The MacNeil/Lehrer NewsHour

MS. WARNER: Good evening. I'm Margaret Warner in Washington.

MR. LEHRER: And I'm Jim Lehrer in New York. After our summary of the news this Wednesday, we have a report plus reaction to the verdict in the Denny beating case in Los Angeles. Lee Hochberg reports on health care for the elderly in Oregon, and Charlayne Hunter-Gault listens to two different Palestinian views of peace. NEWS SUMMARY

MS. WARNER: A jury today acquitted Damian Williams of attempted murder in the beating of trucker Reginald Denny during the 1992 Los Angeles riots. The judge declared a mistrial on the last remaining charge, assault with a deadly weapon, against co-defendant Henry Watson. Earlier in the week, the jury acquitted the two men on most felony charges against them but convicted them of reduced charges and other accounts. Watson was released after the verdict. He had already spent 17 months in jail. Williams remains in custody and faces a sentence of up to 10 years on mayhem and misdemeanor assault convictions. We'll have more on the story right after the News Summary. Jim.

MR. LEHRER: White House Spokeswoman Dee Dee Myers today denied reports the civilian government of Haiti was being pressured to appease its military leaders. She confirmed talks were underway for a broadening of the government to include other democratic forces. The prime minister said he would consider such a move only if the army and police chief resigned. That step is required in the U.N. agreement for the restoration of democracy. The plan calls for the October 30th return to power of Jean Bertrande-Aristide, the country's popularly elected president. Aristide meant in Washington with members of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee today. Afterward he called for political reconciliation in Haiti but did not comment directly on the latest negotiations for his return. A fleet of U.S. and Canadian warships intercepted two more ships headed for Haiti today. One fled. A second from Honduras was diverted after an inspection. Yesterday U.S. frigates stopped a cargo ship in the first enforcement of the U.N. blockade. It was allowed to proceed because its cargo of cement did not violate the embargo. Senate Minority Leader Bob Dole has decided not to push for binding votes to require congressional approval before sending U.S. troops to Haiti or Bosnia. President Clinton opposed the measure, saying they would restrict his ability as commander in chief. Dole said he would still offer the proposal but only as non-binding resolutions.

MS. WARNER: Madeleine Albright, the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, conceded today that setbacks in Somalia and Haiti had eroded the bipartisan consensus for U.N. peacekeeping operations. In testimony before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee she also said that U.S. troops shouldn't be sent on peacekeeping missions without consulting Congress first. But she said the U.S. cannot afford to abandon either peacekeeping or a multilateral approach to solving problems. Defense Sec. Les Aspin today proposed that former Soviet Bloc countries be offered what he described as partnership in the NATO alliance, but he stopped short of suggesting that they become full members. Aspin told a NATO meeting in Germany that the new partners could participate in joint training exercises and join NATO forces for peacekeeping and disaster relief operations, but the partners would not be guaranteed NATO protection as alliance members are.

MR. LEHRER: U.S. forces in Somalia were attacked overnight, but White House spokeswoman Myers said the firing of rocket-propelled grenades at U.S. helicopters was an isolated incident. There were no injuries or damage in the attack in Mogadishu where an informal cease-fire has been in effect for over two weeks. Robert Oakley confirmed today he was under investigation for possible conflict of interest. He denied any wrongdoing. The probe concerns the special Somalia envoy's role as a consultant to Lebanon's Middle East airlines. Oakley made his comment while on Capitol Hill briefing congressional leaders on the situation in Somalia. The New York Times reportedtoday the airlines hired Oakley to help regain roots to the United States taken away while he was the State Department's chief of counterterrorism in 1985. White House Spokeswoman Myers said the President retained confidence in Oakley.

MS. WARNER: Secretary of State Christopher issued a warning to China today. He said China's Most Favored Nation trade status was in jeopardy if Beijing didn't improve its record on human rights, trade, and arms proliferation. In June, President Clinton extended China's MFN status for a year on the condition that Beijing make progress in those areas. Christopher spoke to a meeting of business executives at the State Department.

