CNN.com International
The Web    CNN.com      Powered by
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
ON TV
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
TRANSCRIPTS


 

Return to Transcripts main page

NANCY GRACE

Nancy Grace for Wednesday, June 1, 2005, CNNHN

Aired June 1, 2005 - 20:00:00   ET

THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.


NANCY GRACE, HOST: Tonight, the Michael Jackson courtroom exploding with tension. All the lawyers burning midnight oil tonight. Closing arguments to the Jackson jury just 15 hours from now. Courtroom battle as both sides square off in a final showdown in State vs. Michael Jackson.
Good evening, everybody. I`m Nancy Grace. Thank you for being with us tonight.

The trial of two jumbo-jet pilots takes off as evidence mounts they partied hearty, drinking till nearly 5:00 a.m. before landing -- crash landing -- behind the wheel. I`m talking the cockpit, people, of a jetliner full of unsuspecting passengers. How do you know your pilot over Memorial Day didn`t do the same thing?

But first, to the Michael Jackson child sex trial. Both the defense and the prosecution hunker down in the foxholes tonight. Closing arguments, the single most powerful tool to a litigator, set for tomorrow morning, 0900.

Tonight, in L.A., Jackson`s family attorney, Debra Opri; in Santa Maria, California, trial lawyer Anne Bremner; in Denver, Colorado, defense attorney Lisa Wayne; in New York, clinical psychologist Dr. Patricia Saunders.

But first, let`s go out to Santa Maria. Joining us, "Celebrity Justice" correspondent Jane Velez-Mitchell. Jane, warfare in the courtroom today. What happened?

JANE VELEZ-MITCHELL, "CELEBRITY JUSTICE": Oh, I have to tell you. It`s totally amazing. The tension is building. The anticipation is building here at the Santa Maria courthouse. The courtroom was absolutely packed to the gills as the judge came out and read the very long and complicated 98 pages of jury instructions.

In fact, they`re going to give it to us any moment. It`s like a thick movie script. When they get it here hot off the presses, we will show it to you.

He started out by telling the jurors they have to make their decision without pity or prejudice toward Michael Jackson. Then he went through very complicated and detailed instructions on each of the ten counts, the conspiracy, the lewd acts on a child, the plying with alcohol for the purposes of molestation, and that lesser included of simply furnishing alcohol to a minor, which is a misdemeanor, which he decided, after so much debate over two days, to include after all.

Then he hit on two key issues that have been at the center of this trial, the past acts and the video. Now, when it came to the past acts, he said, "Look, even if you decide, after hearing the testimony, that Michael Jackson did commit past acts with boys, all you can conclude is he has a predisposition for committing this crime. You can`t make the leap that, if he did it then, he did it this time around."

And when it comes to the videotape, they said, basically, with all these videotapes, with a few exceptions of certain statements Michael Jackson made vis-a-vis boys, it only can be considered for Michael Jackson`s state of mind or, for example, the demeanor of the boy when he was telling police his story.

That`s basically it. It was a lot more detailed than that. We`re just touching the surface.

GRACE: Wait a minute, Jane Velez-Mitchell, you just gave me 98 pages of jury instructions in about 45 seconds. Way to go, Jane.

Let`s go to Seattle lawyer Anne Bremner. She has been in the courtroom from the get-go. Anne Bremner, what`s your take on jury instructions? We know how important they are.

ANNE BREMNER, TRIAL LAWYER: They`re so important, Nancy. And one of the most important ones was the proof on molestation. What it is, basically, if you touch somebody, just touch their body for sexual gratification, not sexual parts, nothing, just touch their body, you`re guilty of the felony.

And I think those jurors were probably surprised by that definition. Because it`s like a piece of cake, can of corn, to convict on an instruction like that, unusual in terms of sexual assault cases.

And these jurors were glued on the jury instructions. The judge came and sat right in front of them and they read right along. And the courtroom was tense, it was somber, it was serious.

GRACE: Let me go back to Jane Velez-Mitchell. How was Jackson responding to this?

VELEZ-MITCHELL: I can tell you that he was absolutely still, motionless. You know, when he does his performances, he does remain motionless when he comes on stage. And he kind of holds up his hands and he freezes for dramatic effect.

Well, he has perfected the art of not moving at all. And that`s exactly what he was doing today. When he left the courthouse, he was glum. And his spokesperson, Raymone Bain, said he was nervous and upset. As you can consider, he might well be. I mean, obviously, this is nerve-wracking for everybody here. You can only imagine what it`s like for Jackson himself.

GRACE: Debra Opri, I want to go to you. She`s the Jackson family lawyer.

Are you prepared? I am. I`ve got my toothpaste. I`ve got me toothbrush. I`m ready to be sequestered.

DEBRA OPRI, JACKSON FAMILY LAWYER: I`ve got my dog; I`m ready to travel.

GRACE: I`m ready to be sequestered. Should this jury be sequestered? Did they bring their toothbrushes today?

