ANDERSON COOPER 360 DEGREES
Dana Reeve's Cancer; Lung Cancer; Tennessee Prison Break; Shuttle Lands in California; Jackson Attorney Speaks about Juror Comments
Aired August 9, 2005 - 19:00 ET
...
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
RAY HULTMAN, JUROR IN MICHAEL JACKSON TRIAL: I don't think anybody was really talked out of an opinion. It was more of presenting additional information about the timing of certain events.
I mean, it's very conceivable that somebody can appear to be telling the truth, and their demeanor would indicate that and everything else. But, when you look at past history of the accuser, there's some doubt. There's room for reasonable doubt.
LARRY KING, CNN HOST: And you didn't let...
HULTMAN: Really, that's what it was all about.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COOPER: That was Ray Hultman, a juror in the Michael Jackson trial, right after the pop star was acquitted of child molestation. Now, eight weeks after the verdict, he's had an about-face.
Hultman and another juror, Eleanor Cook, now say they believe Jackson was guilty and they're accusing other jurors of pressuring them into reaching the not-guilty verdict. Joining me from Birmingham, Alabama, to respond to the new allegations, Michael Jackson's attorney Thomas Mesereau.
Thanks for being on the program. Do you put any stock in these allegations?
THOMAS MESEREAU, ATTORNEY FOR MICHAEL JACKSON: I put none in them. I think they're ridiculous. I think they're an embarrassment to the system.
COOPER: Why do you think they're making them?
MESEREAU: I can only guess. I think, while they were on the jury, and while they were subject to court orders, they conducted themselves in a responsible and honorable fashion. I think they deliberated as they were told to do, and I think they were fair, conscientious jurors.
Now, two months have gone by since they were released from their obligations as jurors. They've been free to talk to other people, read whatever they want, watch whatever TV show they want. And they've decided to write books and try and, apparently, from what I've heard, approach movie producers.
So I have grave questions about what they're saying now.
COOPER: They both say they were suspicious of the testimony of Debbie Rowe, Michael Jackson's ex-wife, a prosecution witness. They say that -- or one of the guys says that he thinks she changed her tune, and I quote, "through promises, promises that she was going to be able to see her children more."
Were promises made to Debbie Rowe?
MESEREAU: None that I know of, and none that anybody on my team has ever heard of. See, these people are now speculating, they're speculating about all sorts of improprieties that they never thought about when they were deliberating with the other jurors.
Both of them registered not guilty verdicts 14 times, not five, not 10, 14, 10 felony counts and four lesser included misdemeanor counts. And they stated in open court to Judge Melville that this was their verdict. So I really question what they're doing. I think it's absurd.
COOPER: Debbie Rowe was fighting a custody battle with Michael Jackson before the testimony. That's now been dropped. How'd that happen?
MESEREAU: You say it's been dropped. I'm not his lawyer in that case, and I don't know what's been dropped. I've been told there've been settlement discussions, they've been quite amicable. And that's the last I've heard about it.
COOPER: Do you know if they've reached a settlement?
MESEREAU: I really don't know. I know they were close to one. I knew they were talking about one. And I think they were both operating in a very amicable way. But I really don't know.
COOPER: When asked why these two jurors switched their votes to not guilty, Elly Cook, one of them, basically says she was intimidated by the foreman, Paul Rodriguez. She says that Rodriguez told her, and I quote, "If I could not change my mind or go with a group or be more understanding, he would have to notify the bailiff, the bailiff would have to notify the judge, and the judge would have me removed."
She's basically saying it was more important for her to stay on the jury than it was to protect a child. If she really believed the evidence showed Jackson was guilty, would there be any justification for voting otherwise?
MESEREAU: She's not making any sense. You know, this is a mature, frankly from what I can see, a pretty nice person. I think she's suddenly become misguided in what she's saying or and what's she doing.
She, again, said not guilty 14 times. She then gave some press interviews and said she looked for the proof and couldn't find it. She appeared on "LARRY KING" long after the verdict with the other jurors, and they all seemed to be acting in a very cooperative, friendly way.
All of a sudden, now while she's on the verge of writing a book, apparently, she changes her tune. It's very suspicious and very embarrassing. I don't think these people realize how bad they look, because even people who were siding with the prosecution during this trial are making fun of these two jurors.