WARREN CHRISTOPHER, Secretary of State: I don't believe we can sustain the position of MFN beyond next June unless we see some continued improvement or some improvement in the human rights field by the Chinese, as well as reform in connection with trade practices and progress in the nonproliferation front. I have said to my colleagues in China that it's important to make this progress not next May and June but steadily throughout the year. There's not a huge build-up of pressure for us after the first of the year to lift the MFN.

MS. WARNER: President Clinton today continued his effort to gain support for the North American Free Trade Agreement. The White House invited over a hundred companies from across the country to display their potential exports from Mexico under two large tents on the White House lawn. They included everything from apples to hi-tech items to toys. The President insisted that Americans had nothing to fear from NAFTA. In fact, he said the agreement would create new jobs.

MR. LEHRER: U.S. Drug Policy Director Lee Brown said today the government's anti-drug focus would shift from interdiction to reducing drug use. He said hard core drug addiction was the primary cause for violence and other social problems. Brown made his comments as he released the administration's interim drug strategy in testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee. A full report is due in February. Attorney General Janet Reno said today the government would regulate TV programming unless the network took voluntary steps to reduce violence. She spoke before the Senate Commerce Committee.

JANET RENO, Attorney General: I believe in an open society and a strong First Amendment. My instincts militate against governmental involvement in this area. I also believe that television violence and the development of our youth are not just another set of public policy problems. They go to the heart of our society's values. The best solutions lie with industry officials, parents, and educators, and I don't relish the prospect of government action. But if immediate voluntary steps are not taken and deadlines established, government should respond and respond immediately.

MR. LEHRER: Several anti-violence bills are now being considered by the Commerce Committee. They include restrictions on when violent shows can be aired and warning labels on programs with violent content. President Clinton signed an executive order today requiring at least 20 percent recycled content in every piece of writing or copy paper purchased by the federal government. He said it was time for the government to set an example to protect the environment and encourage new markets for recycled products.

MS. WARNER: That's it for the News Summary tonight. Now it's on to the Denny verdict, health care for the elderly, and Palestinian views of peace. FOCUS - VERDICT

MR. LEHRER: The verdicts in the Los Angeles beating case is our lead story tonight. The trial of two black men accused of beating a white truck driver during the 1991 riots today finally ended today with an acquittal and a release. Was justice done is the question we will ask after this report by Jeffrey Kaye of public station KCET-Los Angeles.

MR. KAYE: Damian Monroe Williams showed clear relief following the reading of the "not guilty" verdict. The charge of premeditated attempted murder of Reginald Denny carried a life sentence. Earlier there was an emotional reaction from the family of co- defendant Henry Keith Watson after the judge said he could be released without bail. This followed an announcement from the racially mixed jury that had deadlocked on the charge that Watson assaulted trucker Larry Tarvin.

SPOKESPERSON: I'm giving the victory to Jesus, and I expect all of you to come to church so we can give Satan notice, Jesus that I serve.

MR. KAYE: While Williams' mother, Georgiana, credited prayer for the verdicts, lawyer Edi Faal once again criticized prosecutors for filing excessive charges and said it was his defense strategy that paid off.

EDI FAAL, Defense Lawyer: Damian Williams was demonized by the prosecution and the press, and our first strategy was to humanize him. Once we were able to humanize him, then our next strategy was to discredit the prosecution's case.

MR. KAYE: The verdicts represented a massive defeat for prosecutors. Williams was found guilty on only one felony count, Watson on a misdemeanor. Reacting to the decisions, LA District Attorney Gil Garcetti expressed disappointment but pointed out Williams is facing a maximum sentence of 10 years in prison. He said the defense succeeded in efforts to de-sensitize jurors to the violence depicted in the tape.

GIL GARCETTI, Los Angeles District Attorney: Justice is not perfect. It's certainly not perfect in this case. Had you received a guilty verdict on all of it, there's going to be others in the community who feel that's not justice, and perhaps justice is always imperfect.

MR. KAYE: Garcetti also addressed himself to frustrated constituents who had called to complain that the verdicts send the message that random violence will be tolerated.