OPRI: Well, I don`t know, Nancy. We`re all ready to travel. All kidding aside, you put your toothbrush away, I`ll put the wiener dog away.

GRACE: Wait, is that the pretzel evidence?

OPRI: Hard to act to follow. Never have a dog or a kid on TV.

Hey, we`re all ready to travel. We`re all ready for closing arguments tomorrow. And Michael Jackson and his family, I`m telling you, I`ve never seen the parents so upbeat. They do believe their son is going to be acquitted.

We`re going to have two long days, I think, of closing arguments. And I think the jury will get the instructions -- well, they will go into deliberations as of Friday.

GRACE: To Lisa Wayne, defense attorney. Lisa, the jury has not been sequestered up until now, same way as the Peterson trial. Do you think that Melville should sequester the jury for jury deliberations?

LISA WAYNE, DEFENSE ATTORNEY: I do, Nancy. I think that the influence from the outside, no matter what kind of safeguards this judge puts in place, no matter how many marshals you have, no matter how many times you tell the jurors, "Don`t talk to other people, don`t look at the media," you can`t help it in this kind of case.

And I just think -- I think both sides would want it. You know, put these jurors in a place that`s going to be sanitized and away from all those media circus, and let them do their job.

GRACE: Take a listen to this, everybody.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

QUESTION: Has anyone spoken with Michael Jackson to help him face the possibility of his going to prison?

RAYMONE BAIN, MICHAEL JACKSON`S SPOKESPERSON: Well, I don`t think anybody would have to sit down and talk to him about that. He`s a grown man. And he knows life and what life is about. And he knows fiction from reality. So I don`t think anybody would have to talk to him about what it would be like facing prison.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

GRACE: Hey, Elizabeth, can you show me a shot of the Santa Maria jail? Oh, OK. That`s inside the jail. That`s a far cry from Neverland. That`s the outside of the Santa Maria jail. If convicted, Michael Jackson would land here first for processing, as it is called, before he goes into the state system, to an actual prison.

Back to Jane Velez-Mitchell with "Celebrity Justice." Was the jury keeping up with the judge? And did they have written instructions with them as the judge read the instructions?

VELEZ-MITCHELL: They did. And the best way to paint a picture of it is they were each given this thick script, if you want to think of it that way. And then they read along as the judge did this very long hour-and-15- minute-plus -- 15 minute -- one-hour-and-15-minute-plus monologue.

It was almost like, if you`ve ever been in a script reading and everybody`s reading along with the actor, except the only actor speaking was the judge. And they were paying very close attention. Some of them were scribbling notes. They were looking up.

And I tell you, they love this judge. When he cracks a joke, they laugh. At one point, he said, "I do read to my wife when I want her to go to sleep. Am I having that effect here?" And of course, the whole courtroom burst into laughter to relieve some of the tension that was going on.

But the jury is taking this so seriously. And you have to admire them. I mean, this is a lot for anybody to process, 98 pages of jury instructions. And then they have got to take all this and try to match it with the evidence, which includes videotapes, which includes books, as you know, like "The Boy." And it`s going to be very difficult. I think it`s going to probably go on for quite a while.

GRACE: Today, that jury has been hearing jury instructions. That is the law by which they are to judge the facts in the case.

And you know, Anne Bremner, you`ve tried a lot of cases. A case can turn on the jury instructions.

BREMNER: Absolutely.

GRACE: In a lot of jurisdictions, the jury is not allowed to have written instructions. Why?

BREMNER: Well, because they`re supposed to basically get the charge, the jury charge, from the judge, and then, you know, go forward with what the judge tells them. And also in a lot of jurisdictions historically, jurors weren`t allowed to take notes, because they`re to rely on their collective memory.

This jury took copious notes. And they`ve got many, many instructions that they paid very careful attention to.

GRACE: Got you.

BREMNER: And so that`s a lot to go through for deliberations.

GRACE: Very quickly, back to Jane Velez-Mitchell. How many members of Jackson`s family showed up today for jury instructions? How many plan to show up tomorrow for closing arguments?

VELEZ-MITCHELL: We had mother Katherine. We had dad Joe. And we had two brothers, Tito and Randy. And tomorrow, we`re told there could be more. What Raymone Bain said was that his siblings -- and he`s one of nine, I believe -- will be coming in over the couple of days. And they may not all show up dramatically at once, as they have in the past in a double- decker bus in matching white outfits, but they will have a very strong presence here starting tomorrow.

GRACE: Jane Velez, did they all wear the same outfit today?

VELEZ-MITCHELL: No, they were dressed just in civilian clothes, you might say. But when the big members of the family, Janet, LaToya, the stars, show up, they have shown up in matching white outfits. And it looked like a Vegas act. And we`ve seen that time and time again.

GRACE: Jane, Jane, Jane, I saw them come in, in the tour bus. They got off in matching outfits. I thought they were putting the band back together again. No?

