Skip to main content

Stern's lawyer: Attorney general is talking too much

  • Story Highlights
  • California attorney general's comments are prejudicial, lawyer says
  • Brown saying too much about Anna Nicole Smith case, Krista Barth says
  • Barth is attorney for Smith's ex-partner, Howard K. Stern
  • Stern, two others charged with conspiring to supply Smith with drugs
  • Next Article in Crime »
Decrease font Decrease font
Enlarge font Enlarge font

(CNN) -- A lawyer for Howard K. Stern says the longtime partner of late sex symbol Anna Nicole Smith will fight conspiracy charges announced Thursday.

Anna Nicole Smith's boyfriend Howard K. Stern was among those charged Thursday.

Krista Barth, an attorney for Howard K. Stern, says it's not appropriate to talk publicly about details of the case.

Stern was Smith's "chief enabler," obtaining a variety of prescription drugs to keep the former Playboy model sedated and compliant, California Attorney General Jerry Brown said in announcing the charges against Stern and two doctors.

Lisa Bloom of In Session and guest host Joy Behar questioned Stern's attorney Krista Barth Friday night on CNN's "Larry King Live."

BEHAR: Did Howard see this all coming?

BARTH: No, we did not see this coming. We knew that there was obviously the raid earlier on Dr. [Sandeep] Kapoor's office. But this was something that we honestly never expected. Video Watch part of the discussion »

BEHAR: Well, they are very serious charges. There are so many counts here, eight felonies. Will he plead not guilty? What's he going to do?

BARTH: Well, he will plead not guilty because he is not guilty.

BEHAR: Now, the attorney general, Jerry Brown, called Stern "the principal enabler" in what he says was a conspiracy among three individuals. Do you have a reaction to that?

BARTH: I think it's reminiscent of what happened at Duke. I don't think that this was something that should have been stated in a public forum. I think it's contrary to the rules of professional conduct regarding trial publicity. And you have to wonder why such a statement was made.

But to say that something like that would not bias my client is beyond me. I can't even be -- I can't even venture a guess.

BLOOM: Krista, the difference, though, between the Duke case and this case is that we know that she had at least 11 different medications in her system, the very same medications that are in this criminal complaint.

We know that she was taking these drugs for years. We saw her zoned out of her mind with the slurred speech on her reality show and every awards show.

So it was pretty common knowledge that Anna Nicole was an addict. And I think your client has even admitted that. There's a substantial amount of evidence here.

It doesn't mean your client is guilty. But I think it's enough to raise eyebrows so that ever since she's died, people have wondered: How did she get all of those medications? How was it possible that doctors were giving her all that stuff?

BARTH: The most basic tenet of our judicial system is that Mr. Stern is presumed innocent. ... And the concern that I have is that the public nature of the statements by the attorney general in the state of California is a bit troubling. And when I make the analogy to the Duke case, I think you're missing the point, in that that was done during an election campaign.

There are sometimes political motivations for things that are done. You have to ask why is this case important to so many when what Attorney General Brown is talking about is a pervasive, over-prescription of prescription drugs.

BEHAR: How much responsibility do the tabloids have in this case? I mean, it really was all over the place.

BLOOM: I think that's going to be part of the defense, that they got prescriptions under false names because the tabloids were after her and they wanted every detail and she wanted some privacy. And as a celebrity, she may be entitled to that.

I think that may be a valid defense as to why they were under false names. But there's no defense that I can see why thousands of pills.

BEHAR: Krista, where did she get thousands of pills?

advertisement

BARTH: Well, you know what? Discussing the details of this is not appropriate. I think that the most important thing to focus on here is the way that our judicial system is supposed to work.

I mean how often does that happen, that we're talking about a situation, you are not supposed to say, and I'm quoting here, something that you know reasonably should, or reasonably should know will have a substantial likelihood of materially prejudicing an adjudicative proceeding in this matter?

All About Los AngelesHoward K. SternAnna Nicole Smith

  • E-mail
  • Save
  • Print