GIL GARCETTI: Reverend -- just a minute -- Rev. Chic Murray on television earlier today said there's a white backlash, and he seemed to be very concerned, and rightfully perhaps, concerned because we're hearing that, we're feeling that. There is frustration. There is anger, but I'm absolutely convinced we have it under control right now. If you go out and if anyone thinks that they can go out and terrorize an individual, assault an individual, rob an individual, and all you're going to do is get a slap on the wrist, you are dead wrong. That is not happening.

MR. KAYE: After today's court session, Watson's parents took their son's belongings home where Watson went after his release. Prosecutors have not yet decided whether or not to re-file the assault charge against Watson.

SPOKESMAN: -- post bail through a bail bondsman --

MR. KAYE: Also today, Judge John Alderkirk reduced the bail of the third co-defendant, Anton Miller. Miller's also charged with attempted murder of Reginald Denny, but in light of today's "not guilty" verdict, the judge urged the prosecution and defense to begin plea bargaining in his case which has not yet gone to trial.

MR. LEHRER: Now a debate about the process and the results of what happened in that Los angeles courtroom. Democratic Congresswoman Maxine Waters represents the area of south central Los Angeles, where thebeating of Reginald Denny took place. Susan Estrich is a professor of criminal law at the University of Southern California Law School. Barry Levin is a criminal defense lawyer and a former Los Angeles police officer. William Handell is a Los Angeles attorney who hosts a radio talk show. Mr. Handell, was justice done in this case?

MR. HANDELL: No, I don't think justice was done. I don't think anybody was surprised that justice wasn't done, but then justice wasn't done when the policemen were acquitted in the Simi Valley trial either. What's astounding about this is the message that was sent. Gil Garcetti, the attorney, the district attorney of Los Angeles, said, we have to be very careful about not sending the message that violence is going to be condoned. Here's the message: Not only will violence be allowed, but if you get off, a Congresswoman comes to your house and helps you celebrate. It is an extraordinary place we have come to in our society where we can take a brick, throw it at a person, and somehow you are celebrated in the community as a freedom fighter or a hero. I, I don't know where we're going with this.

MR. LEHRER: Congresswoman Waters, what do you think the message is of these verdicts?

REP. WATERS: Well, first let's straighten out the misinformation that the gentleman just gave on national television. I think he was referring to me when he talked about coming to someone's house and celebrating. That is an absolute falsehood, and he shouldn't sit on national television and wildly make those kinds of accusations. This criminal justice system that --

MR. LEHRER: Hold on -- excuse me one moment. Were you referring to Congresswoman Waters? She's in Washington. You don't mean that she was there today in Los Angeles?

MR. HANDELL: No, I don't believe so. I think, if I'm not mistaken, Congresswoman, correct me if I'm wrong, I believe it was you that had gone, the first acquittal, to Damian Williams' home, is that correct, or am I wrong?

REP. WATERS: No, it is not correct. What is correct is Congresswoman Waters was in the neighborhood a few days ago where I said to young men who were mingling around that they should be calm, that the police were in the neighborhood, there were those who expected trouble, and that they were to hold onto themselves and not get into any trouble. I am in the neighborhoods all the time. Every week, I fly to Los Angeles, I go to all of the trouble spots in my district on a routine basis, and I did not congratulate anyone.

MR. HANDELL: Then I stand corrected, and I apologize for that. That was my information, and I do apologize for the misinformation.

REP. WATERS: Thank you very much.

MR. LEHRER: Now, what do you say, Congresswoman, is the message of what happened in the courtroom today, or the last two -- three days?

REP. WATERS: Well, I think there are those who are trying to read too much into it. I've always been concerned that the criminal justice system works. It must be fair. It must be consistent. We must make sure that anyone who interacts with this system can reasonably expect that they will be treated fairly. There is no message here that somehow if you commit horrendous acts, that you're going to be let off. These young people who have been charged, who have been convicted on some counts could have gone to jail for life. Still, they, the sentencing has not been determined in the case of Damian Williams. I think that despite some bizarre occurrences in this case that justice is served.

MR. LEHRER: Susan Estrich, what is your analysis of, of why these verdicts went the way they did?

