[Bill Hemmer, Cnn Anchor:] The suspense is now building now in the murder trial of a Kennedy cousin. Jurors deciding the fate of Michael Skakel will start their fourth day of deliberations later this morning in Norwalk, Connecticut. Meanwhile in San Diego, emotional testimony on Thursday from the mother of 7-year-old Danielle van Dam, at the trial of the child's accused killer David Westerfield, a neighbor of the van Dams. Let's talk more about both trials right now with Jeffrey Toobin, our CNN legal analyst. Good morning to you.
[Jeffrey Toobin, Cnn Legal Analyst:] Howdy.
[Hemmer:] Three days of deliberations.
[Toobin:] It's not that long. I mean for a month, for a month plus trial it's really not extraordinary, although today is Friday. Juries often, often come back on Friday. So...
[Hemmer:] A sartorial response.
[Toobin:] This tie that I'm wearing today is my official verdict tie. In about the last five trials I've covered on the day I wore this tie, the verdict came back.
[Hemmer:] Is that a prediction?
[Toobin:] You know, you can't argue with science, Bill. I mean, I'm not going to.
[Hemmer:] And I'm not going to try. Listen, jurors have asked for several things back from the judge and part of what they asked for this week was a rereading of the closing arguments and the judge denied that. Legal 101, why can't you do that?
[Toobin:] Just asked for the prosecutor's summation.
[Hemmer:] Correct.
[Toobin:] Which, as we discussed, was very powerful. Judges differ in that. What Judge Kavanewsky decided was that because arguments are not evidence in the trial, the jury couldn't hear it again. Juries actually often ask for summations to be repeated. The judges differ in whether they allow it. He didn't allow it. Interestingly, the jury also asked yesterday for the definition of guilt and innocence, and that really suggests that they're getting to the end, because their previous requests have been about evidence. Now they seem to be getting down to brass tacks.
[Hemmer:] But, you know, it is so darned difficult to predict what jurors are going to do.
[Toobin:] It is really hard because you never know whether these requests are because they're persuaded by the evidence or they didn't believe it in the first time. You don't know whether 10 jurors want to hear something or just one or two. It's very tough.
[Hemmer:] What does it tell defense attorneys when deliberations some had predicted this thing would be over within hours? I think at one time we may have talked about that, as well.
[Toobin:] Absolutely.
[Hemmer:] What does it tell defense attorneys that you're on day three and you're heading straight into day four today?
[Toobin:] Well, I don't think you can draw too much at this point. I think if deliberations go past today, it really suggests there is some disagreement on the jury. Here, end of the week, it's really just not that long when you have a lot of complicated evidence and jurors know they're under public scrutiny. They want to do the right thing.
[Hemmer:] Let's go to San Diego now. I want to talk about the Van Dam case and both parents have been on the stand this week. And just a small clip from yesterday, Brenda van Dam describing how this relationship was made with her neighbor, David Westerfield, the man charged with her daughter's murder.
[Brenda Van Dam, Danielle's Mother:] And then he said, "Why don't you write your and your husband's name down on this piece of paper?" And he said, "I have parties."
[Unidentified Male:] All right...
[Van Dam:] "I have barbecues where the kids come and people bring their own food to cook and I also have family parties and I have adult parties."
[Unidentified Male:] What did you say?
[Van Dam:] I finished writing my name down and gave it to him.
[Unidentified Male:] Why did you do that?
[Van Dam:] I was in the middle of writing it down. I didn't feel like ripping it up and taking it away and being rude.
[Hemmer:] That was Brenda van Dam being questioned by defense attorneys. And quite clearly right now we can see the private lives of these two parents being exposed in this courtroom. How is that relevant at this point?
[Toobin:] Well, you have to wonder now you know why defense attorneys are so unpopular, because this is a very high risk strategy. What the defense is trying to do is suggest that because the parents, as they have now admitted, led what might be called a swinging lifestyle, that they, you know, were involved with other people, that because these people were coming and going through the house on occasion, they were possible suspects in the abduction. What I think is important to point out is there is no evidence at all at this point that anything related to the parents' personal life related to the abduction. I mean there's no evidence backing this up. But I think, you know, the defense attorneys are saying look, this man's on trial for his life. This is a death penalty case. If they can throw the focus somewhere else and maybe they'll produce evidence later in the trial, they can establish some doubt.
[Hemmer:] Are you suggesting as a defense attorney in an all or nothing matter that you have to let it all hang out?
[Toobin:] Absolutely. Defense attorneys can't worry about being popular. That's not their job. But you also have to worry, just as a practical matter, about offending a jury. I mean you have to worry that, you know, if they see these parents who have suffered through the worst ordeal any of us can imagine, losing a 7-year-old child and then be forced to defend their personal life, a matter that the jury may think is utterly irrelevant, you could wind up just getting the jury angry and even making it worse for your client. We have to see whether there's any evidence to back up these suspicions.
[Hemmer:] I hope you have a good weekend.
[Toobin:] You, too, sir.
[Hemmer:] Oh, and you might have a very long day today.
[Toobin:] It could be.
[Hemmer:] We'll see.
[Toobin:] Thank you, Jeff.