PAULA ZAHN NOW
Interview With Michael Jackson's Attorney
Aired January 21, 2004 - 20:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
PAULA ZAHN, CNN ANCHOR: Good evening. Thanks so much for joining us tonight. I'm Paul Zahn.
The world, the news, the names, the faces, and where we go from here on this Wednesday, January 21, 2004.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
ZAHN (voice-over): Tonight, my talk with White House Chief of Staff Andrew Card on the State of the Union, Iraq, and WMDs, and the reelection threat posed by the Democrats.
Plus, in an exclusive interview, I'll be talking with Michael Jackson's new defense attorney, Benjamin Brafman.
(...)
So, what was Michael Jackson's new attorney thinking when the singer jumped on the top of his SUV and blew kisses to the crowd following his arraignment. That's just one of the questions we have for Benjamin Brafman who is here for an exclusive interview.
He is under a gag order, so he may have to answer some questions quite gingerly, but he is free to talk about dealing with celebrities in court. And that's where we begin tonight. Welcome, good to see you.
BENJAMIN BRAFMAN, MICHAEL JACKSON'S ATTORNEY: Thank you very much.
ZAHN: Let's talk a little bit about strategies that you would use in defending Martha Stewart, Kobe Bryant, Michael Jackson. There clearly is a different vernacular when you have a celebrity client.
BRAFMAN: They really is. Celebrity clients are unlike any other clients, because they are generally very powerful individuals who are used to doing things their own way. And they are usually are in control or have a dozen people around them who are exercising control.
When you inject them into the criminal justice system, as a criminal defense lawyer, you need to seize control suddenly it's a new experience for them and sometimes depending on the personality that you're dealing with, a difficult job to have them understand the process.
ZAHN: Well, you also alienate a lot of people in the process too, as you try to seize control. Are you having that problem right now in the Michael Jackson case?
BRAFMAN: Not at all. To be perfectly honest with you, everyone around Michael Jackson has been terrific, including Michael. I think they recognize that I'm good at what I do. I'm going to try to do a very good job along with Mark Geragos. We have had not one minute of difficulty or divisiveness.
ZAHN: When you defended Sean "Puffy: Combs, you made a decision to put him on the stand. From when you know these other case we just brought out, Martha Stewart, Kobe Bryant, Scott Peterson, would you do that to them?
BRAFMAN: I think each case has to be viewed individually and is fact specific. What the charges are, who the client is, whether they can handle it and what they are going to say. If a client like "Puffy," who was not guilty, can get up on the witness stand and explain what happened and is a very impressive, articulate man as he is, it was a very easy call. "Puffy" wanted to testify from the moment I met him. I think he won the trial.
ZAHN: Martha Stewart, would you put her on the stand?
BRAFMAN: Depends.
ZAHN: What would concern you about putting her out there? BRAFMAN: Well, the first thing that concerns me, she is charged with lying. So, obviously she spoke to the government once, they didn't believe her. A lot depends on what evidence they have that she wasn't telling the truth then and can they show that she's not going to be telling the truth again.
Martha Stewart, however, is such a powerful, important lady and such a success story that I think the pressure is going to be to put her on the stand because I think jurors are going to expect her to explain herself.
ZAHN: Now, I don't know if you know as little as Jeffrey Toobin does about female's handbags, but as an attorney representing her, would you happily have her walk into the courtroom with a multithousand, some said 6 to $12,000 bag in the courtroom. Would that be an arrogant gesture as far as you would be concerned?
BRAFMAN: I'll tell you the truth, given who Martha Stewart is and how much money people think she has, and how successful she is, I don't think you can dress down Martha Stewart. You can't take her to Kmart and tell her to pick out a cheap outfit so that she won't embarrass any of the jurors. This is Martha Stewart.
ZAHN: She can afford it.
BRAFMAN: To be honest with you, until the press labeled it as a $6,000 handbag, it could have been an $800 handbag.
ZAHN: Most guys wouldn't know the difference.
