret.

But his lawyer, Roy Krieger, is here to discuss the case.

Roy, thanks very much for joining us.

What is your client, this former CIA case officer, an operative, allege?

ROY KRIEGER, ATTORNEY: He alleges that on several instances in the prewar period, he was instructed either to not report information, intelligence, that he had collected that was contrary to the prevailing CIA assessments of weapons of mass destruction or in some instances he was instructed to falsify his intelligence, and he refused on each occasion.

BLITZER: And who specifically gave him these instructions? Do you name names?

KRIEGER: I can't name names, but I can name positions. And they were his supervisors at the Counterproliferation Division of the Directorate of Operations.

BLITZER: Now, you know the CIA totally denies this. They allege in their response that he was disciplined, nothing to do with his political views or his intelligence reporting. He was disciplined for totally unrelated matters, namely that he stole U.S. government, money he was supposed to use to recruit spies abroad and that he was improperly having some sort of sexual affair with a so-called asset, another undercover agent.

KRIEGER: Well, first of all, my client denies those allegations. Second of all, this is a prevalent pattern that we see at the CIA. In the past seven or eight years, I've represented probably in excess of 100 employees of the Central Intelligence Agency.

And, in our experience, when an operative at the agency falls into disfavor or gets himself a position of opposition to the agency, one of two things, sometimes both of them, happen. Either he's subjected to a counterintelligence investigation based upon trumped-up allegations or he's referred to the Office of Inspector General for investigation of his travel expenses, his finances, in this case, payments made to an asset.

BLITZER: Was he having a sexual relationship with this -- the woman?

KRIEGER: No, he was not.

BLITZER: Did he take money for personal use, money that had been given to him, U.S. taxpayer dollars, that was supposed to be used to recruit spies abroad?

KRIEGER: No. He has denied those allegations. And, in fact, we met with two investigators from the Office of Inspector General yesterday for nearly an hour, and he gave them detailed information that he believes will refute those allegations.

BLITZER: The whole nature, though, of -- if he sensed that there was no, for example, weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, based on what I know, covering the CIA for many, many years, if a case officer reports that, what -- it doesn't pass the smell test that they would simply punish him for giving his honest opinion of what's going on, even if that differed from the national intelligence estimate, which suggested there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.

KRIEGER: Well, first of all, Wolf, unfortunately, I can't confirm or deny any specific countries.

The CIA, as you may be aware from looking at the declassified complaint, has classified almost all of the details of this case. And I can't speak to specifics, whether it's Iraq or any other country, other than a location in the Near East. Now, if a CIA operations officer attempts to report information that's contrary to what the CIA wants to hear, he does so at his peril, in my view.

BLITZER: Well, that's a bureaucratic issue that goes across the federal government. If lower-level bureaucrats, for example, say things their superiors don't like, they potentially could run afoul.

But what you're suggesting is much more serious: They trumped up charges against him and fired him simply because he was trying to -- the reporting he was doing did not follow their standard line. That's an extremely serious allegation.

KRIEGER: We realize that. We do not make it lightly. And before the suit became public, we sent a letter to the acting general counsel -- that was last Friday -- requesting to meet with the director of central intelligence or his designate to discuss the case, and no response was forthcoming.

The CIA has been aware of this case for some period of time.

BLITZER: Has he been formally charged with any criminal wrongdoing?

KRIEGER: No, none whatsoever.

BLITZER: He was simply fired from his job.

KRIEGER: He was fired from his job about three months ago.

BLITZER: Roy Krieger, thanks very much for joining us.

KRIEGER: Thank you, Wolf.

BLITZER: Was the defense strong enough to persuade the jury to spare Scott Peterson's life? In the last half-hour, the case went back to the jury for sentencing.

Let's get some analysis now from Robert Talbot. He's a law professor at the University of San Francisco. He was in the courtroom for today's dramatic closing arguments.

Robert, thanks very much for joining us.

ROBERT TALBOT, LAW PROFESSOR, UNIVERSITY OF SAN FRANCISCO: Good afternoon.

BLITZER: Well, what do you think? How did both sides do in their summations?

TALBOT: I thought both sides did well.

David Harris did a very good job at beginning. I thought Mark Geragos' closing was absolutely brilliant. He hit a brilliant tone. He said just the right things in just the right way.

BLITZER: Well, talk a little bit about -- we were not in the courtroom. We heard what the judge in his instructions -- the instructions he gave the jury, but we didn't hear Mark Geragos give his final appeal to the jury to spare Scott Peterson's life. Summarize, briefly, what Mark Geragos said.

