How I Got to Be Whoever It Is I Am Read online

  They actually had asked Renée Taylor and Joe Bologna to do the screenplay, but since I had earlier worked successfully with them, they asked the studio if I could join the screenwriting team. When Renée and Joe decided that they would prefer to work on their own script, the studio went forward with me alone.

  When I asked one of the executives why they were willing to do that he said, “Well, you were doing all the talking at the meeting, anyway.” The movie was to star another actor, because Woody wanted to do two things on the movie, star and write, I assume, but when Woody Allen opened in Bananas, a hit movie he had cowritten, starred in, and directed, they decided to go back to Woody to star in the movie version of his play in which he had starred on Broadway. Woody read my script, was very complimentary, but felt it required more of an actor than he was. I didn’t agree but thought he had certainly earned the right to write the screenplay of his own hit play, which he did. We went back and forth in the deposition after that, and I believe it all ended with the producer’s willingness to pay the costs of my lawyers. I didn’t earn any money, but I felt I had made a point. That was my first experience with attorneys.

  My experience with them continued later when I was covering the O.J. Simpson case. I had a live debate with Professor Alan Dershowitz, who was on O.J. Simpson’s so-called dream team. More than one attorney around CNBC wondered aloud how Charles Grodin, who a year before had been starring in a movie with a Saint Bernard, could possibly debate the renowned Professor Dershowitz from Harvard.

  It was an hour and a half debate and the response favored me 85 percent to 15 percent. Of course, it didn’t hurt that I was against O.J. Simpson. Later, more recently, I ran into Barry Scheck, the head of the Innocence Project with Peter Neufeld, another member of the dream team. The Innocence Project is a wonderful organization that uses DNA as a way of getting innocent people out of prison. I now support them financially and sometimes write about them for the New York Daily NewsWeb site as well as doing commentaries in support of them.

  About a year before I became a supporter of the Project, Barry Scheck confronted me at a book party and said that he had watched my show with his teenage son one night a decade earlier and heard me wonder aloud how the defense team could sleep at night. I said, “Someone who does such good work in getting innocent people freed with DNA evidence shouldn’t be representing O.J. Simpson.” Other words were exchanged, and he turned his back on me and walked away, saying, “You should have more respect for the adversary system.” I called after him, “I’m sure you’re right.” I doubt he knew I was being facetious. Given that he knew how I felt about him, I still can’t understand why he’d watch me with his teenage son.

  I think the jury system is flawed, because some cases are so incredibly complicated that they are, in my opinion, beyond a layperson’s understanding of the law. I believe we should throw it out and have three judges unanimously rule one way or another on cases.

  Recently, I was a character witness in a case. The defense attorney described my journalistic background for the past thirteen years, and the prosecutor described me simply as a professional actor. Lawyers want to win, and sometimes it seems to me that the truth is most often secondary—at best.

  No wonder I like to watch comedy tapes at night rather than courtroom shows.

  At CNBC, there was a regular turnover in executives. Two really stand out. One was a woman who shouted at my producer in a meeting about guests, “No more old people!” She was referring to two show business icons who had been my guests. The other was a man who regularly called meetings of the staffs of the shows. I chose never to attend. He seemed to demoralize everyone with his comments and wasn’t there very long. He had an odd habit of rocking on his heels as he spoke.

  I don’t know if these people are out of the business, but I haven’t heard either of their names in years.

  A startling thing happened when a top executive at NBC called me to say the head of NBC News asked him to tell me that I had stumbled the night before. He meant my rating wasn’t at its usual level. I asked him if he had seen the show. He said, “No.” That told me that content was irrelevant. The show consisted of the videos I had shot at the Bedford Hills maximum security prison that led to four women being granted clemency. In fairness, he did say that whatever I had done could be used in the later part of the show. The show should begin with what today would be called a hot topic. I chose not to follow his advice.

  I once had a meeting with this head of NBC News who told me a story about how his friend Don Henley of the Eagles always taped my show if he couldn’t see it when it was on. He said Don asked him if he had seen a particular monologue I had done. The man, standing right in front of me, snorted in disdain and said, “Oh, God, no!”—like that was out of the question.

  There’s an explanation for his rude behavior. It’s certainly not exclusive to him. Many people in the news business have a patronizing attitude toward anyone who enters their field from elsewhere. They make false assumptions about lack of qualifications.

  The truth is that throughout my life I’ve followed the news—social and political issues—a lot more than I’ve followed show business, and I believe the success of my show speaks for itself. Also, I’ve been asked to broadcast commentary all these years. The people in our country who may have something useful to say obviously are not all working in the news business.

  A man whom I’ve found equally if not more offensive than the network executive is Steven Brill, the founder of Court TV. We’ve never met, but once we were both at a party at Judge Catherine Cryer’s home and I chose not to walk over and speak to him. I would hate to cause discord at someone’s party, and discord at least would have erupted had I spoken to Mr. Brill.

