PLAY BASKETBALL AND COMMENTED ON
THE GAME WHILE HE WAS USING THE
RING DOORBELL'S MICROPHONE.
LAURA: ROBERT KRAFT PLEADED NOT
GUILTY TO SOLICITING
PROSTITUTION AT A FLORIDA A.
A JUDGE RULED SURVEILLANCE
VIDEOS FROM THE A CANNOT BE USED
IN THIS CASE.
BUT LAWYERS ARE QUESTIONING THAT
AND SUGGESTING KRAFT COULD BE
FACING A FELONY CHARGE INSTEAD
OF TWO MISDEMEANOR COUNTS.
WHAT IS THE ARGUMENT FOR HIS
FOURTH AMENDMENT RIGHTS.
JOINING US, A FORMER PROSECUTOR
AND TRIAL ATTORNEY.
PROSECUTORS TURNING YOU HAVE THE
HEAT.
AS A FORM PROSECUTOR, WALK US
THROUGH WHAT THAT MEANS.
IT SOUNDS LIKE AN UNUSUAL MOVE.
HOW WOULD THIS CHANGE HOW
PROSECUTORS PROCEED IN THE CASE.
>> THIS IS A SURPRISE TO ME.
THERE IS A SUPPRESSION ISSUE.
KRAFT'S ATTORNEYS GOT VIDEO
SURVEILLANCE SUPPRESSED.
PROSECUTORS SAID TO THE JUDGE
THERE WAS NO HUMAN TRAFFICKING.
SO WHEN I READ THE FLORIDA LAWS
I DON'T SEE A FELONY THAT COULD
BE FOR TRAFFICKING.
THERE ARE MISDEMEANORS HE'S
CURRENTLY CHARGED WITH.
IF THEY ARE THREATENING THIS,
WHY DIDN'T YOU CHARGE THE THIRD
DEGREE IN THE FIRST PLACE.
I THINK THIS IS DISINGENUOUS FOR
THE PROSECUTOR TO THREATEN THE
THIRD DEGREE WHEN THEY ONLY
CHARGED MISDEMEANORS TO THIS
POINT.
LAURA: WHAT DO YOU DO IF YOU ARE
IN ROBERT KRAFT'S ATTORNEY'S
SHOES?
WHERE DO YOU THINK YOU WOULD DIG
YOUR HEELS IN ON A DEFENSE WITH
THIS?
>> THE FIRST THING I WOULD DO IS
TELL MR. KRAFT NOT TO BE MAKING
ANY PUBLIC STATEMENTS.
THERE IS A FAIR PROBABILITY THAT
IF THE STATE DOES NOT WIN THE
APPEAL TO REVERSE THE DECISION
FOR THE ADMISSIBILITY OF THE
VIDEOTAPE, THEY WILL NOT BE ABLE
TO PROVE THE CASE.
BECAUSE THAT JUDGE SUPPRESSED
THE FACT HE WAS PULLED OVER AND
IDENTIFIED.
THEY WOULD NOT HAVE KNOWN FOR
SURE THAT IT WAS ROBERT KRAFT
RSH UNTIL THEY PULLED HIM OVER
AND I.D.'D HIM.
THERE HAS BEEN NO DISCUSSION IN
THE MEDIA ABOUT ARE THEY WILLING
TO TESTIFY?
THERE IS A CHANCE THIS CASE
WON'T BE ABLE TO STAND ON ITS
OWN MERITS.
LAURA: WHEN THE JUDGE RULED THE
POLICE DID NOT HAVE A SNEAK AND
PEEK WARRANT.
WHAT DO YOU DO WITH THE FIVE
DAYS OF TAPE THAT WERE ROLLED ON
AT THE DAY A WHICH CAUGHT WHO
KNOWS WHAT ON SURVEILLANCE.
DOES ALL THAT GO AWAY IF THE
WARRANT WASN'T PROPER?
KRAFT'S ATTORNEYS, THEY ARE
TALKING ABOUT HOURS AND HOURS OF
TAPE.