VELEZ-MITCHELL: Exactly. Well, that`s the showbiz instinct. And I have to tell you, I come from a showbiz family. When you`re in show business, and there`s no business like show business, when you`re in a corner, you come out with that kind of attitude. It may be those instincts working overtime were to the detriment of Michael Jackson, but that`s probably how the family reacts, to do a show of force, a tour de force, and try to make a statement.

GRACE: A show. A show. You nailed it on the head there, a show. But you know what? This is not a concert. This is not make-believe. This is a child molestation trial.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: Right.

GRACE: Everybody, at the courthouse, Anne Bremner out of Seattle jurisdiction and Jane Velez-Mitchell. With us also, Debra Opri, the Jackson family lawyer. We`ll be joined by Dr. Patricia Saunders, clinical psychologist, to make some sense of it all when we come back. Please stay with us.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

GRACE: Welcome back, everybody. Closing arguments set tomorrow morning 0900 in the Michael Jackson child sex trial. Welcome back.

Let`s go straight to Santa Maria. Standing by, "Celebrity Justice`s" Jane Velez-Mitchell. Jane, when do the lawyers start? Well, more important, how long? It doesn`t matter when they start. Forget it. How long are they going to argue tomorrow?

VELEZ-MITCHELL: At 8:30 a.m., four hours each side. So it`s going to drag over until Friday. And then after the prosecution comes back, after the defense, then the jury will get the case, sometime probably Friday afternoon. By the time they pick a foreperson, they`re gone for the weekend. And they`re going to deliberate theoretically 8:30 to 2:30, the same schedule we`ve had throughout the whole trial. But if they want to stay later, they can.

GRACE: OK, let me get this straight. Each side gets four hours each?

VELEZ-MITCHELL: Correct-omundo.

GRACE: Anne Bremner, that`s quite a mouthful, huh?

BREMNER: Yes, and I was just thinking. I think it was President Harding who was asked to give a speech...

GRACE: Oh, here she goes, a historical quote.

BREMNER: I know, Grandma Bremner here. But a historical quote -- to give a speech for five minutes. And he said, "I can`t. I don`t have enough time to prepare." And they said, "Well, how about an hour?" And he said, "Great, I can do that."

Because brevity, which, of course, is the soul of wit, that -- you know, preparation gives you the brevity. And I think that`s far too long to argue to this jury. That`s just Grandma Bremner, Anne Bremner`s input.

GRACE: And back to you, Jane. Who`s going to give the argument for either side?

VELEZ-MITCHELL: Well, as you know, Tom Sneddon gave the opening argument, the opening statement. And we believe that Ron Zonen, his senior deputy D.A., is going to give the closing argument for the prosecution. He has gotten very high marks for his handling of various witnesses. He`s very smooth.

And to me, he very much parallels Tom Mesereau, who, of course, is one of the best defense attorneys in the world. So I think that`s a very even match. And I think Zonen has done a spectacular job and I think he will probably do a good job tomorrow.

And to show you what pros both of these men are, they came into court today for the reading of the jury instruction. Obviously, they had been preparing for many, many hours previous.

And they both looked calm and confident. They didn`t seem distracted. They paid attention to the judge during jury instructions when you`d think, "Gosh, if I was about to give the closing argument of my life, I might be looking at my crib notes." No, they were just absolutely confident and smooth.

GRACE: To Debra Opri, Jackson family lawyer, you know, Debra, a lot of times the state, who has the burden, has a right to an opening closing and a final closing. Do you think the state is going to split closings?

OPRI: You know, I am voting against that, because I think Ron Zonen, he is a sex crimes expert. He is one of the best in Santa Barbara County, one of the best I`ve seen. I think he is more comfortable doing a beginning and an ending and leaving it at that.

And I don`t think -- honestly, I don`t think either of them are going to go four hours. Close, but not four hours. And just look for a few surprises. And maybe we`ll get to that later in the show. But look for a few surprises in the closing arguments on each side.

GRACE: And to Lisa Wayne, Lisa, you know the prosecution has the right to start their closing statement, then let the defense go, then end their closing statement after that. It`s called reserving.

WAYNE: Right.

GRACE: And do you think there`s any possibility that the prosecution will do that in the Jackson trial, kick off closings, force the defense to go in the middle, and end the closing?

WAYNE: I would. I mean, there`s this theory called primacy and recency. What the jury hears first, what they hear last is what sticks with them, Nancy. And if I`m them, I`m going to want the jury to hear my piece last. And that`s what`s going to stick with them before they go back into that room.

So you know, I would do it that way. And you`ve got to remember, too, cases are not won on closing arguments. I don`t care what lawyers think. Jurors will tell you every single time, they`ve made up their mind and very few of them will change it during a closing argument.

GRACE: Well, actually, Lisa, a lot of studies show that jurors make up their minds after the opening statements, before they even hear any evidence.

WAYNE: That`s right, 80 to 85 percent. Right, no, I know. And that`s...

(CROSSTALK)

GRACE: The lawyer`s best hope is that maybe these closings will make a difference.