MS. ESTRICH: Well, I don't think you can explain these verdicts strictly according to the law. I mean, as a law professor, I'm used to teaching my students that in general if you take a brick and smash it into somebody's head, it's fair to infer that you intended to do them serious bodily harm, which is at least mayhem, if not to kill them. I think what we're seeing recently, Jim, in this trial, in the Simi Valley trial, in the sentencing of the two police officers, is politics entering into the jury room and entering into the criminal justice system. And I think that's really unfortunate. It's too bad that our criminal justice system can't simply adjudicate issues like intent and like identity and leave politics and dealing with issues of race and racism to politicians, which is where the responsibility belongs.

MR. LEHRER: Mr. Levin, do you see politics entering this courtroom in Los Angeles as well as the other ones? That is reference to the first trial of the two white police officers in the Rodney King -- I understood there were four actually in the Rodney King case, and there was a second trial, but anyhow, do you agree with Susan Estrich?

MR. LEVIN: Absolutely not. Trials are really to determine whether or not an individual committed a specific crime or not by the standard of proof and by the burden of proof which is on the prosecution. We oftentimes sit back and watch the television accounts of what occurred in court, but unless you're there and listen to the evidence and making a decision from the perception of the jury, bound by the judge's instructions, and bound by the rules of the court, one cannot say that there is any message that's being given or said by any particular jury trial. Look, I do this for a living. I do this as a business. Our system of justice does work. Whenever you can take an issue and put it before 12 citizens of the community and let them decide by an adversarial relationship between the prosecution and defense, let the defense test the prosecution evidence and let the prosecution test the defense evidence, that's when justice takes place, when a jury is allowed to decide, and that's what occurred in this case. So Mr. Williams did not get off easy. Simple mayhem is a very serious crime.

MR. LEHRER: Susan Estrich.

MS. ESTRICH: Well, I think it all depends on your definition of justice, Jim. I mean, there are many who say that given the background, given what's gone on in Los Angeles the last two and a half years that justice was done, and perhaps that's so. But I think increasingly what we're seeing in these high profile cases, and it isn't just this case, it's also in the Manendez case being tried here in Los Angeles. It's also in spousal abuse cases.

MR. LEHRER: That's the two -- excuse me -- that's the two brothers who are accused of killing their parents, right?

MS. ESTRICH: I'm sorry -- is increasingly we're seeing the appeals, particularly from defense attorneys who say, okay, maybe it's true that it was my client and he did do it, but you can't blame him because he was angry or because he was enraged or because he was abused, or because the husband was a bad person, or the fathers beat them.

REP. WATERS: I don't think that's --

MS. ESTRICH: And I think --

REP. WATERS: -- new in the criminal justice system.

MS. ESTRICH: No, I don't think but I think we're seeing it more, Maxine, and I think it's troubling. It should be happening when it happens with the police, and it should be troubling when it happens here.

REP. WATERS: Well, but the thing about it, it'snot new. Can you recall the case in San Francisco of the, the defense that was used because of the --

MR. LEVIN: Twinkie defense.

REP. WATERS: -- eating twinkies? Give me a break! This is not new in the criminal justice system.

MS. ESTRICH: It's not new, but isn't it troubling? And what I'm saying simply is that I was very troubled when it happened with twinkies. I'm troubled when I saw it happening in the Simi Valley where I thought those police officers were acquitted not because they didn't violate civil rights --

REP. WATERS: But this is what is taught in law school, this the law!

MS. ESTRICH: -- but because --

REP. WATERS: This is what is taught in the major institutions - -

MS. ESTRICH: Maxine, we have to decide --

REP. WATERS: -- in America.

MS. ESTRICH: -- as a society whether this is the law we want. What troubles me is to think that we're going to live in a society where people who are angry or are outraged even with good reason have the freedom now to disobey the law and then can get the jury to have sympathy for them.

MR. LEHRER: Mr. Handell, let me ask you the question about whether or not -- is it possible in any society, particularly an open, democratic society like ours, to put 12 citizens in a jury box and say, do not render a judgment based on your political views, based on what you think the impact of a particular verdict might be on your community?