>> THE JUDGE'S RULING PREVENTS
IT FROM BEING USED IN A
PROSECUTION AGAINST THE
DEFENDANT.
BUT IT'S NOT THAT THE VIDEO WILL
BE DESTROYED.
MAYBE THERE WILL BE SOME CIVIL
PIECES WHERE THAT COULD BE USED.
THOSE ARE GREAT QUESTIONS.
BUT THE GREATEST IMPACT ON THE
COURT'S RULING IS IT CAN'T BE
USED IN THE PROSECUTION AGAINST
CRAFT.
IF THIS VIDEO CANNOT BE USED BY
THE PROSECUTOR, I DON'T KNOW HOW
THEY WILL PROVE THE CASE AGAINST
KRAFT.
ARE THEY GOING TO TURN TO THE
PEOPLE GIVING THE SEXUAL FAVORS?
WILL THEY BE ABLE TO IDENTIFY
ROBERT KRAFT WITHOUT JUST THE
MEDIA REPORTS?
ALL GREAT ISSUES FOR KRAFT AND
THE DEFENSE TEAM.
THEY DID A GREAT JOB SO FAR.
LAURA: THERE IS ALSO THE ISSUE
OF AT LEAST FOUR PEOPLE WHO
LEGITIMATELY RECEIVED MASSAGES
WITH THEIR CLOTHES OFF WHEN
CAMERAS WERE ROLLING.
YOU GO IN AND YOU THINK YOU ARE
GETTING A MASSAGE.
WHAT CAN BE DONE ABOUT THAT AND
WHERE WILL IT GO FROM HERE?
>> THAT IS THE EXACT REASON WHY
THE JUDGE GRANTED THE MOTION TO
SUPPRESS THE VIDEOTAPE.
HE SAYS THAT'S UNREASONABLE.
HE'S GOT FOUR PEOPLE WALKING
INTO A BUSINESS ESTABLISHMENT
FOR LEGAL REASONS, AND AS THEY
ARE UNROBING FOR A MASSAGE THEY
ARE BEING VIDEOTAPED.
THAT GETS TO THE WHOLE POINT OF
THE FOURTH AMENDMENT, AND THE
REASONABLENESS.
HERE IT WAS NOT REASONABLE.
NOT ONLY THIS JUDGE, BUT FOUR
OTHER JUDGES IN FLORIDA RULED IN
THESE TYPE CASES THAT THAT'S
OVERLY BROAD.
ROBERT KRAFT'S LAWYERS ARE DOING
A GREAT JOB.
LAURA: THE CASE MAY BE ELEVATED
TO A FELONY.
WHAT'S YOUR BIGGEST TAKEAWAY
FROM WHERE THE CASE STAND RIGHT
NOW?
THERE IS STILL MORE TO COME.
>> THE APPEAL WILL BE DECIDED.
IF KRAFT'S ATTORNEYS ARE
SUCCESSFUL, I THINK THE CASE
WILL DISMISS THIS.
THE THIRD DEGREE WAS IN THE
BRIEF.
IT WASN'T A PUBLIC STATEMENT.
I DON'T ANY THEY WILL GO THAT
ROUTE.
>> I THINK THE JUDGE IS MAKING A
LEGALLY CORRECT MOVE.
I THINK THE PROSECUTORS -- THEY
ARE GOING AFTER A 78-YEAR-OLD
MAN WHO IS A WIDOW.
MARRIED FOR 48 YEARS, HE HAS
DONE TREMENDOUS THINGS FOR THE
NFL.
I THINK THEY ARE USING HIM FOR
THEIR OWN PURPOSES.
I DON'T SEE WHY IF THEY ARE NOT
CHARGE OTHER CITIZENS WHO
ALLEGEDLY GO TO THESE
ESTABLISHMENTS FOR ILLEGAL
REASONS, WHEN THEY GET CHARGED
WITH A MISDEMEANOR, WHY ARE THEY
TARGETING A MAN LIKE ROBERT
KRAFT WHO IS SUCH A