  He once wrote in a newsletter of some kind that while he found me appealing in the Beethoven movies (a not so subtle dig), he wondered how CNBC could have me sitting in the host’s chair. He acknowledged that he had never heard me say anything questionable, “But what if something happens while he’s anchoring his show?” Surely, he said, NBC wasn’t suggesting that I was in the category of Tom Brokaw or Brian Williams.

  I found his observation insulting. I had recently covered the war in Kosovo, where things were happening all the time. You talk on a live satellite to the correspondent on the scene, and he tells you what’s happening. No one has ever accused me of asking unworthy questions.

  This mystifying of what it takes to be a good reporter is a joke. You don’t have to be an expert at anything, just know the subject well enough to ask intelligent questions. In my observation, too often the so-called experts aren’t experts, and that clearly applies to Mr. Brill.

  Ironically, three of my biggest supporters were the three anchors of the network news, Tom Brokaw, Dan Rather, and Peter Jennings, as well as Tim Russert and Jim Lehrer. I say this because they each chose to make it clear to me, not as a result of Mr. Brill’s comment but just because they chose to.

  If I sound riled up at Steven Brill, it’s because I am. That’s the effect arrogance has on me.

  I debated whether I wanted to put the following story in this book. I felt if Steven Brill’s name ever came up in conversation I would share it with friends, and while I undoubtedly won’t know most of the people reading this book, I figure if you’ve come this far, that’s friendly enough for me.

  Sometime in the nineties, Roger Ailes, who runs the Fox Cable Network and was then running CNBC, put together a whole evening’s special with eleven television hosts onstage, most of them notable journalists. Among them was the late Tim Russert.

  Roger had me seated center stage with five journalists to my right and five to my left. We would each host a segment of the evening.

  The fella who was second in command to Roger told me that his father called him after the special to say he felt I should have hosted the entire special.

  His father was Fred Friendly, Edward R. Murrow’s producer and a legend in the news business.

  I should have a
sked Andy to have his dad give Steven Brill a call.

  The

  Rockefeller Drug Laws

  and

  the Felony Murder Rule

  Here are the two most important things I learned from doing my cable show on CNBC. At this time, and for decades, if not always, politicians who want to appear “tough on crime” have made it legal in New York to set up a sting operation on a young woman on welfare with four small children, no record, and five dollars to her name.

  Elaine Bartlett, an African American woman, was approached in Harlem by a police informant, a white man she knew casually who offered her $2,500 to deliver four ounces of cocaine to someone in Albany. The man did this because he wanted a break on his own drug offenses. The police didn’t seem to care who was being set up but wanted to build their arrest record.

  Despite her boyfriend’s warnings, Elaine jumped at the chance. Elaine’s son later told me, “We had nothing.” On delivering the package, Elaine was immediately arrested. She went to trial and was sentenced to twenty years to life at a maximum security prison.

  I was told about the case by Randy Credico, who now runs the William Moses Kunstler Fund for Racial Justice along with Bill Kunstler’s widow, Marge.

  Randy, who has become a hero of mine, appeared on my CNBC show in the nineties. Another guest was Republican State Senator Dale Volker, a former police officer. When Senator Volker appeared, he took the tough-on-crime position but allowed there could be “some cases worth looking at.”

  I went to Bedford Hills Correctional Facility for Women, a maximum security prison in Bedford, New York, and did on-camera interviews with Elaine Bartlett and three other young women with no prior records. One was a woman who was also set up by the police. Another was a young woman who was dating a drug dealer, but there was no evidence that she dealt drugs, and the fourth woman was a young mother of two who got hooked on cocaine to lose weight and was taking orders for a drug dealer. None of these women had prior records, and between them they had a number of small children. The state seems to never consider what will happen to the children when their mother is taken away for their entire childhood and longer.

  I called Senator Volker and said I’d like to give a lunch in Albany for the Republican leadership and show them the video. One of my producers, John Gabriel, worked with Senator Volker’s office to arrange the lunch, and the Republican leadership came, headed by then Republican leader Senator Joe Bruno. I remember one senator said to me, “I’ve seen your show. If it was up to you, you’d let everyone out of prison.” I said, “Nothing could be further from the truth. I believe there are many people on the streets who should be in prison, and I believe there are many people who are let out of prison who never should have been let out.”

  I showed the video I had shot in the prison and made my case for clemency. Senator Bruno simply said, “I agree with you.”

  He went to then New York’s Governor Pataki. Elaine Bartlett, Arlene Oberg, and Jan Warren were granted clemency that year, and Leah Bundy received it the following year. Elaine had served sixteen years, and the other women had served several years.

  Elaine’s family was shattered by the experience. Her youngest son took to the streets and was sent to prison. When Elaine’s mother died, her oldest son had to leave college, where he had a basketball scholarship, to come home to look after what was left of the family.

  Elaine’s boyfriend, whom she later married, had warned her and went with her thinking he could somehow protect her. He, too, was arrested, and he served twenty-one years before he was released. He had sold drugs as a teenager, so he got an even harsher sentence. It’s hard to express the gratification I feel when I say I was able to get jobs for Elaine and Nathan Brooks when they were released from prison.

