|
 |
CNN TALKBACK LIVE
Who is Responsible in the Death of 13-Year-Old Girl?; Interview with Charles Barkley
Aired March 20, 2002 - 15:00 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.
ARTHEL NEVILLE, HOST: Hello, everyone. Welcome to TALKBACK LIVE. I'm Arthel Neville. Charles Barkley is in the house today. I'm definitely looking forward to that! You know how he loves to talk and shock. So, buckle up! It could get wild. Among other things, I want to ask him about golf, and why he accused the Masters of blatant racism. And, well, I'm sure you have some things to say to Mr. Barkley too, so call us at 1-800-310-4CNN, or e-mail us at talkback@cnn.com. Sir Charles will be here shortly.
We are also keeping an eye on that dog mauling trial in California. The jury is deliberating right now so, as soon as the verdict comes down, we'll bring it to you. The defense attorney in that case nearly got herself thrown in jail. We'll talk about that. But first, Brittanie Cecil should have turned 14 today. It's her birthday. Instead, her friends and family are in mourning. Last Saturday night, Brittanie was hit in the head with an errant hockey puck while attending a Columbus Blue Jackets game. She died Monday of her injuries. Now Mimi Jung (ph), from affiliate station, KING picks up the story.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
MIMI JUNG, KING REPORTER (voice-over): It happened 15 rows above the ice about halfway through the second period of the Blue Jackets hockey game. As one of the players tries to make a goal, the puck flies over the high glass and into the stands, bouncing off a spectator before hitting 13-year-old Brittanie Cecil in the head. She was able to walk out of the arena but two days later, she died.
At had her middle school in West Alexandria, Ohio, Brittanie's classmates are in shock.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I thought, what am I going to do?
JUNG: They describe the 8th grader as outgoing, friendly, a spirited even teenager on the cheerleading squad. Her best friend was one of the last people who saw her alive.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: She said that she loved me and I told her I loved her too, and then she said good-bye and the next we knew she was gone.
JUNG: There are explicit warnings about the danger of being hit by hockey pucks. On the back of every ticket it says pucks flying into spectator areas can cause serious injury. One of Brittanie's relatives in Federal Way, who has cheated death in the past feels it is not fair her life was cut short.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I've had so many chances to live, the gunshot and the coma and all the other stuff. But she never had any chance at all. She just ended at 13. That's it.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
NEVILLE: And sadly that hockey game was an early birthday present from Brittanie's dad. What a sad story. It is really unfortunate, and we have all been wondering how is it that Brittanie could get hit at the game and walk away from that game and die two days later, and here with some answers on that is CNN medial correspondent, Dr. Sanjay Gupta. Good afternoon.
Good afternoon.
SANJAY GUPTA, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Good afternoon, Arthel.
NEVILLE: Of course the coroner's report just came down. We know about that, that the report says the damage due to arteries broken when she was hit in the head, swelling of the brain.
GUPTA: That's right, and this is a pretty unusual injury. thankfully, This isn't something we see a lot of. But basically in a nutshell, I actually brought a puck here to show. This is a six-ounce puck, standard puck.
These can get going up to 120 miles per hour during these games. This one was actually deflected off in this particular situation, but still, quite a bit of force. Typically what might happen in a situation like this is in this case it actually hit the left side of the head, the brain will actually shift backwards and then forwards, backwards and forwards a couple of times. That can cause bleeding at the sight where the puck hit as well as in the back of the brain. That subsequently can cause a lot of swelling in the brain and that can be a problem.
In this particular situation, what happened is a pretty unusual thing. With the whip-lash injury, an artery in the back of the neck, called the vertebral artery back here, actually clotted off, actually blocked itself off, and did not provide any blood flow to the brain anymore. That is why after two days she succumbed to that and was not able to get enough blood flow to her brain and passed on.
NEVILLE: Because that is what the coroner's report said, that the injuries occurred when her head snapped back?
GUPTA: That's right. They saw a pretty unusual thing but they actually found a clot in that blood vessel that is common with severe whip lash injuries.
NEVILLE: Now, the question now is what about other parents? Because her parents took her to the hospital, then she was released. How do you know, when should a parent insist on further treatment and say, no I am not letting you release my child, check further?