BRAFMAN: That's true.
ZAHN: Women who covet them would. Let's move on.
BRAFMAN: Women who covet them aren't going to be on that jury.
ZAHN: No, that is true.
Let's move on to the circus atmosphere we saw unfold on Friday. Is that something you regretted that your client Michael Jackson, after the arraignment, got up on that SUV and basically performed to his fans?
BRAFMAN: I don't think that's what happened. And I think that's what everyone thinks happened. I was there.
ZAHN: What happened?
BRAFMAN: I think what Michael Jackson saw is what we saw. The fans were pushing forward so severely, that it was becoming a dangerous situation. And what these people wanted, some traveled from Japan, from Germany, from Poland, they slept on the streets since 4:00 in the morning, they wanted to see Michael Jackson and the fences were beginning to fall down.
I mean, all of the correspondents were moving away, because we thought this was going to be like a South American soccer match where suddenly people were being trampled.
Michael Jackson, getting up on the car did two things, one, he showed some love and respect for people who flew thousands of miles away. Two, the moment he got up on the car, the people backed away and the crisis was resolved. He got in the car and pulled away. It's not going to have an impact on the outcome of the trial.
I will also tell you this was not a sign of disrespect by Michael Jackson. He's just not made that way. He's a very, very courteous, sweet, person who just doesn't think in a venal or corrupt way.
ZAHN: But that's what people thought. They thought it was sheer arrogance on his part. That he was tweaking the judge. A judge who was mad he showed up late, by the way, in court that day.
BRAFMAN: Well, I will also tell you that Michael being late that day had nothing to do with Michael Jackson who was ready to come to court since 5:00 in the morning. Moving Michael Jackson is like moving the president of the United States. It's crazy. It's absolutely nuts. He's got nothing to do with it.
There are a hundred people involved and they blew it. It will never happen again. There is nothing that Michael Jackson wanted to do to show disrespect. This is a terrific judge, he's a fair man. He ruled in Michael's favor in a number of important issues. Michael Jackson just is not a disrespectful person.
ZAHN: Let's come back to the final question of the scene you described and how spontaneously you say it unfolded. We actually have a shot of Mark Geragos, the co-lead counsel, in the crowd, standing very close to him by that SUV.
It has been reported that he actually asked Jackson to get down off the SUV. Was the defense team in control? And is that true.
BRAFMAN: We were both asking him to get down, because we were concerned that this area was becoming unsafe. This wasn't me being concerned, this was going to affect the trial or how it's going to be perceived.
I'm telling you, I was in the middle of that. It was a frightening moment. There were thousands of people pushing forward. The temporary fencing that had been erected by the local police was giving way. I think you can ask Jeffrey Toobin and Dan Abrams and anyone else who was in the circle there. There was only a couple of seconds before all hell was going to break loose and people were going to be completely out of control.
I wanted him down, yes, but what was going through my mind was, let's get Michael out of here, because this is becoming dangerous. To be perfectly honest with you, I wanted to get out of there, too.
ZAHN: A lot of speculation about the role that the Nation of Islam is playing in this case. Can you characterize for us the extent of its involvement, not only in this case, but in Michael Jackson's life?
BRAFMAN: I don't know what role, if any, they have in Michael Jackson's life, if they have one, I have not been exposed to it. They are involved with security. And to be honest with you, I'm not a fan of the Nation of Islam, my kids and grandchildren live in Israel. I'm a proud Jew. And I know what their policy has been.
But I will tell you, in all due respect, if they were not there that morning, and if they were not there to supplement the security of the local police, we could have had a real tragedy on our hands. Because I was watching young kids about to be trampled and it was only the Nation of Islam security people that were able to hold people back until Michael left the scene.
I don't know what is going on in terms of his personal life. It's really known of my business. I will tell you, they treated me with extraordinary courtesy and respect. They have not tried to interfere at all in terms of any legal decision. Mark Geragos and I are completely in control of that. So, to the extent that they are working with Michael in his personal life, that's really none of my business.