MR. HANDELL: No. I think this is virtually impossible, and this is where I'm going to disagree with Attorney Levin. We're not talking about 12 jurors of our peers. We're generally talking about 12 imbeciles who are sitting in court and trying to decide what the fate of someone is. We are in a society where policemen beating someone half to death on videotape is somehow not excessive force, where taking a brick at someone's head and throwing it at full force from six inches away is not attempted murder, where killing someone and claiming you've eaten twinkies as a defense is a valid defense. This is our jury system. It is outrageous! It is stupid, and you know what it is? If nothing else, it is incredibly entertaining! That's what society is going to view 300 years from now.

MR. LEHRER: But, Mr. Handell --

MR. HANDELL: This is hilarious!

MR. LEHRER: But, Mr. Handell, aren't those 12 people in every one of those jury boxes citizens that run the country?

MR. HANDELL: Yeah. You sit in front of a jury sometime here in south central or in Los Angeles, in general, or in Simi Valley, then tell me. You tell me what you think.

REP. WATERS: In the defense of ordinary citizens, let me just say that I think it's extremely arrogant for anybody to call the jurors imbeciles.

MS. ESTRICH: I agree with you on that point.

MR. HANDELL: Please.

REP. WATERS: Perhaps Mr. Levin believes that he's smarter than anybody else. I doubt that. But I tell you the citizens of this country who serve on juries are not imbeciles. They're people --

MR. LEHRER: That was Mr. Handell.

REP. WATERS: -- who are doing us a duty, who try in most cases - -

MR. HANDELL: I'm the one who said they're imbeciles.

REP. WATERS: -- to do the best that they can.

MR. LEHRER: That was Mr. Handell who said that.

REP. WATERS: I'm sorry.

MR. HANDELL: That was. That was Mr. Handell, that's correct.

MR. LEHRER: Now we're going to go to Mr. Levin. Mr. Levin, what do you think about what Mr. Handell said about the jury system?

MR. LEVIN: Well, what Mr. Handell says makes good print in the papers. It sounds good to the millions of people he's trying to appeal to, but I don't think he's ever done a jury trial. The point is, is that when juries are selected, they're selected from our neighbors, from our relatives, from the people that we see and associate with every day. Jurors are not imbeciles. They're citizens of the United States of America. And until Mr. Handell can lobby the United States Congress to change the Constitution, this is the system that we're going to have.

MR. LEHRER: But let me take -- let me take these very specific cases, the specific cases he's said, that in the, in the first valley, the first police officer decision, that those jurors said it was all right essentially by their verdict, it was all right for police officers to use excessive force. In the case here, he's saying that what the jurors said, these 12 people said it was all right to beat somebody in the head with a brick. You don't see that as the message, or do you think that's just part of what comes out in any jury trial?

MR. LEVIN: No one case can be a representative sample of our criminal justice system. The facts are that most people that are charged with crimes are convicted. Most people that go to trial are convicted, and to say that one case represents what happens every day in the criminal justice system is very naive. That's not what occurs. What happened in this case was a very brilliant defense strategy, very ethical, and a very forceful prosecution, and when the two clashed in the courtroom, the jury called it as they saw it, and that's simply it.

MR. LEHRER: Susan Estrich.

MS. ESTRICH: I disagree. I disagree. I don't think these jurors are imbeciles at all. I think what we had going on in the Simi Valley and what was going on in the courthouse here is not stupid jurors, it's jurors trying to do the business of politicians. I mean, the issues of race and racism and injustice, which have reared their ugly heads in these trials and maybe been determinative in these trials, have no business in the criminal courts. And the reason they're there, and the reason I think many jurors feel the urge and the need to address them is because the political leadership in the city of Los Angeles, and, indeed, I would say nationally has failed so miserably to address these issues over the years, and so we end up looking to the criminal courts to do not what they should be doing, which is simply adjudicating guilt and innocence, but rather to be resolving questions of racial justice, to be proving whether we're a racist society. I think that's asking much too much of the criminal justice system, and it ends up with results that have either half the people saying they're happy and the other half outraged, or in this one, everybody seems to have switched sides, and all the people who hated Simi Valley like it.