Here in the studio with me, Dr. Patricia Saunders. You know, a lot of people have pontificated that, if Jackson is convicted, he would never survive jail. Take a look at the inside of his jail cell. This is an inside shot of the Santa Maria county jail, a far cry from Neverland. Do you think he could survive it?

DR. PATRICIA SAUNDERS, CLINICAL PSYCHOLOGIST: Yes, I think he can survive it. I think Michael Jackson is a lot tougher than the persona he presents to the world, as this frail, ethereal, child-like waif. A lot of his cronies have said...

GRACE: Whoa, whoa, that is not the jail. OK, do you see that? That`s the locomotive he has built around his house.

SAUNDERS: That`s play-land. That`s part of his life. It`s part of his persona. But it`s only one part.

GRACE: But can a guy like this live in jail?

SAUNDERS: I think he can. You know, Lisa Marie Presley, ex number one, or two, or I forgot, said, "Michael`s anything you want him to be." I think Michael Jackson is an empty vessel who has all kinds of personae that suit the circumstances.

I think he`s a survivor. I think he`s a lot tougher than he looks, Nancy.

GRACE: Quick break, everybody. We are live in Santa Maria, California, and the latest in the Michael Jackson trial, as we head into closing statements tomorrow morning.

But first to "Trial Tracking": Two Florida teenagers, one just 14- years-old, accused in the beating death of a homeless man. Why? They said they were bored. The two teenagers, Christopher Scamahorn and Jeffery Spurgeon, 14 and 18, confessed to beating and kicking Michael Roberts to death, just for the fun of it.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SHERIFF JOHNSON, VOLUSIA COUNTY, FLORIDA: I can`t fathom that. It`s fun to beat a man to death for no reason? But it`s one of those things that some people -- I just don`t understand it. I do know they`re in the correct place now.

QUESTION: And that is?

JOHNSON: In jail.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

GRACE: Once again, Vegas is hopping tonight, everybody, as verdict day gets closer and closer. But guess what? The odds have changed for Michael Jackson. Betting was once even, 50-50. But now odds 8-5 Jackson will be convicted. Of course, it`s like reading the tea leaves deciding if Vegas can tell you the way to go.

What about it, Debra Opri? Why the sudden changing odds in Vegas? It was 50-50 would walk. Now it`s 8-5 he`ll get convicted.

OPRI: Well, I`m actually shocked at those numbers. What do I think it is? I think the reality and the seriousness is really sinking in with people. And now they`re taking the time to really think about this.

You know, 8-5, and we haven`t even had closing arguments. I think, I bet you, that that 8-5 number is based upon that video. That was the last thing we heard and saw.

GRACE: What about that, Jane Velez-Mitchell? There`s been a lot of discussion, pundits, people who have probably never tried a case, picking it apart. Was the video good, was the video bad? Remember, everybody, the state rested its rebuttal case with a videotape of the boy talking to police, the first time he relayed the story of the molestation to law enforcement.

Jane Velez-Mitchell, how did the jury react to that immediately after that video was played?

VELEZ-MITCHELL: That video, I think, was one of the more powerful pieces of evidence of this entire trial. This was a young boy, not the kind of tough kid that was a teenager we saw on the stand. The same individual, but a couple of years younger, seeming more like a child than a teenager, even though he was 13 at the time.

And his demeanor, which is what they`re supposed to use that video to consider, not the truth of the matter, not his words, but the way he said the words, his emotions as he said the words, were absolutely astounding. I mean, if he`s acting, he`s a very good actor. He should be in demand in Hollywood.

Because if he`s acting, that was quite a performance. A 13-year-old, then hanging his head when he was asked about it, pausing for 20, 30 seconds at a time before he would make the next answer. I mean, this was absolutely, I think, devastating. And I think, up until that time, a lot of people thought that he would walk. And I think that the odds changed after that video was played.

GRACE: Take a listen to this.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

BAIN: It`s a very delicate situation to sit in there and hear all of this and know that your life is in the balance. He has a strong faith in God and a strong faith in the judicial system.

But he realizes that his fate lies in the hands of 12 people. And he`s hoping that they`ll look at the evidence and they will find him innocent of all of the charges.

The majority of his brothers and sisters are going to be here within the court, within the next couple of days. I think they`re going to probably split it up, and all of them get a chance to come in.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

GRACE: To defense attorney Lisa Wayne, Lisa, do you think either side will go the full four hours? I`m digging in for tomorrow.

WAYNE: You know, I hope not, but they might. Because you know what? Again, it`s such a serious charge. I mean, this is Michael Jackson`s life.

GRACE: Oh, please, Lisa. People don`t argue four hours in a murder case, for Pete`s sake.

WAYNE: But you know what? It`s so hard to sit down, Nancy, when you literally are in charge of whether someone`s going to go to prison or not. You don`t want to shut up because you just want to make sure they get it.

So will Mesereau go the whole four hours? I hope not, but he might, because it`s so hard to sit down and say, "It`s finished. It`s over. I`m handing this over to you." It`s difficult.

GRACE: You know, Lisa? I have done it, as have you.