GUPTA: Right. I tell you one thing, and we deal with this a lot in neurosurgery, in my area. One of the things is if your kid, child or any situation has actually been struck by something, knocked out and then woken up and seems to be fine, seems to be normal, it is still a very good reason to be concerned about that. That can actually be an early sign of bleeding on the brain, that initial being knocked out. Make sure to go to the hospital, get a CAT scan.
It's important to get a CAT scan early because if there is a blood collection that could be actually surgically operated on and removed. In Brittanie's case again, this is an unusual injury, thankfully. This isn't something that should have typically caused her to die and I am not sure that there would have been anything differently that could have been done had the parents said let's get her there quicker.
She was taken by ambulance from the arena to the hospital, so they were concerned enough about it to get her there quickly, but talking to the hospital officials by the time she actually got there, despite the fact that we see her walking around and holding her head, by the time she got to the hospital things had changed dramatically and she started to show some very significant signs of neurological injury.
NEVILLE: So just to clarify, if a child gets hit or has some sort of head injury at a sporting event you do want to take it seriously.
GUPTA: Do not blow it off especially if they get knocked out, and they get right up and seem to be fine. You see this a lot. Still be concerned, get that CAT scan and get them to the hospital. That is an important thing.
NEVILLE: Absolutely, Doctor Gupta. Thank you. It's always nice to have you here.
GUPTA: Thank you, Arthel.
NEVILLE: OK, I will talk to you later, thank you.
In the meantime, I want to bring in another guest here. We are talking about Tommy Malone. He is a personal injury lawyer here in Atlanta. His practice is limited to catastrophic personal injury and wrongful death litigation, and also with us the sports commentator and New York attorney Rob Becker. How are you -- are you there, Rob?
All right. We are getting Mr. Malone in here now, and getting all miked up. Mr. Malone, I want to thank you for being here this afternoon. And first I want to ask you, we have a hockey ticket here, or a game here, so a ticket from a game. What do you do? The fine print on the back says warning, it warns fans of what you need to look out for, that there is a possibility that hockey pucks could be flying around and there is danger. Is that enough?
TOMMY MALONE, PERSONAL INJURY LAWYER: Well that's enough to put you on notice that there is a danger and give the owners of the event a position to occupy that you had knowledge of the danger that was present. But all of this is going to boil down to what is reasonable on the part of promoters, what is reasonable on the part of the spectator, both have responsibility.
NEVILLE: So, then, what is reasonable? Let's start with the promoters.
MALONE: Well, it would be decided on a case-by-case basis. In the "New York Times" today, on this story, they reported that in Michigan State University they use to have nets behind the glass. But in order to have video cameras up there they took the nets down. They had the nets there to protect people, and if they did not advise people that they were subjecting themselves to a more dangerous risk, somebody got hit because of the absence of the net would certainly have an excellent case against that promoter.
NEVILLE: So then in this case, do you think there is a personal injury case here?
MALONE: It is too early to tell but deserves thorough investigation. You know the question comes, if there is going to be protection to a certain level, why not have some other protection up high enough to protect anybody from such an event?
NEVILLE: And you mention the idea of the sports fans being a little bit more responsible. What should a sports fan do going to a hockey game and pucks could be flying around?
MALONE: When they are flying 100 to 120 miles per hour there is very little to do to get out of the way of one, but you need to at least be aware of it. Give some thought to where you are sitting. I know when you buy your ticket, you sit where they give you, but every case, every tragedy deserves its own individual investigation and the answers may vary from place to place.
There was a case in Nashville, Tennessee where a volunteer stick boy, was working voluntarily, and he was standing between a guarded area by where the team sits, the hockey puck went through that area and hit him and he suffered severe injuries and the court in that case said that the promoter, which happened to be the municipality, was 75 percent responsible and he was 25 percent responsible. So he got less than a full amount and that is assumption of the risk or comparative negative, conduct of the injured victim is weighed against the other under the aspect of what is reasonable on the part of each one.
NEVILLE: Right, so you have to be careful. There is a warning there, take precautions, basically.
MALONE: And the promoter, or whoever sponsored it has to take reasonable precautions to guard against that which might occur, and the fact there have only been three or four deaths as a result of hockey pucks does not mean that we do not have to take any precautions.
NEVILLE: Absolutely. Stay right there for me if you will, and what I'd like to you about when we come back -- at home, I'd like you to get on the phones and get the e-mails going, because I'd like to know, will this detour you from going to further hockey games? Want to hear from you after the break.
