Today on AirTalk we'll discuss the cryptic notes from jurors on the Bell city corruption case. How should they be handled? We'll also talk "Tonight Show," weigh in on OC issues during our roundtable, and examine the latest developments from President Obama's visit to Israel. Later, we'll consider how three-parent babies could be protected from mitochondrial disease, track Voyager I's trip into open space, and speak with Sam Farmer about rule changes in the NFL.
Bell juror notes could raise questions about verdicts
Jurors for the Bell city corruption case have been called back into court a day after delivering mixed verdicts in the trial of six city officials. Judge Kathleen Kennedy called the jury back into court to address the deadlock on nearly half of the charges. After 18 days of deliberation, the jury convicted five former Bell city council members — Hernandez, Cole, Victor Bello, Teresa Jacobo and George Mirabal – on multiple felony counts.
But notes submitted to the judge hours after the conviction have raised question about the unanimity of the decisions. Notes from Juror 7 and from an anonymous juror have expressed doubt about some of the presentations in the courtroom. Another juror brought up his or her concern that other jurors were straying from their mission and misunderstanding the law. It has not been determined how Judge Kennedy will handle the notes, or how further deliberations in the case will proceed.
Have you ever been on a confused jury? How much control should the judge have in deciding who sits on a jury? What kinds of pressure do jurors in deadlocked cases face?
Guest:
Dmitry Gorin, partner at criminal defense firm Kestenbaum, Eisner & Gorin, LLP in Van Nuys, adjunct law professor at Pepperdine University School of Law and UCLA
'The Tonight Show’ leaving Los Angeles
It’s long been one of the most immortalized franchises in television history. NBC’s “The Tonight Show” has been a ratings leader for decades, and it still serves as the inspiration for all late night television. The world of late night talk shows has provided audiences with some of the most memorable moments ever, but it’s also created some dramatic behind-the-scenes material as well. For instance, just this past week, Jay Leno, current host of “The Tonight Show,” and NBC Entertainment Chairman Robert Greenblatt sparred over some of Leno’s jokes that were targeted at NBC’s poor ratings. Meanwhile, rumors were circling that Jimmy Fallon was being groomed to replace Leno in the next few years.
It now appears those rumors had some truth to them, as more sources report that not only will Fallon take over, but that the show will move back to New York City, where it first originally aired.
So what’s fact and what’s fiction in all this? Are you ready to see the show move on? What about late night in general? And what’s going to happen to Jay Leno, the man who has stayed on top for so long?
Guests:
Bill Carter, media and TV reporter for the New York Times, author of “The War for Late Night: When Leno Went Early and Television Went Crazy”
Joe Flint, media reporter for the Los Angeles Times
OC journalists’ roundtable: beach fires may be quenched, Anaheim officer cleared in shooting
What kind of beach party is it without a bonfire? Newport Beach’s proposed ban on firepits is spreading like wildfire, as air quality officials consider nixing them throughout Orange and L.A. county beaches. Prosecutors have cleared an Anaheim police officer in last summer’s shooting death of Manuel Diaz. An Orange County supervisor has announced a bid for governor, and an Anaheim city councilman turns out to have copied a good chunk of a recent government document he drafted from a reliable source - Wikipedia. Larry and our talented trio of Orange County journalists riff on the latest news from the O.C.
Guests:
Norberto Santana, Editor-in-Chief of the Voice of OC, a non-profit investigative news agency that covers Orange County government and politics
Ben Bergman, KPCC’s Orange County reporter
Martin Wisckol, politics editor, The Orange County Register
What is the U.S. role in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict?
President Barack Obama met with Palestinian and Israeli leaders in the Middle East today. On this high-profile trip, he spoke of partnership, peace and negotiations, but made no declarations destined for the history books. Obama said this trip is about listening to stakeholders - just listening - perhaps in an effort to restart dialogue.
However, many are questioning whether the White House still holds a leadership position in conflict negotiations. Writing in The New York Times this month, history scholar Rashid Khalidi argues, "[U]nder four successive presidents, the United States, purportedly acting as an honest broker, did nothing to prevent Israel from gradually gobbling up the very land the two-state solution was to be based on."
On the other hand, Obama may be pushing back on Israeli settlement-building during backroom conversations with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. "We can expect the President to be far more pointed in private than he has been in public," according to David Makovsky of The Washington Institute for Near East Policy.
What is Obama's diplomatic strategy? Have recent American presidents abandoned or poisoned this country's historic position in the region?