WAYNE: Right.

GRACE: It is a tough call. But you`ve got to hold that jury. After four hours, I don`t know.

We`ll be right back, everybody.

But as we go to break, I want to remind you that we here at NANCY GRACE want very much to help solve unsolved homicides, help find missing people. Tonight, take a look at this girl, Amber Hoopes, just 23-years- old, last seen September 2001 at a shop right next to her grandparents` home in Idaho Falls. If you have any information on Amber Hoopes, please call the Carole Sund Carrington Foundation toll-free, 888-813-8389. Please help us.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

GRACE: Michael Jackson at the courthouse wearing a victorious arm band. There he is with his whole family. They may show up for the trial in stages, apparently, not all at once.

Welcome back, everybody. I`m Nancy Grace. We are live in Santa Maria. But before we go out to the courthouse, here on the studio during the commercial break, a fight broke out. Dusty (ph), please show the perpetrator over there. He`s tried to explain the odds in Las Vegas. Now the floor manager says -- what are you saying?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: (INAUDIBLE)

GRACE: Well, we know that, 8 to 5, but you said that means 1 to 1- and-a-third.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Right.

GRACE: Or it`s almost 2 to 1.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Right, almost 2 to 1.

GRACE: And you compare Jackson to a race horse. You said if he would were a horse, he`d go to jail, is basically...

GRACE: OK, see what we`ve come to, Jane Velez-Mitchell? What`s the word at the courthouse right now? Is the defense optimistic? What`s happening?

VELEZ-MITCHELL: Well, the debates and the battles about who`s going to win have been going on since day one. And there`s so much emotion, so many people are so invested in one outcome or the other. And there`s a big split. There`s a huge split in the media between people who feel that there is nothing to these charges and people who feel that he has a long history of doing this and he should be sent away and they should throw away the key. And I have to tell you, I think the jurors are going to be split down the middle perhaps in a very similar matter. If human beings are human beings, they could have the same split.

GRACE: You mentioned something very interesting. To Debra Opri, Jackson family lawyer -- do you think there`s a chance, Debra -- and I`m not talking about what the judge told the jury to do, I`m talking about what they are going to do...

OPRI: OK.

GRACE: ... that if they believe Jackson is a pedophile, if they believe the reports of previous child molestation, fondling, that they will convict him, regardless of the weakness or the strength of the current case?

OPRI: Unfortunately, it`s always a possibility, Nancy. And the problem here is, if they do, it`s ripe for appeal because that goes against the jury instructions.

GRACE: To Patricia Saunders, you know, false reporting of child molestation or rape is actually only 2 to 6 percent. And what about boys? How often do they give false reports that they were molested?

SAUNDERS: Almost never, especially...

GRACE: Why?

SAUNDERS: ... with adolescent boys. Because adolescent boys are most concerned with their image as young men. And saying that they were sexually molested by a pedophile, another male, would be utterly devastating and humiliating. False reports almost never happen for adolescent boys.

GRACE: I guess that`s pretty tough for you to swallow, Lisa Wayne.

WAYNE: ... never. Does that mean that you convict the innocent guy? I mean, I don`t even know what that means. I mean, you`re talking about an accusation that truly carries a lot of weight. We know that. It is the most difficult case and charge to defend. I`d rather do 100 murder trials than do an allegation of sex assault. So -- but to say almost never, does that mean this kid is the almost never, or that the other kid out there is the almost never? I mean, I think that`s a dangerous statement, and you hope that this jury knows exactly what the evidence is in this case.

SAUNDERS: It`s dangerous to a defense attorney, Lisa, but the psychological studies show that adolescent males will not make false allegations. It`s hard enough for them to admit it when it`s true. There was a study that showed for adolescent boys who had, in fact, been sexually abused, the first time they were asked by police, 80 percent of them said, No, it didn`t happen, because of the shame factor.

GRACE: To Anne Bremner, Seattle lawyer. Anne, you and I have both handled child molestation cases.

BREMNER: Right.

GRACE: And those studies are true. Now, can I say that`s true in this case?

BREMNER: No. No.

GRACE: But the reality is, the statistics are on the state`s side. But the jury never heard that, of course.

BREMNER: You know what, though, Nancy? They did. That`s a little reported fact is that when an expert testified in this case for the prosecution, the defense asked about some of that type of statistical evidence. Remember Dr. Katz...

GRACE: Yes. Yes.

BREMNER: ... who had seen this child? There was evidence brought out through him about false reporting by boys. And he came back with some of the statistics, as did another witness. And I`m telling you, you know, that was devastating, you know, for the defense, to have -- bring this out in many ways themselves.

GRACE: Yes. Anne, I`m glad you reminded me about that. I forgot all about Katz.

BREMNER: It was way back when...

GRACE: Yes. I remember. It was a long time ago, and you`re absolutely correct, Anne Bremner. Back to Jane Velez-Mitchell. Jane, do you recall Katz on the stand and how the jury reacted when they heard how low the incidence of false reports are amongst boys of sex molestation?