(APPLAUSE)
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
NEVILLE: Welcome back to TALKBACK LIVE. We are talking about the unfortunate accident where a 13-year-old Brittanie Cecil died after being hit by a hockey puck at a hockey game. And Rob Becker, I want to bring you in on this conversation now. Do you think this will deter people from going to hockey games at all?
ROB BECKER, SPORTS COMMENTATOR: Perhaps in the short-term, when it's everyone's mind they might get a little fearful, but in the long run, I think things will go back to the way they were. People will understand the sheer freakishness of this accident, and they will go back going to hockey games, just as people get in their cars and get on the highway, even though that someone close to them may have died in a car crash -- they might for a few days not get on the road, but then they do. And that's just the way, you know, human nature is.
NEVILLE: What do you think about that?
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I think I agree with him. I mean, you can get hit by a car as you're walking on the road, and we have many accidents like that, and we know people who just died because they walked on the road. So this is comparable to that, and if you can walk on the road without any extra protection, I don't think this one single event is going to deter anybody from going to a game, or wear helmets and things like that.
NEVILLE: And then, besides, Rob, it's not like hockey fans are petite flowers, you know, they're not, you know, just delicate people.
BECKER: Well, in this case, unfortunately, this young girl was kind of a petite flower, in both parts of that, but in the end, you know, you have to remember that this is a league that's been around for 85 years, and no one's ever died before. And you have to also remember what Mr. Gupta, Dr. Gupta just said, how unusual this was, and I think that the precautions that Blue Jackets take, it's like the rest of the league of having higher glass at the ends is very reasonable.
In the end, there is somewhat of an assumption of the risk by this young girl. I mean, she knew this problem existed -- or this risk existed, and she took it. You know, in the end, she could choose to sit somewhere else, or if no such seats far away are available, you know, she can decide not to go there.
But in a sense, when a team is looking at their fans, they have fans by the first base line who knows that a bat might hit them, there's sort of an understanding that they won't sue them, because if they thought that they would sue them, they wouldn't let them sit there. But when they go ahead and let them sit there, there's an understanding, OK, you know the risk, you won't sue me.
So if they then turn around and sue the team, whether hockey or baseball, it's almost like they've broken this implicit contract between the two sides that everybody knows the risks, you took the risk, OK, and you won't sue me. And I think that's really the case here, unfortunately, and my heart really goes out to this family.
NEVILLE: You know, because this is what I wanted to say, Rob, we are talking about technicalities. We just showed a picture of Brittanie Cecil. When I see her, I am saddened.
BECKER: Sure.
NEVILLE: It's sad. How do you -- I mean, this is really an unfortunate thing. How does this make you feel, knowing that this wonderful little girl is no longer here because she just wanted to go to a hockey game?
BECKER: You know, it makes me feel awful. You know, I have a young son too, and I start to envision my son being hurt in a game -- and as I said in your answer to your earlier question, maybe I wouldn't want to take my son to a game for, you know, a month or two. But I think after a while I will take my son to games and I'll advise him to be very careful. Maybe I'll sit -- in fact, I think what I would do, particularly with a child is I would be more likely to sit further away from the action when I had a child with me, than I would if I was by myself or with other adults.
NEVILLE: Patty, what do you have to say?
PATTY: I just recently went to a NHL hockey game, you know, in the Dallas American Airlines Arena, and I had a hockey puck fly right in front of us, one row, three seats over. And you know, it was pretty dangerous, but I do not think that that would ever stop me from going to the game, because I think the NHL does a great job in all the disclaimers, because not only it is on the ticket, but it is also on like the marques and just placards outside the arena, and also on the monitors also, just flashing between every period and stuff like that. So I think they do a great job with that.
NEVILLE: OK, thank you for that comment. Robin from Arizona, you are on the air, what do you have to say?
ROBIN: You know, Arthel, I really feel bad for the family involved in this, but I grew up in a professional hockey family and I have been a fan of the game since I was a little kid. And I have been hit by a couple of pucks; I'm still here, I'm still breathing. Like she said, there are warnings that are out there that let people know that this does happen. And I do feel bad for the family.
I do not believe a personal injury lawsuit would really be advantageous for the family, because it's going to tie it up in court and i would cause more problems for them through the grieving process. What maybe they can do is get together with the NHL board of governors or the NHL commissioner and come up with some safety things like maybe these nets, putting them back up again. With this arena that it happened in, this is a brand new arena, state-of-the-art, and they thought about a lot of these things, but you know, there's warnings out there, this is going to happen, and it's a shame that it caused this young girl's death.