ZAHN: So you say, there's absolutely no evidence of their being involved in any maneuvering, legal maneuvering at all, at least vis-a- vis your involvement.
BRAFMAN: Legal maneuvering, none whatsoever. His personal life, do they have a presence, are they dealing with them? Sure. But that's really -- and that's not why I was retained, I was brought out there, as I said, to someone very recently, I was brought out there to defend Michael Jackson, not to convert Michael Jackson.
So, to the extent that they are providing security and they are doing a good just, that's fine. If they become a disruptive influence in any way, I would make my opinion known about that and I think my opinion counts.
ZAHN: Your reputation is very well known as an attorney who has gotten a lot of his clients out of very sticky situation. Are you allowed to tell us tonight, in the general sense, what you see as your biggest challenge in defending Michael Jackson now as your case moves forward?
BRAFMAN: I'm not allowed to comment on the facts. I think the biggest challenge I have in this case, or any other case that becomes a media circus is not to lose my focus. My focus is not the case, not the atmosphere, not the media spin on what is going on.
I had an observation during the "Puff Daddy" case one day, when I said to someone in passing, look, if we have a bad press day tomorrow but at the end of the day we win, no one is going to remember the bad press day. If have you a good press day, but because of that good press day you compromised your strategy or you lost focus, then if you lose the case no one is going to remember the good press day.
So, my job is not to get a good press day. My job is to keep my focus. Mark and I are working very well together on this. And we think at the end of the day if we do our job it will have a good outcome. But I'm not prepared or permitted -- although prepared not permitted to comment on the facts.
ZAHN: Just a final thought of all the manipulation that is involved with this information. First of all, CNN is among a number of news organizations try to get the affidavit of the search of the house unsealed so we have a better understanding of what it was, these prosecutors were looking for.
Characterize for us how accurate some of the stories surrounding that affidavit been?
BRAFMAN: Well...
ZAHN: Have readers and television viewers have an accurate picture of what this case is about?
BRAFMAN: I don't think so. It never is completely accurate picture to the outside world. Whenever you're in a case, whether it's Puff Daddy or Martha Stewart or Jayson Williams or Kobe Bryant or Scott Peterson or Michael Jackson. When you're in the courtroom, sometimes you are stunned when you understand what the real facts are, when you've been reading about what the facts are supposed to be for a long time. And I think that's one of the reasons the judge in his wisdom, I think he was right on the money, and he's a very good judge.
I think the judge ruled that the affidavit stays sealed. I think this case should be decided in the courtroom and not on what someone said three months ago in order to obtain a search warrant where the standards are a lot different. So, I think if we try this case in the courtroom and you have a very strict judge who is not going to permit cameras in the courtroom, lowers the temperature, lessens the circus atmosphere, I think if we get a fair trial that's all Michael Jackson wants is a day in court.
ZAHN: Do you think you have a fair minded judge?
I mean, there were some things done in the courtroom on Friday that some people perceived as hurting you. They didn't allow you to participate in the arraignment. By the same token he was pretty tough on the prosecution that day too wasn't he.
BRAFMAN: This is a terrific judge. My papers were filed for permission to proceed. The judge did not have all of them immediately in front of them. When he got them he allowed me to participate. He listened to both sides. He was fair, I think he was correct, and he has a terrific judicial temperament. And he is a no-nonsense judge that has a great reputation. And that's what I like on the courtroom.
ZAHN: In a scale to 10 of all celebrities representative in terms of difficulty this upcoming case, Michael Jackson, where would you put it?
BRAFMAN: I think Michael Jackson is in a league of his own as a celebrity. He is a world super star. And when you are a world super star that carries with it a little bit more responsibility and perhaps difficulty, but not as a result of the case. As a result of the exposure.
ZAHN: So would that be a 12 -- on a one to 10 scale.
BRAFMAN: I like Michael Jackson and I'm going to do my best to help him.
ZAHN: Thank you for your time tonight.