VELEZ-MITCHELL: I think the jury has taken it all in. And anybody who thinks that any of the evidence has gone over their heads I think is absolutely wrong. There have been some subtle jokes that have been made that, only if you were following this trial very carefully from the very beginning, would you get it. And they always laugh, meaning that they got all the nuances. And there was also a defense expert who testified that there is a tendency for a child to lie if he comes from a family when lying occurs very frequently.

GRACE: Uh-oh! Rut row!

VELEZ-MITCHELL: In other words, if it`s a path of lies, a family that lies...

GRACE: Rut row! Because the defense caught this mom in a boatload of lies. You know, those are the facts. We`re stuck with that. Everybody is staying with us except for Jane Velez-Mitchell. She`s heading out. But Jane, I`ll see you tomorrow night, friend, OK?

VELEZ-MITCHELL: All right. See you then.

GRACE: Get back in there! I`m like your coach, throwing the fighter back in the ring. The closing arguments start in the Michael Jackson child sex trial tomorrow morning, 8:30 AM.

Switching gears, to Miami, Florida. Standing by is DUI defense lawyer Bobby Reiff and WIOD Miami-Dade reporter Al Warnell. We are talking about the two pilots on trial for getting a snootful and then landing themselves in the cockpit of a jumbo jet plane full of innocent passengers.

To our reporter. Al, bring me up to date.

AL WARNELL, WIOD MIAMI-DATE REPORTER: We had the vice president of operations, flight operations, for America West on the stand today. He`s the guy that fired the two pilots. And basically, what he said was the fact that they violated company policy doing the drinking or alleged drinking, and they also violated FAA rules. And that`s the reason why they were fired.

But the defense attorney in cross-examination brought out an interesting point. He said, Was it a fact that six months ago, there was a similar case that happened at America West airlines with another pilot? And what happened in that particular instance? And this gentleman indicated -- his name is Joseph Chronic (ph) -- by the way. He indicated that this pilot wasn`t fired. So they said...

GRACE: Wait. This pilot wasn`t what?

WARNELL: He wasn`t fired.

GRACE: OK. Wait a minute, wait a minute, wait a minute! To DUI defense lawyer Bobby Reiff. Bobby, what do we care in this case about what happened to a pilot six months ago who had been drinking? I care about this case.

BOBBY REIFF, DEFENSE ATTORNEY SPECIALIZING IN DUI: Well, it shows a pattern. It shows, did they fire these people because they embarrassed the airline, or did they fire them because what they did was wrong or illegal? I mean, again...

GRACE: But what does that have to do with this case?

REIFF: Well, that`s part of the issue here. What does this all have to do with the case? And the answer is nothing. And I think this is a problem for the state because once again, I think they overstretched their hand. I mean, it may be -- and this is arguable -- whether or not FAA regulations are relevant in a criminal trial. That, at best, is arguable. What are the U.S. -- the America West guidelines for their pilots is totally irrelevant.

GRACE: OK. I got you. So you`re saying the state is going too far in proving its case. Take a listen to this.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: On July 1st, 2002, Mr. Hughes (ph) and Mr. Cloyd (ph) rode with three America West flight attendants from the Mayfair Hotel in Coconut Drove to the airport, isn`t that correct?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: That`s my understanding.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Did any of the flight attendants make any report indicating Mr. Hughes or Mr. Cloyd was intoxicated or under the influence?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: To the best of my knowledge, they did not.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

GRACE: Back to Bobby Reiff, DUI defense attorney in that jurisdiction. Three separate individuals said they smelled the pilots. This is a video introduced in front of that Florida jury. Just think about it, everybody. These two guys, you`re seeing them, they partied until about 4:30 AM. According to their room key, they staggered into their hotel room around 5:00 AM, and then they made a morning flight. As they went through the metal detector, some of those security officers got a whiff as they were clutching their Starbucks coffee -- hello!

REIFF: Hello?

GRACE: ... and stopped them. Who just said "Hello" back? Was it you, Bobby, or...

REIFF: Actually, you make a comment about...

GRACE: Bobby...

REIFF: ... Starbucks coffee. You`ve already given me a hard time about the Starbucks, but...

GRACE: Yes, because you pay $3.50 for a cup of coffee!

REIFF: No, no, no.

GRACE: And I don`t know where you got raised, but that`s a little steep for me. But let`s get back to the trial. Three people smelled the pilot! Hello!

REIFF: What does it mean, Nancy?

GRACE: It means they were drunk!

REIFF: No, no, no, no, no.

GRACE: It means they had been drinking shortly before the flight. That`s what it means.

REIFF: No, it means they consumed an alcoholic beverage sometime that morning, period, end of story!

GRACE: Bob, they blamed it on their mouthwash. How lame is that?

REIFF: Listen, guess what`s in your mouthwash? Alcohol.

GRACE: OK. You know, Debra Opri, help me out here. Even you, Debra Opri, would not fall back on the lame defense, it was mouthwash.