NEVILLE: Mr. Malone, I'd like you to comment on Robin's call.
MALONE: Well, that would be great if people who controlled the safety of others would just get together with the victims and come up with some new safety plans. Unfortunately, it does not usually work that way in our society. Most of the people I represent are very interested not just in getting some compensation, but the primary motivation is to make sure this does not happen to somebody else.
And I think that when we say this is just one isolated instance, the AP story today says this is the fourth reported death from a hockey puck since 1979. Now, if it is a foreseeable circumstance and reasonable things could be taken to protect people while not interfering with the game, why not put up a net, you know, to protect someone.
BECKER: Well, what about the many fans who might object to having higher glass or netting? I mean, you know, maybe this is not the best time to raise it, but in a sense that's part of the societal burden, is that people do not want the sort of netting and glass up, and that gets taken into account.
And you know, the people who sit where this young girl was sitting, they are demonstrating by sitting there that they like it the way it is, and if they don't like it that way they can sit somewhere else. I mean, that's the unfortunate fact.
NEVILLE: Rob, what do you have to say about that?
ROB: Well, I agree with the gentleman who's on line from New York, because there is a reality, that as a hockey fan you sit at the end behind the net so you can see your team rush the net or your team defend their net. And it's a better hockey game there. It's better. I know friends who take baseball gloves to the game so that if an errant puck comes, they're going to be able to be the one that gets the souvenir, the game puck that came over the glass. So I think putting nets up not only detracts from the game for the video viewers, but it's also going to detract from the fans who have chosen to sit there, who have assumed the risk and who are enjoying the game because they get that rush toward them.
NEVILLE: Dean, you are on the air. Go ahead, caller.
DEAN: Yes, this is an issue that auto racing actually had to address for the protection of fans. If higher protection of walls or nets is going to impede the TV cameras, then I feel the networks and leagues should get together on this. For one thing, baseball is yet another sport that might have to address this in the future. And one thing, parents, education of parents is very important, and maybe even issue of smaller children as far as the awareness of the parents and the awareness of the children is very important at these games. And my thoughts and prayers do go out to this family, and God bless America.
NEVILLE: OK, Dean, thanks a lot for your comments. And Don, I'd like you to stand up and tell us what you think about all of this.
DAN: Sitting back here listening and learning a few things, also. We are talking about hockey. Also, the same problem comes up in baseball. You have an area that's protected and you have an area that is not protected. You have to pay attention sometimes, because if you don't, a line drive, a foul ball, a hockey puck, whatever, if you have been to the games -- although tracing one at 120 miles per hour is just a little bit rough to do. But is there a complete answer to it? I don't know if there is or not. Sometimes part of the sport is a little bit of the danger part. Also makes it entertaining also, so who knows?
NEVILLE: Well, thank you for those comments, Don. And Rob, you heard what Don had to say. I'll give you 20 seconds to respond.
BECKER: Well, you know, I don't think there's too much to add, really, to what has been said so far. I just think -- I go back to when I was sitting in the first baseline at Yankee Stadium in the second row last year, and I kept thinking to myself, my God, if a guy lets go of a bat or his bat breaks, I could be killed. And so I said to myself, don't bury your head in your scorecard, don't spend too much time with your hot dog, keep your eye on home plate at all times.
And you know, this is somewhat comparable to what happened to this girl. Unfortunately, you have got to pay attention if you are in a dangerous spot.
NEVILLE: Rob Becker, Tommy Malone, thanks so much for joining us here today.
And up next, the man of the hour is here on TALKBACK LIVE, the man who's always ready to tell it like he thinks it is, Charles Barkley. This would be a good time for you to get on your calls, your phones, to get comments in, e-mail, you know how to work it. Give us a call, we'll be back in a moment.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
NEVILLE: Oh yeah. Welcome back to TALKBACK LIVE, everybody, I'm Arthel Neville.
You know what, it would take me the rest of the show to list the records and honors and sports stats earned by former NBA and Olympic star Charles Barkley, and chances you already know all that anyway, so I'm not going to do it. He once called himself the ninth wonder of the world, and he has a habit of speaking out, speaking loud and speaking often. Now a sports analyst on TNT and TBS, he just might be the most quotable athlete since Yogi Berra. Let's welcome Charles Barkley.