MR. LEHRER: Congresswoman Waters, what do you think of that, that idea?

REP. WATERS: Well, let me tell you what I think. I think that those jurors go in there for the most part, most of them attempt to do the best job that they can with complicated instructions and a system of law that has revolved, that sometimes causes people to believe it to be very complicated. On the other hand, I don't think they can absolutely remove themselves from the problems of our society, and certainly as human beings, we all form opinions about whether or not the system is fair, whether or not there are racist thing going on, whether or not there is polarization, and as much as one tries, it is difficult to remove yourself totally from that. And I don't think there is such a human being that is that purpose, but it is the best that we have. It is important for all of us to speak out when we feel the system is not working properly. In this case I think it was important to have the debate about whether or not the judge should have removed one of the jurors under some unusual circumstances. I think that it is all right for us to continually monitor this criminal justice system and speak out when we feel that it is not operating properly. I think it's that kind of pressure and it's that kind of confrontation that keeps us having the best system we can possibly have.

MR. LEHRER: Mr. Handell, your reaction to that. I mean, is it, is it -- why shouldn't -- again, why shouldn't a citizen sitting in a jury box consider the, the impact that that verdict that he or she is about to vote is going to have on the community if that's not a legitimate function of a juror?

MR. HANDELL: That is not a legitimate function of a juror. That's correct.

MR. LEHRER: Tell me why it isn't.

MR. HANDELL: The jury is supposed to look at the facts presented to the jury, at the case in a vacuum, without political intervention, without the political fallout, and decide whether that person is guilty or innocent. That's our system. Bad as it is, that's our system, and one other question, one other quote I want to bring up, or a correction in my opinion, this is not a complicated, horrifically complicated case. Either when someone picks up a brick and throws it in someone's head from six inches away he intended to kill that individual or he didn't. That's the issue. How complicated can you get with this?

MR. LEHRER: Congresswoman Waters.

REP. WATERS: Intent, intent is not a new question in the law. Intent is an important part of law as it has developed.

MR. LEVIN: Right. Absolutely.

REP. WATERS: If you will speak to the lawyers there --

MR. LEVIN: Right.

REP. WATERS: -- they will tell you it didn't just originate in this trial --

MS. ESTRICH: Of course not.

REP. WATERS: -- that it is a serious body of law that has developed over a long period of time to determine guilt or innocence.

MR. HANDELL: Unbelievable.

MS. ESTRICH: That's true, Maxine. It's absolutely true, but you and I were both arguing when the police officers were on trial both in the Simi Valley and in Los Angeles County. I think you and I were both arguing that intent to violate civil rights should be inferred from the fact that they beat Ronald -- Reginald -- I'm getting them mixed up -- Rodney King nearly to death. I mean, we in the criminal law have been inferring intent from people's actions for years --

REP. WATERS: That's right.

MS. ESTRICH: -- without having too much difficulty doing it.

REP. WATERS: That's right.

MS. ESTRICH: And I think it's fair to say that once you got by the obstacle of identity in this case, what helped the defendants enormously was not the legal complexities of the doctrine of intent, particularly as to the mayhem charge, but rather the sense of many members of the jury that justice required more than application of law to fact, and I'd --

MR. LEHRER: Mr. Levin, do you agree --

REP. WATERS: I don't think so.

MR. LEVIN: I absolutely disagree.

MR. LEHRER: Let me ask Mr. Levin on that.

MR. LEVIN: The intent required in attempted murder prosecution is to show that the individual intended to commit a premeditated, willful, and deliberate --

REP. WATERS: That's right.

MR. LEVIN: -- first degree murder --

REP. WATERS: That's absolutely correct.

MR. LEVIN: -- not second degree, not a manslaughter, not any other type of intent, and to say that it's not a complicated issue again is to be very naive. It's very difficult to prove the specific intent to kill. Listen, no one was killed out there at Florence and Normandy. Mr. Williams did not bring a weapon to the scene of the crime. He did not actually kill Reginald Denny. There are many factors that go into the determination of --

MS. ESTRICH: But when you hit somebody with a brick on the head, you generally intend to do them harm.