Guests:
Rashid Khalidi, Professor of Modern Arab Studies, Columbia University; Author, newly published "Brokers of Deceit: How the U.S. has Undermined Peace in the Middle East" (Beacon); former advisor to the Palestinian peace negotiators
David Makovsky, Director, Project on the Middle East Peace Process, The Washington Institute for Near East Policy - a think tank described as advancing U.S. interests in the Middle East; coauthor, with Dennis Ross, of "Myths, Illusions, and Peace: Finding a New Direction for America in the Middle East" (2009, Viking/Penguin)
Britain gets a green light for three-person IVF to combat genetic diseases
A U.K. fertility watchdog has approved a controversial new procedure to prevent mitochondrial disease. According to Britain’s Human Fertilization and Embryology Authority, one in 200 children are born annually with the disease, a genetic cell mutation that can cause diabetes, deafness, heart disease and other neurological diseases and can eventually lead to catastrophic organ failure. In the in vitro procedure, faulty genes from the mother are replaced by those from a donor, creating, in effect, three parents per embryo.
The number of genes replaced is tiny – 37 out of some 23,000 – and insignificant to our overall looks, such as hair and eye color. In its recommendation to the British government, the HFEA called the arguments for proceeding with the technique “clear and compelling.”
Nevertheless, the idea has raised questions among ethicists about a slippery slope towards the creation of so-called “designer babies.” If we can replace genes to prevent inherited diseases, can we also sort through the gene pool for the traits we like, discarding those we don’t, mixing a DNA cocktail for the perfect child? And since each child would carry and pass on donated genetic code, what are the potential long-term implications?
Those issues may be a long way off, as more experiments are needed to perfect the technique on humans. But similar studies have been done here in the United States and it’s only a matter of time before the question comes up on our shores.
If this procedure could prevent a debilitating genetic disease, would you approve its use? What concerns do you have about the ethics of mixing genes in vitro?
Guests:
Shoukhrat Mitalipov, Ph.D., Associate Scientist in the Division of Reproductive & Developmental Sciences of ONPRC, Oregon Stem Cell Center and Departments of Obstetrics & Gynecology and Molecular & Medical Genetics
Arthur Caplan, Professor of Medical Ethics at New York University Langone Medical Center
35 years after launch, Voyager I space probe looks to make dramatic exit of solar system
Yesterday, the American Geophysical Union mistakenly announced that the Voyager I spacecraft had become the first manmade object to cross the boundary between the edge of our solar system and the vastness of interstellar space, saying in a news release, “Voyager 1 has left the solar system.”
NASA and Caltech scientists were quick to refute the statement, and the AGU quickly corrected the language they’d used, confessing that they were hoping to create a headline that would attract the interest of reporters and general audiences. Launched in September of 1977 with a goal of studying the outer solar system and interstellar medium, Voyager has contributed greatly to our understanding of the planets of our solar system, shooting beautiful photos of Jupiter and Saturn that awed the masses in 1979 and 1980.
It’s now hurtling toward open space, it’s usefulness largely a thing of the past, though this recent controversy has us thinking again about it’s 35-year journey, so maybe it still has a thing or two to teach us.
Is Voyager I still making meaningful contributions to our understanding of space? Is the edge of our solar system a defined boundary like the strata of Earth’s atmosphere? What are we learning about the boundary between our solar system and interstellar space?
Guest:
Edward Stone, Caltech Voyager project scientist and physics professor, former director of the Jet Propulsion Labratory
Could the NFL’s new “crown-of-the-helmet” rule could change the game in ways fans don’t like?
Yesterday, NFL team owners voted 31-1 to ban the players from ducking their heads to deliver a hit with the “crowns” of their helmets. The Cincinnati Bengals were the only team to vote against the new rule, which penalizes a team 15 yards if a player uses the top of their helmet in a tackle, block, or attempt to advance the ball outside the immediate area surrounding the line of scrimmage.
Sounds like minutia, right? It’s part of the NFL’s incremental approach to making the game “safer” and “better” to use the words of NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell, which has moved to reduce the number of head traumas and the negative impacts they can have throughout players’ lives. Opponents of the rule consider it a slippery slope toward changing the fundamental nature of the game in order to battle the bad PR in the wake of recent events like the death of Junior Seau. But the league argues that the type of infraction they’re penalizing isn’t as common as some might think. They counted only 11 such infractions in 32 games studied during two game weeks of last season.
The question remains: in the process of protecting athletes, is the league changing how the game is played?
Guest:
Sam Farmer, LA Times sports reporter covering the NFL