  Arlene Oberg, one of the sweetest women I ever met, died of a heart attack while still in her thirties.

  The Rockefeller Drug Laws under which all these women received mandatory sentences have since been revised but are still unreasonably harsh. They were put into effect to punish drug dealers. Instead, way too often they are used against addicts and desperate people who make a delivery to pay for their addiction.

  And it is still legal at this writing to put a police sting on a young woman on welfare with no record who has never even delivered drugs. Shame!

  It’s hard to top the unintended consequences of the Rockefeller Drug Laws, but we’ve done it with our felony murder rule, which was intended to cover such examples as when two people go into a bank with guns and one kills someone, both are guilty of murder. I can agree with that.

  Brandon Hein was a teenager who didn’t kill anyone, but he’s serving the same sentence—life imprisonment without the possibility of parole—as the Menendez brothers, who killed their parents; Gary Ridgeway, who killed forty-eight women in Washington state; Sirhan Sirhan, who killed Robert Kennedy; and Charles Manson, although Charles Manson does get to come up for parole. Brandon Hein can’t. Ever. So what did Brandon Hein do? He was drunk and got into a fight that involved six boys, one of whom stabbed another, who bled to death. The boy who did the stabbing admitted he did it in an effort to get another boy off his younger brother. The state did not claim that Brandon killed anyone, but under the felony murder rule as applied in this case in California, Brandon was sentenced to life imprisonment without the possibility of parole. How can that be?

  Under the felony murder rule, if a jury decides that Brandon and his friends went to a fort in the backyard of a house in Agoura Hills, California, to steal marijuana and not just to smoke it or buy it as the boys claimed, Brandon could be convicted of intended robbery, and that is what the jury decided in spite of the fact that most of the boys knew each other, no one wore disguises, and nothing was taken! Several important factors help explain this gross miscarriage of justice. First, the boy who died was the son of a policeman. Second, the trial took place after the O.J. Simpson acquittal and a hung jury in the Menendez brothers’ case. The prosecution badly wanted a conviction. The most important prosecution witness in this case was Mike McLoren, who was with the boy who died and was also stabbed by Jason Holland, who admitted all of this. The witness has been a known drug user and dealer for many years who had lied to the authorities on several occasions before his testimony. Legal scholars have said the sentence for Brandon Hein, who had no prior record, is one of the most outrageous applications of the felony murder rule they have ever seen. If you want to talk about human rights violations, you need look no further than the Centinela State Prison in Imperial, California, where Brandon Hein is in his thirteenth year of incarceration. Brandon began his sentence when he was eighteen. He is now thirty-one. A life sentence with no chance for parole for a teenager who did nothing more than get drunk and get into a fight!

  An even more egregious example of the felony murder rule is the story of a boy in Florida who in 2004 lent his car to his roommate, as he had done many times before, and went to sleep. The roommate and others went out and committed a burglary and a murder. The boy who was home asleep at the time was sentenced to life in prison with no chance of parole!The prosecutor said, “No car, no murder.” He might have just as well said, “No car dealer, no car, no murder.” The boy who lent his car who was asleep in his bed at the time of the crime had no prior record. The prosecution implied that statements the boy gave recalling what he knew when he was drunk the night before implied he was aware his roommate was borrowing his car to commit a crime.

  I would feel a lot better about my country if we got rid of the felony murder rule. I don’t know of any country in Europe, including England, that hasn’t gotten rid of it, as have India and Canada, because it’s unjust! A few of our states have gotten rid of it but not California or Florida.

  Who’s the criminal here? The boy who was asleep in his bed at the time of the crime, or the state that sentenced him to life in prison with no chance of parole? The felony murder rule disgraces America. I can think of many things my country does that disgrace us, and the
felony murder rule is right up there.

  I hope everyone who reads this tells everyone they know about the unintended consequences of the felony murder rule. If a lot of us start talking in our own ways and making phone calls, sending letters, etc., we can make America a better place.

  As far as all those politicians who present themselves as tough on crime are concerned, I believe I’m tougher on crime than they are. I would make the case as hard as I could to never have people who’ve been arrested several times, sometimes with violence involved, walking the streets. I would never have clearly criminally insane people walking our streets but have them in institutions where they at least have a chance to be treated. This is not a job that our corrections officers should be dealing with. They should not have feces thrown at them. My position would always be tougher and fairer. Each case must be looked at individually. One size never fits all. That’s why I believe mandatory sentencing is criminal, and mandatory laws that let people out of prison when common sense says they shouldn’t be let out should be eliminated.

  Oh, and by the way, we’ve never been able to pass an antilynching law in America. The best we’ve been able to do is have a “nonbinding resolution.”

  You can’t make this up!

  How Naïve Can I Be?

  I remember telling one of my producers, John Gabriel, the news that my CNBC show had been canceled and replaced by a rerun of Hardball with Chris Matthews in June 1998. He was stunned as he stared at me, making sure I wasn’t joking, and never took his eyes off me as he reached behind him to feel for the sofa he sank into.