Source: http://www.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0401/21/pzn.00.html
Interview With Michael Jackson's Attorney
Aired January 21, 2004 - 20:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
PAULA ZAHN, CNN ANCHOR: Good evening. Thanks so much for joining us tonight. I'm Paul Zahn.
The world, the news, the names, the faces, and where we go from here on this Wednesday, January 21, 2004.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
ZAHN (voice-over): Tonight, my talk with White House Chief of Staff Andrew Card on the State of the Union, Iraq, and WMDs, and the reelection threat posed by the Democrats.
Plus, in an exclusive interview, I'll be talking with Michael Jackson's new defense attorney, Benjamin Brafman.
(...)
So, what was Michael Jackson's new attorney thinking when the singer jumped on the top of his SUV and blew kisses to the crowd following his arraignment. That's just one of the questions we have for Benjamin Brafman who is here for an exclusive interview.
He is under a gag order, so he may have to answer some questions quite gingerly, but he is free to talk about dealing with celebrities in court. And that's where we begin tonight. Welcome, good to see you.
BENJAMIN BRAFMAN, MICHAEL JACKSON'S ATTORNEY: Thank you very much.
ZAHN: Let's talk a little bit about strategies that you would use in defending Martha Stewart, Kobe Bryant, Michael Jackson. There clearly is a different vernacular when you have a celebrity client.
BRAFMAN: They really is. Celebrity clients are unlike any other clients, because they are generally very powerful individuals who are used to doing things their own way. And they are usually are in control or have a dozen people around them who are exercising control.
When you inject them into the criminal justice system, as a criminal defense lawyer, you need to seize control suddenly it's a new experience for them and sometimes depending on the personality that you're dealing with, a difficult job to have them understand the process.
ZAHN: Well, you also alienate a lot of people in the process too, as you try to seize control. Are you having that problem right now in the Michael Jackson case?
BRAFMAN: Not at all. To be perfectly honest with you, everyone around Michael Jackson has been terrific, including Michael. I think they recognize that I'm good at what I do. I'm going to try to do a very good job along with Mark Geragos. We have had not one minute of difficulty or divisiveness.
ZAHN: When you defended Sean "Puffy: Combs, you made a decision to put him on the stand. From when you know these other case we just brought out, Martha Stewart, Kobe Bryant, Scott Peterson, would you do that to them?
BRAFMAN: I think each case has to be viewed individually and is fact specific. What the charges are, who the client is, whether they can handle it and what they are going to say. If a client like "Puffy," who was not guilty, can get up on the witness stand and explain what happened and is a very impressive, articulate man as he is, it was a very easy call. "Puffy" wanted to testify from the moment I met him. I think he won the trial.
ZAHN: Martha Stewart, would you put her on the stand?
BRAFMAN: Depends.
ZAHN: What would concern you about putting her out there? BRAFMAN: Well, the first thing that concerns me, she is charged with lying. So, obviously she spoke to the government once, they didn't believe her. A lot depends on what evidence they have that she wasn't telling the truth then and can they show that she's not going to be telling the truth again.
Martha Stewart, however, is such a powerful, important lady and such a success story that I think the pressure is going to be to put her on the stand because I think jurors are going to expect her to explain herself.
ZAHN: Now, I don't know if you know as little as Jeffrey Toobin does about female's handbags, but as an attorney representing her, would you happily have her walk into the courtroom with a multithousand, some said 6 to $12,000 bag in the courtroom. Would that be an arrogant gesture as far as you would be concerned?
BRAFMAN: I'll tell you the truth, given who Martha Stewart is and how much money people think she has, and how successful she is, I don't think you can dress down Martha Stewart. You can't take her to Kmart and tell her to pick out a cheap outfit so that she won't embarrass any of the jurors. This is Martha Stewart.
ZAHN: She can afford it.
BRAFMAN: To be honest with you, until the press labeled it as a $6,000 handbag, it could have been an $800 handbag.
ZAHN: Most guys wouldn't know the difference.
BRAFMAN: That's true.