MR. LEVIN: -- proving intent beyond a reasonable doubt.

REP. WATERS: Oh, I --

MR. LEVIN: I heard a prosecutor today --

REP. WATERS: -- think as an attorney you know that the way that intent was just described by attorney Levin is a complication of the issue, Susan. It is not as simple as you would describe it.

MS. ESTRICH: But, Maxine, I mean, here is the problem in this case. We have all been busily switching sides. When it was the police officers who were being tried in the Simi Valley, we all said you should infer intent from what they did, and there too there were requirements of specific intent, and most of them said they were not.

REP. WATERS: Intent was not a question in that trial.

MR. LEVIN: The police officers, the police officers were not charged with attempted murder.

MS. ESTRICH: Absolutely intent was a question.

MR. LEVIN: And I can tell you this, having been a police officer, that a police baton in the hand of a police officer is much more of a deadly weapon than a brick hurled from an assailant. A police baton is a much harder weapon and in the hands of an expert user of that weapon is much more deadly. Those police officers weren't charged, so --

MR. LEHRER: Let me -- Mr. Handell --

MR. HANDELL: Yes.

MR. LEHRER: I just want to ask you to go back to --

MR. HANDELL: I think the police ought to start using bricks because that's obviously a much better way to deal with it.

MS. ESTRICH: And not a deadly weapon.

MR. LEHRER: And Susan Estrich's point --

REP. WATERS: Oh, what an utterly ridiculous statement!

MR. LEHRER: -- that the politics has come into the courtroom because the politicians haven't dealt with these crucial issues, is she right?

MR. HANDELL: No, no. The politics have come into this courtroom because our jury system is such that jurors are known to the public, you can't hide them. Quite often they're afraid of their lives. In Italy, for example, if there was a jury dealing in a mafia trial, that jury is hidden. They're behind a, a wall, or they're behind some kind of a barrier. No one ever knows who they are. They don't know their names. Our jury system when you're dealing with a highly volatile, political trial like this, and please let's not kid ourselves, this was an incredibly political trial, they are afraid of their own lives. I would be afraid of my own life. Let me tell you, if I was sitting there and wanting to convict these two men for what they did, I would think, are they going to go after my family, yes or no?

REP. WATERS: No.

MR. HANDELL: Exactly!

MR. LEHRER: We have to --

MR. LEVIN: They did get convicted.

MR. LEHRER: On that terrible thought, we have to leave it. Thank you all four very much for being with us.

MS. ESTRICH: Your welcome.

REP. WATERS: Thank you.

MR. LEHRER: Thank you.

MS. WARNER: Still ahead on the NewsHour, health care for the elderly and Palestinian views of the peace accord. FOCUS - ALTERNATIVE CARE

MS. WARNER: Next tonight, a report on Oregon's effort to provide health care for the elderly. Major elements of Oregon's plan for community-based health care have been included in the Clinton health plan.We have a report from Lee Hochberg of Oregon Public Broadcasting.

MR. HOCHBERG: This is not how 78 year old Pearl Long imagined she'd spend her last years of life. Strong-willed and driven, she had held a job for 50 years, had her own car, raised three kids by herself.

PEARL LONG: I'm just an independent person. I just had to -- that's my disposition, to be that way.

MR. HOCHBERG: Now a stroke has left her paralyzed on her right side and under the control of others in a nursing home. For Long and many other elderly people, it's a dreaded last chapter to their life.

PEARL LONG: There's a lot of noise in here, a lot of screaming, and misery. It gets on your nerves. I kept telling my sister to get me out of here, I didn't want to stay, they were driving me crazy. There just wasn't anything to do, and I've worked for so many darn years, it's kind of hard to be just sittin' here.

MR. HOCHBERG: Long won't have to sit in the nursing home much longer. As part of Oregon's groundbreaking approach to caring for the elderly, she's being shuttled off to look at alternative facilities that state leaders say afford her more dignity.