TALBOT: OK. He did a number of things. First of all, he was extremely low key at the beginning. This wasn't the confident, cock-of-the-walk Mark Geragos that we saw at the beginning of the trial. He begged, he begged for Scott Peterson's life about five times, and he said he would get down on his knees and beg if the jury wouldn't feel it was staged.

He put the death penalty on trial in a very effective way. He brought, through a number of people who had testified and through one newspaper account, how it does not bring closure. It does not bring solace to the people involved, to the victims' families. He talked about what life without possibility of parole would be like for Scott Peterson, that he would be in the cell the size of a king-sized bed, and when his mother died, when Jackie Peterson, one of the most sympathetic figures in the trial, died, there would be a knocking on the door announcing that his mother died and that would be it.

So those were a number of things he did, and he did it in an extremely effective manner.

BLITZER: Well, what about the prosecution in saying this is a monster of the worst order and he deserves to die? How did they do in their final arguments before the jury?

TALBOT: The prosecution in the morning was very effective also. He stood right behind Scott Peterson and he said, this is the man whose fault it is. If it's a big problem for Jackie, if it's horrible for Jackie, if it's horrible for all the people involved with Scott Peterson, this is the person that caused it. This is the worst of the worst.

He took a woman and her unborn child and killed them. They trusted him. He betrayed them. He's the worst of the worst.

BLITZER: From where you were sitting, Robert, did you get a chance to look at the faces of the jurors to try to surmise, to try to get a little sense of what they were feeling as they listened to all of these arguments?

TALBOT: Yes, I did.

I had an excellent view of the jury. I was sitting, in fact, facing them. In the morning, they were paying careful attention. They were very grave, paying careful attention to David Harris. In the afternoon, they hung on Mark Geragos' every word, which is -- remember, this is the jury that has rejected all of Mark Geragos' arguments. They've rejected everything he said. He said stone-cold innocence. They came in almost no time with a guilty verdict.

But every single juror was looking at Mark Geragos and paying careful, careful attention to every word he said.

BLITZER: You listened also to the instructions that the judge gave to these jurors. These are specific instructions. Some of them, I understand, are sort of standard that you would give a jury before this kind of a deliberation on their part. What sense did you get from the judge's instructions as to which way he may be pushing the jurors, if in fact he was pushing them one way or another?

TALBOT: Well, I don't think the judge is pushing the jury one way or another. That would be highly improper.

But one of the things that the judge did in this particular case that the judge doesn't often do and I heard that this judge hadn't done before was, on his own motion, he gave the instruction about lingering doubt and he included it as one of the factors. He added lingering doubt to one of the -- to the factors considered in aggravation and mitigation and said this is one of the things you consider in mitigation, which I think gives a clue as to the judge's feelings.

He didn't have to do that. He wasn't asked for it, but he wanted that instruction in there, that the judge should consider any lingering doubt they have in the direction of mitigation.

BLITZER: In other words, if they had a lingering doubt about what? All these jurors convicted him of first-degree murder of his wife Laci Peterson. Lingering doubt as to what?

TALBOT: Lingering doubt as to whether or not he really committed the murder. There's beyond a reasonable doubt and there's beyond any doubt. And somewhere in that Never-Neverland is a lingering doubt.

And he says, we know you found beyond a reasonable doubt. You don't have to find him without any possibility of any doubt, but somewhere in between, there might be a lingering doubt. And that's one of the factors you should consider when deciding whether the mitigating factors outweigh the aggravating factors.

BLITZER: All of these jurors, when they were initially questioned to become members of this jury, did announce publicly that they do support the death penalty under certain circumstances. Is that right?

TALBOT: Yes. Yes. This is a death-qualified jury.

However, the jurors, in answering those questions, did say they would have to know more than just the fact of the killing. They would have to know more to give the death penalty. So, they didn't say just from the fact of the horrible killing in and of itself they would give the death penalty. They said they needed to know more. And Mark Geragos really played upon that in his closing argument. He brought that up. He brought up the specific answers that the different jurors gave to that question. And they did say they needed to know more than just the killings.

BLITZER: One final question, Robert, before I let you go. If the jurors decide he should get the death sentence, I take it that's a matter that the judge could still have some wiggle room. At the end of February when he announces what's going on, he could reduce that to life without the possibility of parole, whereas, on the other hand, if they give him life, he could not impose the death sentence.

How unusual in California legal history would it be for a judge to soften the penalty in this kind of crime?

TALBOT: There's an automatic, an automatic motion for reconsideration by the judge, that the judge can change it from a death penalty to a life without possibility of parole.

It would be unusual. Judges don't like to step in and overrule what jurors have done, but it's not unheard of. The judge could do it. He has the power to look at those mitigating and aggravating factors and say, the jury was just wrong. They were more mitigating factors than aggravating factors and this is the way it should go.