OPRI: Yes. No. Let me say this because this is falling over the employment laws, as well. They have policy guidelines that they have to follow as part of their employment. And I can assure you, somewhere buried along in that employee handbook, and somebody better get it into evidence, there is a conduct, a code of conduct.

GRACE: It`s called bottle to throttle.

OPRI: And it`s called you don`t drink within so many hours of reporting for work.

GRACE: You`re darn right. We`ve got to go to break. But Debra, I believe it`s eight hours, bottle to throttle.

OPRI: That`s right.

GRACE: No can do. Got to take a break. We`ll all be right back. We are live in Florida. Please stay with us.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Captain, was the (INAUDIBLE) operator going to fly this airplane?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: No, he was not, obviously.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Were the flight attendants going to fly this airplane?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: No, they were not.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: And were the 117 passengers on board going to fly this airplane?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: No.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Does this breath sample indicate to you that Captain Cloyd was under the influence of alcohol?

OFFICER HAROLD RUFFNER, MIAMI-DADE POLICE DEPARTMENT: Yes, it does.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Once you were finished collecting these samples, did you come to an opinion as to whether co-pilot Hughes was under the influence of alcohol?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Objection. Calls for conclusion.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Overruled.

RUFFNER: Yes, ma`am, I did.

QUESTION: And what was that conclusion?

RUFFNER: That he was under the influence of alcohol.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

GRACE: Welcome back, everybody. I`m Nancy Grace. We are live in Florida with the latest on the former America West pilots on trial for boozing it up before they got behind the wheel of a jumbo jetliner. One of them -- Al Warnell, correct me if I`m wrong. One of them was .08 and one of them was .09. In Florida, thanks to MADD, Mothers Against Drunk Driving, the limit is .08. It used to be 1.0. So they have surpassed the state laws for drinking and driving on the highway. Why should this be any different?

WARNELL: Because in the state of Florida, Florida officials consider an airplane a vehicle, just like a car, so they`re on the same level as a person who`s driving a car and same level of intoxication.

GRACE: I see. So the same level does apply for FUI, flying under the influence. So Bobby Reiff, what`s the defense?

REIFF: Oh, there are many defenses here. In fact, one of the issues that they have been raising is whether or not they were operating the aircraft at the time. In fact, there was a report this evening that the juror who had been dismissed from this jury, in her opinion, thought they were not operating the aircraft.

GRACE: You know, you just brought up a good point. Al Warnell, WIOD Miami-Dade reporter, why was the lady juror booted from the jury?

WARNELL: Well, last Thursday, the judge gave them an extended Memorial Day holiday, and as they were leaving the courtroom, this juror made the comment, Don`t drink too much. And I guess that was a direct -- the defense attorneys took -- took, you know...

GRACE: Offense at that.

WARNELL: Yes, offense to that, and basically, they asked that this juror be removed. She`s the only female juror on that particular jury panel.

GRACE: Lisa Wayne, was the defense attorney just too sensitive?

WAYNE: Well, I wish I could have been in the courtroom. I don`t know. Was she looking at the defendants and saying, Don`t drink too much, or she was looking at the lawyers and saying that?

GRACE: I thought she said it to the jury. Al, who did she say it to, Don`t drink too much?

WARNELL: Well, she was saying it to the jury, but it was supposedly heard...

GRACE: Uh-oh!

WARNELL: ... in the courtroom.

GRACE: Lisa Wayne, these defense lawyers are just way too sensitive.

WAYNE: You know, it can be a bad sign. I mean, what`s the defense lawyer -- you`re right, we are sensitive. And the defense lawyers thinking to themselves, She`s already come to the conclusion someone drank too much, and maybe it`s a joke, maybe she`s being snide, but I can`t take a chance. So I understand that.

GRACE: Yes, I get it, too. Debra Opri, defense attorney -- Debra, the fact -- this theory that Bobby Reiff has come up with, talk about parsing words -- no offense, Bobby Reiff. I know you win a lot of cases. But come on! They weren`t operating the plane? Just because the security managed to pull the jumbo jet back before they took off!

OPRI: We talked about the operation of the plane. The bottom line is, once you take control, you take control. I want to say one thing on the jury. If I am on the jury and one of my own...

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: God help us.

OPRI: ... this far in, that jury is going to turn on that defense counsel. And you know what? He should never have done it. He should have laughed it off. Unless they were looking straight at the defendants. Right, Lisa?

WAYNE: It`s a really, really good point. They`re looking at the defendant and making those kind of remarks, you have a problem.

OPRI: Then it`s a problem, yes.

GRACE: You know, she`s right. She`s right, Dr. Saunders. Jurors form some kind of camaraderie. They form a bond when they`ve been on the case for a while. And if they know that one lawyer or the other throws one of their fellow jurors off, they don`t like it. What do you think?

SAUNDERS: Well, it certainly makes sense. They`re an isolated group. They have a very special responsibility, and I think they must bond in order to endure the kind of decisions they have to make.