Hello, how are you? Nice to see you.
CHARLES BARKLEY, SPORTS ANALYST: How are you doing. NEVILLE: You know what? I'm doing fine. You have a seat. Are you ready for this?
BARKLEY: I'm ready for this, I look forward to it.
NEVILLE: Are you sure you're ready for this?
BARKLEY: I like to speak for myself.
NEVILLE: All right. I know you do. Well, you look nice as usual.
BARKLEY: Thank you. Thank you.
NEVILLE: Checking out the whole outfit there.
BARKLEY: You know, black makes you look skinny.
NEVILLE: You know what, I'm glad you mentioned that, because I need to talk to you about something regarding that, but we're going to save that for the second block of this conversation. OK? In the meantime, the first question for you: You are fearless, you run the risk of losing endorsements like anybody else, but you don't care. Why is that?
BARKLEY: Well, I think number one, I have enough money.
(LAUGHTER)
BARKLEY: And that's honest. I feel like I'm at a stage in my life where -- you know, that is a very interesting question you just asked, because I think we as players, especially black players, we have to stand up more, because it's not just about the money. I mean, I think we've all made enough money, and I think for me, for black people and for white people, it's time for myself and other athletes to stand up and try to represent them.
I mean, there comes a time where it doesn't really -- eventually, it's going to come down, you are going to make enough money, you got to try to make a difference, and for black people and poor white people, I am willing to stand up and speak for them, because they are not in that position.
NEVILLE: They don't have a voice.
BARKLEY: They don't have a voice.
NEVILLE: So Charles, that freedom of speech, is that why you posed on the cover of "Sports Illustrated" in what looks like you are breaking out of chains or shackles that were worn by slaves?
BARKLEY: Well, that was actually just kind of a fluke thing, because I was not originally supposed to take that picture, and it wasn't supposed to go into "Sports Illustrated." Another really prominent black athlete was supposed to take that picture, and he was afraid. And when I figured out he was afraid, he said he did not want to take the heat and the criticism, and I said, "if you got something positive to say, you should be able to say it."
I don't think that I'm right all the time, but every person in this world has an opinion. And I'm not afraid to say my opinion. I can handle the criticism if people don't agree with me, but I'm not -- I don't think everybody is going to agree with everything I say, but it is going to come from the heart and it is going to be honest, I can promise you that.
NEVILLE: OK. Well, you know, you speak your mind and I know that there are a lot of people out here who want to talk to you, so I am going to walk on over here to Luke from Texas, and let you ask Sir Charles a question -- Luke.
LUKE: Charles, first, I'm a big fan of yours and I've always loved watching you play. What will it take -- there has been a talk of you making a comeback to the NBA, which that would be awesome, what would it take for you to get back into the NBA? And second, would there be any chance for you and Michael to play together, because that would be awesome?
BARKLEY: Well, Luke, number one, thank you for the compliment. When Michael Jordan called me, when he was thinking about coming back, I was obviously honored and flattered, because I love Michael like a brother. He has always been there for me. I would do anything for him. And I originally started working out with him with the intention of coming back to play. But the more I got into it, I just didn't have that confidence in my body. I retired.
No. 1, I was already going to retire, but I tore the quads in my left knee. And I just did not feel like my body could handle the grind of playing 82 games.
Now, saying that, I wanted to play desperately, because it would have been a great honor to play with Michael because of our friendship. But I felt like I would have let him down in the long run. And I am glad he came back. And I just hope he can get his body healthy.
NEVILLE: And, of course, we all feel that way.
We have got to take a break right now. Don't go anywhere. We'll be back with more Sir Charles.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
NEVILLE: And welcome back. We are talking with Charles Barkley now, an outspoken studio analyst for TNT and TBS. And you know what? Here on TALKBACK LIVE, the talking does not stop during the commercial.
Dusty, you are on the spot. What did you say to Sir Charles in the commercial break? Stand up and tell everybody.
RUSTY: I told him that white boys can ball, too, and that if he wanted to go one-on one, I'll take him.
(LAUGHTER)
BARKLEY: Well, you know what, Dusty? First of all, you are a little too little for me.