COOPER: Well, she's apparently marketing some t-shirt with -- I guess she's trademarked some slogan that she came up with. Her book, I guess, is going to be called "Guilty as Sin, Free as a Bird." This other guy has a book called "The Deliberator," I guess, coming out.
I mean, you're basically saying they're lying. Can you take action against them? Would you?
MESEREAU: No. I have no intention of taking action against them. And I don't know what motivates them. I don't know why, you know, two months later, they've suddenly decided it's in their interest to run to a lot of TV shows and go against what they said in the jury room...
COOPER: If there's a...
MESEREAU: ... and what they said in open court.
COOPER: If there's a civil trial against Michael Jackson, do these jurors play a role? Could they?
MESEREAU: No, no role whatsoever. Their job was done when they were released from jury duty. For five months, they were not allowed to talk to anyone about the case. They were not allowed to watch any TV shows or read any books or magazines or newspapers about the case. And approximately two months ago, all those restrictions dissolved. They were released from jury duty. Judge Melville thanked them for the service they had rendered, and I do think they did it honorably, and I think they've carefully deliberated with their fellow jurors, and with everyone in the jury room. It couldn't have been that bad because they never complained.
COOPER: Thomas Mesereau, appreciate you joining us.
Want to take a look at what happened inside that jury room from another perspective. Joining me by phone from Crestview, Florida, former Jackson juror Melissa Herard. Appreciate you being with us.
Melissa, you've heard what these other two jurors were saying. Was the -- was the -- that jury room, was it so contentious?
MELISSA HERARD, FORMER JACKSON JUROR: At some points, it was, because they had, you know, Ray and Ellie and Kat did portray that they did feel that Michael Jackson was guilty.
COOPER: Were they intimidated by Paul Rodriguez, the foreman?
HERARD: No, nobody was intimidated by anybody. You know, we were all adults in there.
COOPER: Were they told that the bailiff would be called, and that they would be thrown off the jury if they continued to say that Jackson was guilty?
HERARD: No. What they were told is that -- that if we could not come up with a unanimous decision and stuff, then Paul was instructed by the judge to -- we'd have to let the bailiff know, and then the bailiff would let the judge know that we were at a standstill, waiting further instructions from the judge.
And they just never, you know, especially Ellie, she -- that -- I'm so upset with them that they're doing this now. And if they felt that strongly, then they should have, you know, stayed their stand. But they couldn't show us. We asked them if you believe he is so guilty, here's the room full of evidence. Would you please go in there and show us where it shows that he's guilty? Because we went through all of it, and not one thing pointed towards his guilt.
COOPER: Well, that's -- that's what Hultman said at the time, that the evidence simply wasn't there. Tom Mesereau is still standing by. Tom, you're listening in. Comments?
MESEREAU: Yes. Remember, by law, jurors have an obligation and are ordered by the trial judge to deliberate. They must discuss the case with their fellows jurors in a cooperative, good faith manner. And if they refuse to, they can be thrown off the jury for not deliberating.
So if the foreperson in this case was concerned about their refusal to discuss or cooperate, he would have had a valid point. And appellate courts have upheld the dismissal of jurors who refuse to deliberate with their fellow jurors.
COOPER: Melissa, do you feel like these two jurors violated their oath, essentially? I mean, they are claiming now that they voted other than what they believed?
HERARD: Well, I think Ellie, from the very beginning, even before the trial started, I think she had an agenda.
COOPER: What agenda?
HERARD: Because she -- agenda of writing a book, and everything, because we confronted her in the jury room at the end, and we -- one of the jurors asked her, "Ellie, are you writing a book?" And she turned around, she said, "Well, yes, I am. I'm 79 years old and I can do what the h I want to." And we confronted her. I said, you're not supposed to be, you know, doing any of this stuff, you know. And she's like, "Well, I'm not writing a book about the trial. I'm writing a memoir on my life."
COOPER: Melissa, how many jurors are writing books? Are you writing a book?
HERARD: No. We're not -- I haven't approached anybody, and I don't have nothing signed. I'm waiting until after our obligation of the 90 days is over.
COOPER: Melissa Herard, appreciate you joining us. And Thomas Mesereau, as well.
MESEREAU: I do appreciate it.
COOPER: Thanks very much.
