Return to Transcripts main page

CNN SATURDAY MORNING NEWS

Interview with Lida Rodriguez-Taseff, Nelda Blair

Aired February 14, 2004 - 08:11   ET

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

HEIDI COLLINS, CNN ANCHOR: Today's Legal Briefs focus on a pair of high profile sports cases. First is the manslaughter trial of former Nets center Jayson Williams. It got under way this week in Somerville, New Jersey. The other is a controversial anti-trust ruling that could open the way for high school football players to enter the NFL draft.
Civil rights attorney Lida Rodriguez-Taseff in Miami this morning.

Lida, good morning to you.

LIDA RODRIGUEZ-TASEFF, CIVIL RIGHTS ATTORNEY: Good morning, Heidi.

COLLINS: And former federal prosecutor Adam Hoffinger in Washington this morning here to offer their insights.

Adam, good morning to you, as well.

Thanks for being with us to the both of you.

Let me begin, if I could, with the Jayson Williams case.

My understanding is there's a gag order, of course, in this case. But now Jayson Williams' wife has set up a Web site to discuss it. She is not under the gag order. Clear this up for me.

Adam, why don't you go ahead and start.

ADAM HOFFINGER, FORMER FEDERAL PROSECUTOR: Well, I think you just stated it, she's not under the gag order so technically she's permitted to speak publicly, although I think obviously she's got to be careful and the defense has to be careful that it doesn't look like they're using her to make statements that they're otherwise precluded from making by the gag order.

COLLINS: Lida, what are your thoughts on this? Could the judge have included her in a gag order?

RODRIGUEZ-TASEFF: Well, you know, I hate gag orders. They violate the first amendment and they almost always benefit the prosecution in high profile cases. Sure, the judge could have included her in the gag order. The judge can include anyone in the gag order because he's the judge. But is it fair? No. Are they constitutional? No. And, you know, the perfect example of how this gag order is just complete baloney is the fact that the prosecution got out that whole story about the dog -- the killing of the dog and completely bypassed the gag order. So, you know, the Web site -- and I went on the Web site and it's fairly harmless. It does have the complete opening statement made by the defense. But the bottom line is it doesn't do anything that the gag order doesn't allow the defense to do at this time.

And obviously it's being monitored by the defense lawyers.

COLLINS: Well, obviously, there is a lot to talk about with this case and many other cases that we've seen lately with celebrity status. Surely that has something to do with this.

But let me also ask you, Adam, is the defense playing the case in the media in your mind with his Real Sports appearance and also the "20/20" appearance that he did?

HOFFINGER: Well, in a case like this, the defense is in a difficult position because they're sort of damned if they do and damned if they don't. You know, Jayson Williams is, by his nature, going to be high profile and there's going to be publicity whether the defense has anything to do with it or not. And unfortunately in criminal cases, from the point of view of the defense lawyer, the press is never going to be good. I mean as long as your client is accused of something, most people will believe that he or she has, in fact, done it.

So there is always this difficult question for the defense, you know, do you say no comment and hunker down and just let the bad press wash over you or do you stand up and try to counter it?

And I mean, you know, it depends on the case. But I think here, frankly, the defense may not really have much alternative but to try to counter some of the very bad press that is naturally going to come out. And particularly now that we have a ruling from the judge excluding some key evidence that the press has put all over the air waves, namely his prior experiences with guns and shooting a dog and so on. Even though that's not going to be at the trial, or at least not in the direct case, it's been all over the press.

COLLINS: Right.

All right...

HOFFINGER: So I think they've got to try to do something. It's a conundrum that they're in.

COLLINS: All right, let's move on, if we could, to Ohio State running back Maurice Clarett. He's taking the NFL to court because of age eligibility. This, according to the federal judge, his ruling declares that this violates the anti-trust law.

Your thoughts on this, Lida?

And what's it going to do for other players down the line, obviously?

RODRIGUEZ-TASEFF: Obviously this doesn't mean that 12 year olds are going to start playing football professionally. You know, the NFL is the world's biggest monopoly, 32 teams. They control the industry. The judge's ruling was right on this rule barring him playing, you know, based on these little quirky three year thing, is completely, it was, it has nothing to do with collective bargaining. It has nothing to do with the wages, hours or conditions of employment. The judge was absolutely right in saying that this rule was anti-competitive and violated the anti-trust laws. So there's nothing...

COLLINS: Adam, was the judge right?

HOFFINGER: Well, the judge may have been right under the law. But what's interesting about this case is this case really, I think, demonstrates the intersection of law and social policy. It may be good law, but it may be bad policy. And part of the problem, one of the -- the major issue here in this case is, you know, should we be encouraging our youngsters to finish school? And it's that, it's that principle which is an important one and a bedrock of our society, that that is coming into conflict with the law. So...

COLLINS: OK.

RODRIGUEZ-TASEFF: Oh, come on, Adam. You've got to be kidding. You're talking about sending this kid to college, where he plays essentially as an indentured servant for free for that college and you're talking about finishing school?

COLLINS: Indentured servant? Lida, I mean he did know what he was getting into. He did want to go there to play ball.

RODRIGUEZ-TASEFF: Oh, absolutely. No question he wanted to go there to play ball. He had no choice.

HOFFINGER: Lida, I think there are a lot of people lining up for that kind of indentured servitude.

RODRIGUEZ-TASEFF: Absolutely.

HOFFINGER: But in any event...

COLLINS: All right, guys, let's move on.

Let's get to the BMW story. We were talking about this a little bit earlier in the show. Just to let everybody know what it is here, a teenaged boy posing as a banker duped an Ohio car dealership, a BMW dealership, into delivering a $123,000 BMW to his high school by making this phone call, obviously, over the phone.

Now, A, how does this happen? And, B, what will the legal steps be? He was caught, by the way, when he tried to do it again.

What are your thoughts on this one, Lida?

RODRIGUEZ-TASEFF: Well, you know, at least he's got good taste. He picked a car that had a heated steering wheel and heated seats. So, you, you know, you can't quibble with that kind of intelligence.

HOFFINGER: He'll get time off, time off for good taste.

COLLINS: You think, time off for good taste?

All right, well, interesting. We'll find out more about this one and get back to you guys on it.

Thank you so much, Lida Rodriguez-Taseff, coming to us from Miami, and former federal prosecutor Adam Hoffinger from Washington.

Thanks, guys.

Appreciate your time today.

HOFFINGER: Thank you.

RODRIGUEZ-TASEFF: Thank you.

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