(LAUGHTER)
BARKLEY: But let me tell you something. If a guy can play, God bless him. I played with guys like Mike Gminski, Dan Majerle, Tom Chambers, who could flat out get it done. And I don't care what color a guy is. If he can play, he can play.
(APPLAUSE)
NEVILLE: Can you still ball?
BARKLEY: My body, I am starting to feel pretty good about myself. I am playing against some old guys though. I'm not playing against young guys. See, I'm playing against old guys. Young guys would kick my butt. But the young guys, I leave them alone. But old guys, I can kill them.
NEVILLE: All right, well, you still got. You still got it.
BARKLEY: Yes, a little bit.
NEVILLE: A little bit.
I want to pull up a full-screen graphic now from TNT.TV, where you said that: "Golf is by far the most racist sport in the world. Golf has to defend its lifelines." What do you say to that, or why did you say that?
BARKLEY: Well, because it is true.
I mean, golf is, by far and away, the most racist sport in the world. There's golf courses blacks, women, Jewish people, Catholic people cannot join. You can play there, but you can't join there for the simple fact of your religious beliefs or the color of the skin. And golf is, by far and away, the most racist sport in the world.
People assume it's better because Tiger is out there, but Tiger is the only black person on the PGA Tour. And it's unfortunate, but that's the way it is. People should be able to play golf wherever they want to. People should be able to join wherever they want to. And your religious beliefs or the color of your skin should not have anything to do with it.
NEVILLE: Right.
I want to get to something regarding political correctness, because you said that a lot of your former teammates and current star athletes do not speak out enough. Do challenge them?
BARKLEY: I don't challenge them, to be honest with you, because it is not really up to me to tell other men what to do. We as people, we have to make our own decisions. I think, though, when you get in a position of power and you -- And that all comes back to economics, because, if you do not have money to fall back on, you really can't say what you want to say, because you are going to get fired. I love my job at TNT, but if they fire me, I'm going to still be all right.
Justin, Sir Charles.
JUSTIN: First of all, Tiger is not the only black guy on the PGA Tour. I think Vijay Singh has a done a magnificent job on the PGA Tour.
BARKLEY: Well, first of all, Vijay is not black, but you can lump him with us if you want to. God bless Vijay. And, see, that's the point. You were able to name another. So you named two of them.
JUSTIN: But you said it did not matter if you were black or white as far as the basketball thing went. It mattered as skill level. And golf is all about a skill level. If you can qualify for the PGA Tour, your score is low enough, you are going to get on the PGA Tour. There is no subjectivity to it. It is a completely objective scoring system.
BARKLEY: That sounds good in theory, but black people have not been allowed the opportunities to compete with white guys in golf on the level.
Think about it. First of all, blacks have not had an opportunity to excel at golf. We have been denied opportunities forever. Guys have not been able to play and join golf clubs. And, like I say, I do not care who plays golf. I love to play golf. I play golf every day. But it's about evening the playing field.
You can defend golf, but you have got to admit, golf is by, far and away, the most racist sport in the history of civilization.
NEVILLE: Sir Charles, before we go, I have got to run a clip from your halftime show with Kenny Smith. You guys were chatting. I want to run that right now and I have got to talk to you about something.
BARKLEY: OK.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP, TNT)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: You didn't look like Amistad. You might be looking a little fat in that picture. He wasn't in shape, so I was a little bit mad.
BARKLEY: He caught me at a bad angle. If you catch me from the front, you can see a little six-pack working there.
SMITH: But we still love you, though.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: We do.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
NEVILLE: I just want to say congratulations. You have lost, what, 45 pounds so far? I need to talk to you about that six-pack thing. It is not happening. It is not happening at the moment.
BARKLEY: It is deep, deep in there.
NEVILLE: It is deep in there. But I did not see it. I don't care what angle you took on that picture. It was not happening. I just had to tell you that.
BARKLEY: Oh, no problem, baby.
(LAUGHTER)
BARKLEY: I just want to say, everybody has got an opinion. And I am going to say what I want to say. It's funny. When we were ready to come onto the show, CNN glossed over this little thing that said that minorities get a lot less health care and they are treated differently and unfair.
And I think the same thing about poor white people, because I am not trying to make it be about black and white. I represent black people and poor white people. We're not getting the type of same health care as rich white folks. We're not getting the same economic opportunities as rich white folks. And I am not just going to sit back and let it happen. And if people get mad, they will get over it.