Source: http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/050.../09/acd.01.html
Dana Reeve's Cancer; Lung Cancer; Tennessee Prison Break; Shuttle Lands in California; Jackson Attorney Speaks about Juror Comments
Aired August 9, 2005 - 19:00 ET
...
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
RAY HULTMAN, JUROR IN MICHAEL JACKSON TRIAL: I don't think anybody was really talked out of an opinion. It was more of presenting additional information about the timing of certain events.
I mean, it's very conceivable that somebody can appear to be telling the truth, and their demeanor would indicate that and everything else. But, when you look at past history of the accuser, there's some doubt. There's room for reasonable doubt.
LARRY KING, CNN HOST: And you didn't let...
HULTMAN: Really, that's what it was all about.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COOPER: That was Ray Hultman, a juror in the Michael Jackson trial, right after the pop star was acquitted of child molestation. Now, eight weeks after the verdict, he's had an about-face.
Hultman and another juror, Eleanor Cook, now say they believe Jackson was guilty and they're accusing other jurors of pressuring them into reaching the not-guilty verdict. Joining me from Birmingham, Alabama, to respond to the new allegations, Michael Jackson's attorney Thomas Mesereau.
Thanks for being on the program. Do you put any stock in these allegations?
THOMAS MESEREAU, ATTORNEY FOR MICHAEL JACKSON: I put none in them. I think they're ridiculous. I think they're an embarrassment to the system.
COOPER: Why do you think they're making them?
MESEREAU: I can only guess. I think, while they were on the jury, and while they were subject to court orders, they conducted themselves in a responsible and honorable fashion. I think they deliberated as they were told to do, and I think they were fair, conscientious jurors.
Now, two months have gone by since they were released from their obligations as jurors. They've been free to talk to other people, read whatever they want, watch whatever TV show they want. And they've decided to write books and try and, apparently, from what I've heard, approach movie producers.
So I have grave questions about what they're saying now.
COOPER: They both say they were suspicious of the testimony of Debbie Rowe, Michael Jackson's ex-wife, a prosecution witness. They say that -- or one of the guys says that he thinks she changed her tune, and I quote, "through promises, promises that she was going to be able to see her children more."
Were promises made to Debbie Rowe?
MESEREAU: None that I know of, and none that anybody on my team has ever heard of. See, these people are now speculating, they're speculating about all sorts of improprieties that they never thought about when they were deliberating with the other jurors.
Both of them registered not guilty verdicts 14 times, not five, not 10, 14, 10 felony counts and four lesser included misdemeanor counts. And they stated in open court to Judge Melville that this was their verdict. So I really question what they're doing. I think it's absurd.
COOPER: Debbie Rowe was fighting a custody battle with Michael Jackson before the testimony. That's now been dropped. How'd that happen?
MESEREAU: You say it's been dropped. I'm not his lawyer in that case, and I don't know what's been dropped. I've been told there've been settlement discussions, they've been quite amicable. And that's the last I've heard about it.
COOPER: Do you know if they've reached a settlement?
MESEREAU: I really don't know. I know they were close to one. I knew they were talking about one. And I think they were both operating in a very amicable way. But I really don't know.
COOPER: When asked why these two jurors switched their votes to not guilty, Elly Cook, one of them, basically says she was intimidated by the foreman, Paul Rodriguez. She says that Rodriguez told her, and I quote, "If I could not change my mind or go with a group or be more understanding, he would have to notify the bailiff, the bailiff would have to notify the judge, and the judge would have me removed."
She's basically saying it was more important for her to stay on the jury than it was to protect a child. If she really believed the evidence showed Jackson was guilty, would there be any justification for voting otherwise?
MESEREAU: She's not making any sense. You know, this is a mature, frankly from what I can see, a pretty nice person. I think she's suddenly become misguided in what she's saying or and what's she doing.
She, again, said not guilty 14 times. She then gave some press interviews and said she looked for the proof and couldn't find it. She appeared on "LARRY KING" long after the verdict with the other jurors, and they all seemed to be acting in a very cooperative, friendly way.
All of a sudden, now while she's on the verge of writing a book, apparently, she changes her tune. It's very suspicious and very embarrassing. I don't think these people realize how bad they look, because even people who were siding with the prosecution during this trial are making fun of these two jurors.