GRACE: Take a listen to this, guys.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: If somebody has a drink 7 hours and 59 minutes before, and they want to go play golf or watch football or anything else, does it matter?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Does it matter if they had the drink 7 hours and 59 minutes...

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: If they`re not going to operate an aircraft? If they`re going to play golf?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: In that case, it doesn`t matter, I suppose.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: So what matters here is you can`t drink within eight hours if you`re going to operate an aircraft?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: That`s the obvious intent of the regulation, yes.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: It doesn`t matter if they`re going to go anywhere?

(END VIDEO CLIP)

GRACE: Back to Bobby Reiff, DUI defense attorney down in Florida, where this case is being tried. Bobby, are you serious? Your defense is that even though they stunk of alcohol, which they blamed on mouthwash...

REIFF: Only one of them.

GRACE: ... even though they had been partying, and we`ve got it on video...

REIFF: Well, we don`t have them partying...

GRACE: ... until 4:30 AM...

REIFF: ... as much as you think. We don`t have them partying...

GRACE: Your defense is...

REIFF: ... as much as you think.

GRACE: ... still they were not operating the plane, just because security managed to drag it back off the runway.

REIFF: Listen, I don`t think that`s the best defense in the world, and I`m not suggesting that is the best defense. What I`m saying is that this is something they have raised, and one of the jurors has already said, yes, I agree, the steering was not engaged, therefore, they weren`t operating the aircraft. Remember, you have a flight engineer also here. Was he a co-pilot or was he a flight engineer?

GRACE: Good point. Good point. With me, Bobby Reiff out of Florida. Quick break. As we go to break, to tonight`s "All Points Bulletin." FBI and law enforcement across the country are on the lookout for this man, Walter Edward Myer, wanted in connection with the sex abuse and sodomy of minors, also charged with producing obscene material of minors. Myer, 65, 5-10, 190 pounds, blond hair, blue eyes. If you have info on Myer, contact the FBI, 251-438-3674.

Local news coming up for some of you, but we`ll all be right back. And remember, live coverage of the Jackson trial tomorrow, 3:00 to 5:00 Eastern on Court TV. Please stay with us as we remember Major John C. Spahr, 42, an American hero.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

GRACE: Welcome back, everybody. Down to Miami and WIOD Miami-Dade reporter Al Warnell. Al, will the jury -- or has the jury heard about one of the pilot`s prior DUI, reduced down to reckless driving?

WARNELL: That information will not be released in this trial.

GRACE: Wow! What about that, Debra Opri? Is that is fair to the jury?

OPRI: That`s great. I think the best defense here is going to be overreaction of the evidence presented, that the .08, .09 did not match the extreme testimony of heavy drinking, a high bill tab, smell of alcohol. They were, in effect, able to operate that plane because you know why? They were.

GRACE: Lisa Wayne, should the jury know about the prior DUI of one of the pilots?

WAYNE: I don`t think so, Nancy, and I think the best defense here is that a hangover does not equal being drunk, period.

GRACE: And to Dr. Saunders. On that, even if you`re not legally drunk, what about your reaction time?

SAUNDERS: Reaction time is diminished. Perception and visual functions are seriously impaired even with a blood alcohol level of .04.

GRACE: And very quickly, to DUI defense attorney out of the Florida jurisdiction, Bobby Reiff -- you don`t think this jury deserves to know one of these pilots had a prior DUI?

REIFF: What`s the relevance of a 1986 arrest, which was later released to reckless driving? How does that have anything to do with when this case? Does that show anything, Nancy? I mean, come on!

GRACE: I take it your answer is no.

REIFF: No. Nineteen years ago, what he did, what`s that relevant to this instance?

GRACE: Well, you would think...

REIFF: You would think what?

GRACE: ... he would have learned not to drink. He`s already gotten pulled over once for it, and he got lucky and got it reduced to reckless driving.

REIFF: Well, what says he got lucky? Maybe he was innocent. Maybe he didn`t commit the crime.

GRACE: He took a plea to reckless driving. He was pulled over...

REIFF: Listen, people take pleas...

GRACE: ... for DUI.

REIFF: ... to lesser offenses all the time, Nancy.

GRACE: Note to self. When arrested, hire Bobby Reiff, Lisa Wayne and Debra Opri. I want to thank all of my guests tonight. But as always, my biggest thank you is to you for being with all of us, inviting all of us into your home.

Coming up, headlines from all around the world, and Larry on CNN. I`m Nancy Grace, signing off for tonight. I hope to see you right here tomorrow night, 8:00 o`clock sharp Eastern. And until then, good night, friend.

END


CNN US
On CNN TV E-mail Services CNN Mobile CNN AvantGo CNNtext Ad info Preferences
SEARCH
   The Web    CNN.com     
Powered by
© 2005 Cable News Network LP, LLLP.
A Time Warner Company. All Rights Reserved.
Terms under which this service is provided to you.
Read our privacy guidelines. Contact us.
external link
All external sites will open in a new browser.
CNN.com does not endorse external sites.
 Premium content icon Denotes premium content.