NEVILLE: Why do you think that people are shocked when they hear those types of stories?
BARKLEY: Because it does not concern them.
If people got money, they are not concerned about black people or poor white folk. They don't care about them, because everybody kind of lives in their own little world. But they have to become more oblivious -- not oblivious. That's not the right word. They have to become more open and try to help other people. And black people get treated bad. And poor white people get treated bad. And that is the truth of the matter. And if somebody don't like it, they will get over it, like I say.
NEVILLE: Are you going to run for governor?
BARKLEY: I would like to run for governor just to open up everybody's eyes to opportunities and try to make it a level playing field, because, right now, for poor people and black people, we are not on a level playing field with rich white folks.
NEVILLE: Were you always like this? Like, let's say go back to when you were 13 years old and somebody picked on your best friend, did you take up for your best friend?
BARKLEY: I did not, because I didn't know. And now I have been around the world and I see the world from the top. I started at the bottom. And now I see the world from the top. And it has not gotten better for people at the bottom. Unless you can run and dunk a basketball or run for 1,000 yards, you have great opportunities, but that is not the norm. That is an exception to the rule.
And it is up to me. And I learned this from Ramsey Lewis. He said, "When you get to the top, don't forget to send the elevator back down." And I'm going to send the elevator back down. Hey, I could sit at home and be rich and famous and have a big house and a big car, but that is not what life is about.
NEVILLE: Thank you.
BARKLEY: You're welcome.
NEVILLE: Come back anytime, OK? Thank you very much, Sir Charles Barkley. It's been a pleasure having you here on the show. And I hope you come back. I know you will.
All right, up next: You might think that the lawyers on "Ally McBeal" are strange, but wait until you see how the defense attorney in a dog-mauling trial is conducting her case. We will talk about Nedra Ruiz's oddball strategy right after this.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
NEVILLE: And welcome back, everybody. I'm Arthel Neville.
Marjorie Knoller is on trial in Los Angeles for the death of a woman who was mauled by one of Knoller's 100-pound dogs, charged with second-degree murder. Knoller faces between 15 years and life in prison. Now, the jury is deliberating her guilt or innocence at this hour.
The court sure did get a show from Knoller's attorney, Nedra Ruiz. Ruiz has managed to test the court's patience by accusing the prosecution of currying favor from the gay community, accusing the judge of caving in to political pressure, and crawling on the floor during her opening statement to imitate the dogs.
Here to talk about this strange defense: our trial consultant, Andrew Sheldon; and Jeralyn Merritt, one of the principle defense attorneys in the Timothy McVeigh case.
Now, tell me this. Is Nedra Ruiz the kind of attorney someone facing life in prison would want?
Jeralyn, I will start with you.
JERALYN MERRITT, CRIMINAL DEFENSE ATTORNEY: Well, she is passionate. She is fearless. She is zealous. She is an advocate for her client. And the thing that really comes across with her is her passion, that she really believes in her defendant's innocence. It may turn out to be very helpful for her client. And her client is a lawyer herself.
NEVILLE: Mr. Sheldon, what do you think? ANDREW SHELDON, TRIAL CONSULTANT: I think she is probably passionate. I think she is probably ineffective. And whether it does anything for her clients to distract from what is going in the courtroom, I would doubt.
NEVILLE: You doubt that. So it is not going to work in her...
SHELDON: It's not an effective defense strategy now. It never has been. Jurors are much brighter than that.
NEVILLE: Right. They kind of see through all of that.
SHELDON: Sure.
NEVILLE: The bells and whistles just don't cut it anymore.
SHELDON: Not anymore.
NEVILLE: People are more savvy. I see.
So, let's talk about the notion that the prosecution is pandering to the gay community. What is your response to that?
SHELDON: I think the prosecution is prosecuting the case. I don't think -- I have not heard anything that says to me that they are pandering to the gay community.
NEVILLE: Jeralyn?
MERRITT: I don't know whether they are pandering to the gay community or not. But I do think it suggests that politics are involved somehow. We know that they had to get a change of venue from San Francisco down to Los Angeles. And I believe the case is overcharged. I don't see a murder charge here at all, even second degree.
And so I think that there is something going on here. And there has pressure brought to bear, but I can't say by who.
NEVILLE: So, what do you think would be an appropriate conviction?