COOPER: Well, she's apparently marketing some t-shirt with -- I guess she's trademarked some slogan that she came up with. Her book, I guess, is going to be called "Guilty as Sin, Free as a Bird." This other guy has a book called "The Deliberator," I guess, coming out.
I mean, you're basically saying they're lying. Can you take action against them? Would you?
MESEREAU: No. I have no intention of taking action against them. And I don't know what motivates them. I don't know why, you know, two months later, they've suddenly decided it's in their interest to run to a lot of TV shows and go against what they said in the jury room...
COOPER: If there's a...
MESEREAU: ... and what they said in open court.
COOPER: If there's a civil trial against Michael Jackson, do these jurors play a role? Could they?
MESEREAU: No, no role whatsoever. Their job was done when they were released from jury duty. For five months, they were not allowed to talk to anyone about the case. They were not allowed to watch any TV shows or read any books or magazines or newspapers about the case. And approximately two months ago, all those restrictions dissolved. They were released from jury duty. Judge Melville thanked them for the service they had rendered, and I do think they did it honorably, and I think they've carefully deliberated with their fellow jurors, and with everyone in the jury room. It couldn't have been that bad because they never complained.
COOPER: Thomas Mesereau, appreciate you joining us.
Want to take a look at what happened inside that jury room from another perspective. Joining me by phone from Crestview, Florida, former Jackson juror Melissa Herard. Appreciate you being with us.
Melissa, you've heard what these other two jurors were saying. Was the -- was the -- that jury room, was it so contentious?
MELISSA HERARD, FORMER JACKSON JUROR: At some points, it was, because they had, you know, Ray and Ellie and Kat did portray that they did feel that Michael Jackson was guilty.
COOPER: Were they intimidated by Paul Rodriguez, the foreman?
HERARD: No, nobody was intimidated by anybody. You know, we were all adults in there.
COOPER: Were they told that the bailiff would be called, and that they would be thrown off the jury if they continued to say that Jackson was guilty?
HERARD: No. What they were told is that -- that if we could not come up with a unanimous decision and stuff, then Paul was instructed by the judge to -- we'd have to let the bailiff know, and then the bailiff would let the judge know that we were at a standstill, waiting further instructions from the judge.
And they just never, you know, especially Ellie, she -- that -- I'm so upset with them that they're doing this now. And if they felt that strongly, then they should have, you know, stayed their stand. But they couldn't show us. We asked them if you believe he is so guilty, here's the room full of evidence. Would you please go in there and show us where it shows that he's guilty? Because we went through all of it, and not one thing pointed towards his guilt.
COOPER: Well, that's -- that's what Hultman said at the time, that the evidence simply wasn't there. Tom Mesereau is still standing by. Tom, you're listening in. Comments?
MESEREAU: Yes. Remember, by law, jurors have an obligation and are ordered by the trial judge to deliberate. They must discuss the case with their fellows jurors in a cooperative, good faith manner. And if they refuse to, they can be thrown off the jury for not deliberating.
So if the foreperson in this case was concerned about their refusal to discuss or cooperate, he would have had a valid point. And appellate courts have upheld the dismissal of jurors who refuse to deliberate with their fellow jurors.
COOPER: Melissa, do you feel like these two jurors violated their oath, essentially? I mean, they are claiming now that they voted other than what they believed?
HERARD: Well, I think Ellie, from the very beginning, even before the trial started, I think she had an agenda.
COOPER: What agenda?
HERARD: Because she -- agenda of writing a book, and everything, because we confronted her in the jury room at the end, and we -- one of the jurors asked her, "Ellie, are you writing a book?" And she turned around, she said, "Well, yes, I am. I'm 79 years old and I can do what the h I want to." And we confronted her. I said, you're not supposed to be, you know, doing any of this stuff, you know. And she's like, "Well, I'm not writing a book about the trial. I'm writing a memoir on my life."
COOPER: Melissa, how many jurors are writing books? Are you writing a book?
HERARD: No. We're not -- I haven't approached anybody, and I don't have nothing signed. I'm waiting until after our obligation of the 90 days is over.
COOPER: Melissa Herard, appreciate you joining us. And Thomas Mesereau, as well.
MESEREAU: I do appreciate it.
COOPER: Thanks very much.
Source: http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/050.../09/acd.01.html