ZAHN: Women who covet them would. Let's move on.
BRAFMAN: Women who covet them aren't going to be on that jury.
ZAHN: No, that is true.
Let's move on to the circus atmosphere we saw unfold on Friday. Is that something you regretted that your client Michael Jackson, after the arraignment, got up on that SUV and basically performed to his fans?
BRAFMAN: I don't think that's what happened. And I think that's what everyone thinks happened. I was there.
ZAHN: What happened?
BRAFMAN: I think what Michael Jackson saw is what we saw. The fans were pushing forward so severely, that it was becoming a dangerous situation. And what these people wanted, some traveled from Japan, from Germany, from Poland, they slept on the streets since 4:00 in the morning, they wanted to see Michael Jackson and the fences were beginning to fall down.
I mean, all of the correspondents were moving away, because we thought this was going to be like a South American soccer match where suddenly people were being trampled.
Michael Jackson, getting up on the car did two things, one, he showed some love and respect for people who flew thousands of miles away. Two, the moment he got up on the car, the people backed away and the crisis was resolved. He got in the car and pulled away. It's not going to have an impact on the outcome of the trial.
I will also tell you this was not a sign of disrespect by Michael Jackson. He's just not made that way. He's a very, very courteous, sweet, person who just doesn't think in a venal or corrupt way.
ZAHN: But that's what people thought. They thought it was sheer arrogance on his part. That he was tweaking the judge. A judge who was mad he showed up late, by the way, in court that day.
BRAFMAN: Well, I will also tell you that Michael being late that day had nothing to do with Michael Jackson who was ready to come to court since 5:00 in the morning. Moving Michael Jackson is like moving the president of the United States. It's crazy. It's absolutely nuts. He's got nothing to do with it.
There are a hundred people involved and they blew it. It will never happen again. There is nothing that Michael Jackson wanted to do to show disrespect. This is a terrific judge, he's a fair man. He ruled in Michael's favor in a number of important issues. Michael Jackson just is not a disrespectful person.
ZAHN: Let's come back to the final question of the scene you described and how spontaneously you say it unfolded. We actually have a shot of Mark Geragos, the co-lead counsel, in the crowd, standing very close to him by that SUV.
It has been reported that he actually asked Jackson to get down off the SUV. Was the defense team in control? And is that true.
BRAFMAN: We were both asking him to get down, because we were concerned that this area was becoming unsafe. This wasn't me being concerned, this was going to affect the trial or how it's going to be perceived.
I'm telling you, I was in the middle of that. It was a frightening moment. There were thousands of people pushing forward. The temporary fencing that had been erected by the local police was giving way. I think you can ask Jeffrey Toobin and Dan Abrams and anyone else who was in the circle there. There was only a couple of seconds before all hell was going to break loose and people were going to be completely out of control.
I wanted him down, yes, but what was going through my mind was, let's get Michael out of here, because this is becoming dangerous. To be perfectly honest with you, I wanted to get out of there, too.
ZAHN: A lot of speculation about the role that the Nation of Islam is playing in this case. Can you characterize for us the extent of its involvement, not only in this case, but in Michael Jackson's life?
BRAFMAN: I don't know what role, if any, they have in Michael Jackson's life, if they have one, I have not been exposed to it. They are involved with security. And to be honest with you, I'm not a fan of the Nation of Islam, my kids and grandchildren live in Israel. I'm a proud Jew. And I know what their policy has been.
But I will tell you, in all due respect, if they were not there that morning, and if they were not there to supplement the security of the local police, we could have had a real tragedy on our hands. Because I was watching young kids about to be trampled and it was only the Nation of Islam security people that were able to hold people back until Michael left the scene.
I don't know what is going on in terms of his personal life. It's really known of my business. I will tell you, they treated me with extraordinary courtesy and respect. They have not tried to interfere at all in terms of any legal decision. Mark Geragos and I are completely in control of that. So, to the extent that they are working with Michael in his personal life, that's really none of my business.