MERRITT: Well, I do not know if anything would be an appropriate conviction. I think what would be appropriate for the jurors to consider would be, at most, the involuntary manslaughter, which would be consciously disregarding a risk.
But to say second degree murder, which involves a finding of what the law calls implied malice or a depraved heart, knowing that somebody would die and not doing anything about it, I think that it just really stretching it in this case.
NEVILLE: Is it stretching it?
SHELDON: I think it is on the edge. But if you consider some of the facts that I understand came out about their connection to the Aryan dude in prison that they have adopted as their son, the white Aryan business, and the attack-dog ring that we have all heard about...
MERRITT: What does that have to do with her guilt or innocence on these charges, though? What does her lifestyle or who she associated with have anything to do with it?
SHELDON: I don't think it's a matter of lifestyle. I think it's a matter of who she is and what she was keeping these dogs for. And I think that is really relevant.
MERRITT: Well, she is not on trial for who she is. She is on trial for her actions and her mental state at the time of those actions. And that is what the jury has to decide.
NEVILLE: I would like to get a caller in on this conversation at the moment.
Caller, you are on air. Go ahead.
CALLER: Good afternoon.
NEVILLE: Hi, Dave. How are you?
CALLER: Just fine.
I have to say, I am calling from California, and we have been privy to watch a lot of the coverage of the attorneys presenting in court. And, yesterday, the judge saw fit to sit Ms. Ruiz down twice during the closing argument of the district attorney. She at times has a wild-eyed look on her face. And I am just wondering if there's -- at some point when another attorney or an officer of the court is going to turn around and say, "You know, this is a courtroom; this is not stage theater."
Aside from that, Ms. Ruiz seems to be taking some plays from the Johnnie Cochran playbook, including calling in the sexuality card, if you will, during news conferences during the breaks. For some reason here, she is not addressing the true facts. And she is also not, I don't feel from what I have seen, acting appropriately in the courtroom.
This is a dignified, serious matter, where a woman lost her life. And to theatrically play this up in mock recreations almost seems absurd and not very dignified, as well as not very well centered. Any comment on that?
MERRITT: I do.
NEVILLE: Actually, you know what, Jeralyn? Hold that thought, because I would like you to answer that question. I've got to go to a break right now.
And I will get to you, Jennifer, when we come back as well.
Don't go anywhere. More on this conversation after the break. (COMMERCIAL BREAK)
NEVILLE: And welcome back. We are talking about that dog- mauling case in California.
Jeralyn, before the break, you had something to say.
MERRITT: Yes, I was going to respond to the caller who said that she was not treating this as a proper forum or as a courtroom, and talking about the judge's telling her that he was going to incarcerate her if she did not sit down.
I think it is important for people to recognize that a lawyer has a duty to make appropriate objections, even if it is during closing argument. I think that the judge's reaction, by saying to her, "Sit down or I am going to throw you in jail," was an overreaction and was also not professional or proper. Her objection may or may not have been valid, but there was no reason to treat her that way.
She pointed out last night on television that the prosecution had objected during her closing argument and did not receive the same treatment from the judge.
NEVILLE: What do you have to say?
SHELDON: Oh, I just think it is incredibly inappropriate what she did. And I think the judge's comments, while they may have been a little overboard, he has seen it for several weeks now and was probably at the end of his rope as well.
NEVILLE: Quickly, isn't it interesting that it is taking so long to deliberate this case?
SHELDON: I think so. I think many people expected this jury to come back more quickly. We know L.A. juries are very deliberative and very intelligent and very savvy. So there are some issues that they want to know more about.
NEVILLE: Well, we will definitely keep an eye on it.
Thank you so much for being here with me this afternoon.
SHELDON: Thanks for having me.
NEVILLE: Andrew Sheldon and Jeralyn Merritt -- thank you, Jeralyn, as well. Glad you could be with me here as well.
And thanks to all of you for watching today. I would really like to have you join me in the studio here at the CNN Center. The tickets are free. And, plus, I will give you a discount.
(LAUGHTER)
NEVILLE: All you need to do is call.
I'm Arthel Neville. And I will be back tomorrow at 3:00 Eastern with TALKBACK LIVE.
TO ORDER A VIDEO OF THIS TRANSCRIPT, PLEASE CALL 800-CNN-NEWS OR USE OUR SECURE ONLINE ORDER FORM LOCATED AT www.fdch.com
Interview with Charles Barkley>
|
|
|
|
|