(CROSSTALK)

BLITZER: Yes, go ahead. Finish your thought.

TALBOT: There's an automatic appeal to the Supreme Court of California on the very same issue, so...

(CROSSTALK)

BLITZER: And it would take -- even if he's given the death sentence, it would take many, many, many years, given California's history, for the California, the state of California to actually go ahead and implement it.

TALBOT: Well, we have 629 people on death row now and the execution rate is about one a year. So, if you work out the numbers, it would be quite a while.

BLITZER: Robert Talbot, thanks very much for joining us.

TALBOT: Thank you, Wolf.

BLITZER: Computers and conception, details of a surprising study that claims one could impact the other.

Also, driven to extremes. Parents protest by going on strike.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BLITZER: Laptop computers seem to be everywhere these days. Sometimes, you see them on desks, but often you see them balanced, as the name suggests, on a user's lap.

Now a study suggests men who use laptops that way may -- repeat, may -- be risking their ability to become fathers.

CNN's Mary Snow, joining us from New York now, she's covering been the story.

What's going on, Mary?

MARY SNOW, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Well, Wolf, this study is believed to be the first of its kind. A number of doctors we spoke with say it is way too early to draw any conclusions, but they say this study raises questions worth exploring. (BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

SNOW (voice-over): Can using a laptop computer make a man infertile? That's the question being raised in the study looking at the effects of laptops and the heat they emit. Dr. Yefim Sheynkin at New York's Stony Brook University says he believes laptops may carry a risk.

YEFIM SHEYNKIN, STONY BROOK UNIVERSITY: This may have negative impact on fertility later on and sperm production.

SNOW: Exercising, biking shorts, saunas, hot tubs, doctors say all of these raised temperatures have been linked to reduced sperm production and male infertility. But, says Dr. Sheynkin, these activities are occasional, allowing the effects to be reversed.

Laptops have become part of everyday life.

SHEYNKIN: If somebody may use this laptop computer for years, the changes that may be incurred by this heat exposure may become irreversible.

SNOW: Some doctors caution, it's too early to link laptops and infertility in men.

DR. CHAD RITENOUR, EMORY UNIVERSITY: I would hope that people would not jump to the conclusion that laptop computers equals male infertility, because I think that's something that we can't state yet.

SNOW: The study is small, only 29 men ages 21 to 35. When participants sat with their legs together to balance the laptop, the study found the temperature in the area around the testicles rose 2.1 degrees centigrade. When the computer was turned on, the rise was 2.8 degrees centigrade. One thing doctors do agree on is that the research is preliminary.

RITENOUR: I think that further studies should be done just looking at the effects of heat in general and perhaps even heat emitted from electronic devices such as computers.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

SNOW: And the doctor here in New York who conducted the study says he plans on doing more extensive research -- Wolf.

BLITZER: This is going to cause a lot of commotion out there, Mary. Thanks very much for that report.

They're in it for the long haul, parents on strike, why they're out of the house and into the headlines. We'll explain.

Stay with us.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BLITZER: When you hear about somebody going out on strike, it's usually labor against management. In a town called Enterprise in central Florida, there's a different kind of strike, parents against children.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

BLITZER (voice-over): Cat Barnard and her husband, Harlan, say they've had it with their kids and the kids' refusal to help out around the house. But instead of sending the kids to their rooms, they've sent themselves to their driveway. Cat and Harlan are living in a tent and they only go inside the house to use the bathroom. These apoplectic parents say they're on strike until the kids sort out doing their fair share of the chores.

CAT BARNARD, MOTHER ON STRIKE: What we're saying is, you need to look outside yourself. If you see mother struggling or trying to do something, how about lending a hand? Or if you see anyone who's thirsty, get them a drink of water. Hello?

BLITZER: The Barnards say there are some signs the kids, 17- year-old Ben and 12-year-old Kit, are beginning to get the message, but not enough yet to call off the strike. How long can it go on?

BARNARD: I'm quite stiff and sore in the morning. But I'm digging in for the long haul. If we have to be out here at Christmas, we have to be out here at Christmas. Whatever it takes.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

BLITZER: And good luck to those parents and the kids. They should have a good conversation, I suspect, among all four of them.

The results of our Web question of the day, that's coming up next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BLITZER: Here's how you're weighing in on our Web question of the day. Remember, though, this is not a scientific poll.

Our picture of the day, take a look at this, the president and the first lady lighting the menorah.

Happy Hanukkah to all of our Jewish out there.

"LOU DOBBS TONIGHT" starts 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