ZAHN: So you say, there's absolutely no evidence of their being involved in any maneuvering, legal maneuvering at all, at least vis-a- vis your involvement.
BRAFMAN: Legal maneuvering, none whatsoever. His personal life, do they have a presence, are they dealing with them? Sure. But that's really -- and that's not why I was retained, I was brought out there, as I said, to someone very recently, I was brought out there to defend Michael Jackson, not to convert Michael Jackson.
So, to the extent that they are providing security and they are doing a good just, that's fine. If they become a disruptive influence in any way, I would make my opinion known about that and I think my opinion counts.
ZAHN: Your reputation is very well known as an attorney who has gotten a lot of his clients out of very sticky situation. Are you allowed to tell us tonight, in the general sense, what you see as your biggest challenge in defending Michael Jackson now as your case moves forward?
BRAFMAN: I'm not allowed to comment on the facts. I think the biggest challenge I have in this case, or any other case that becomes a media circus is not to lose my focus. My focus is not the case, not the atmosphere, not the media spin on what is going on.
I had an observation during the "Puff Daddy" case one day, when I said to someone in passing, look, if we have a bad press day tomorrow but at the end of the day we win, no one is going to remember the bad press day. If have you a good press day, but because of that good press day you compromised your strategy or you lost focus, then if you lose the case no one is going to remember the good press day.
So, my job is not to get a good press day. My job is to keep my focus. Mark and I are working very well together on this. And we think at the end of the day if we do our job it will have a good outcome. But I'm not prepared or permitted -- although prepared not permitted to comment on the facts.
ZAHN: Just a final thought of all the manipulation that is involved with this information. First of all, CNN is among a number of news organizations try to get the affidavit of the search of the house unsealed so we have a better understanding of what it was, these prosecutors were looking for.
Characterize for us how accurate some of the stories surrounding that affidavit been?
BRAFMAN: Well...
ZAHN: Have readers and television viewers have an accurate picture of what this case is about?
BRAFMAN: I don't think so. It never is completely accurate picture to the outside world. Whenever you're in a case, whether it's Puff Daddy or Martha Stewart or Jayson Williams or Kobe Bryant or Scott Peterson or Michael Jackson. When you're in the courtroom, sometimes you are stunned when you understand what the real facts are, when you've been reading about what the facts are supposed to be for a long time. And I think that's one of the reasons the judge in his wisdom, I think he was right on the money, and he's a very good judge.
I think the judge ruled that the affidavit stays sealed. I think this case should be decided in the courtroom and not on what someone said three months ago in order to obtain a search warrant where the standards are a lot different. So, I think if we try this case in the courtroom and you have a very strict judge who is not going to permit cameras in the courtroom, lowers the temperature, lessens the circus atmosphere, I think if we get a fair trial that's all Michael Jackson wants is a day in court.
ZAHN: Do you think you have a fair minded judge?
I mean, there were some things done in the courtroom on Friday that some people perceived as hurting you. They didn't allow you to participate in the arraignment. By the same token he was pretty tough on the prosecution that day too wasn't he.
BRAFMAN: This is a terrific judge. My papers were filed for permission to proceed. The judge did not have all of them immediately in front of them. When he got them he allowed me to participate. He listened to both sides. He was fair, I think he was correct, and he has a terrific judicial temperament. And he is a no-nonsense judge that has a great reputation. And that's what I like on the courtroom.
ZAHN: In a scale to 10 of all celebrities representative in terms of difficulty this upcoming case, Michael Jackson, where would you put it?
BRAFMAN: I think Michael Jackson is in a league of his own as a celebrity. He is a world super star. And when you are a world super star that carries with it a little bit more responsibility and perhaps difficulty, but not as a result of the case. As a result of the exposure.
ZAHN: So would that be a 12 -- on a one to 10 scale.
BRAFMAN: I like Michael Jackson and I'm going to do my best to help him.
ZAHN: Thank you for your time tonight.
Source: http://www.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0401/21/pzn.00.html