JIM WILSON, Oregon Senior and Disabled Services: Most old people would rather be independent. They would rather take a chance on, for instance, falling at home rather than having somebody standing there, looking over them all the time.

MR. HOCHBERG: In Oregon, an estimated 60,000 elderly people get long-term care in neighborhood homes like this one or in other homier settings, or in their own homes at five times the number getting care in nursing homes. Nationally, the figures are just the opposite. More Oregonians get into homes like this because they're allowed to use funds from Medicaid, the federally-funded health service for the poor, to pay for them. Normally, federal regulations require that those Medicaid dollars be spent at a nursing home, but Oregon has received a waiver from that rule.

HAROLD BENDER: No way will I go to a nursing home. I'll put a bullet in my head before I go there.

MR. HOCHBERG: A car accident and arthritis have left 74-year-old Harold Bender almost totally immobile, but Bender can still reside in the same Portland apartment he's lived in for 17 years.

HAROLD BENDER: Everybody says every time I fall down I'd be better off in a nursing home. I says, that nursing home's not going to keep me from falling.

MR. HOCHBERG: The state provides in-home care for 6,000 Oregonians like Bender, everything from baths to IV bags. At a cost to the state of $1400 a month, far cheaper than a nursing home, he's greeted every morning by a nurse who helps him out of bed, helps him bathe, and dress, helps him with meals.

HAROLD BENDER: And they come in in the morning, "Good morning," you know, like canaries, you know, birds, you know, daylight, and they start chirping and yeah, that makes me feel a lot better.

MR. HOCHBERG: Workers under state contract are building a wheelchair ramp for Bender's apartment that will enable him to venture out on his own for the first time since 1976.

HAROLD BENDER: Donut shop here I come.

MAN: A donut shop?

NURSE: Yeah. Just up the hill.

HAROLD BENDER: A donut shop, and then I'll go to Pirates Cove and get drunk. I've been cooped up for years in here. Gettin' out, well, it just changes your life all around. You know, your lifestyle changes. You want to go, go, go, baby, go.

MR. HOCHBERG: For Pearl Long, living at home is not an option because she needs round-the-clock assistance. A state case worker is showing her one of the state's 2,000 adult foster homes.

SPOKESPERSON: This is Frank.

PEARL LONG: Hi, Frank.

MR. HOCHBERG: In these, homeowners with some medical training take care of up to five persons in their home. The number of homes has exploded in Oregon since the state said Medicaid benefits could be applied to rent. Pearl Long was charged $2,000 a month at the nursing home but rent here is only $1300, a bargain says this man who came here after being badly burned in a house fire.

FRANK HEWETT: The lady takes care of me like I was a baby, you know, bathes me, wraps me up. I would never want to go no place else.

SPOKESPERSON: [talking to woman] So you do you like?

PEARL LONG: Yeah, it's a nice room.

MR. HOCHBERG: The state says its institutionalized system of care is less costly to deliver than traditional nursing home care. Senior services administrator Wilson says Oregon has saved $225 million since 1981 by diverting patients from nursing homes.

JIM WILSON: If you are paying for nursing home long-term care, a lot of it is overkill. You may have gone into a nursing home with a broken hip, and that probably required some medical care. Usually within a month or two your hip's going to mend but you're going to have trouble getting around. You don't need a registered nurse to watch you.

ROBERT DECKER, Oregon Health Care Association: If it's necessary for me to go to a nursing home sometime in my life, then that's where I'll want my family to take me, and that's where I want to live.

MR. HOCHBERG: The nursing home industry's Robert Decker scoffs at the argument that nursing homes provide more than their residents need. Lobbying at the state capitol for increased nursing home funding, Decker denies that Oregon's alternative program will save the state money.

ROBERT DECKER: We created the service in the state of Oregon. And when you create the service, people find out about the service and then they begin to demand the service. What it does is it just opens the door for more people to participate in the Medicaid program, and I think that the cost would be devastating.

MR. HOCHBERG: The industry blames the state both for the declining number of nursing homes and nursing home residents in Oregon. It says it's unfair for it to have to compete with community-based care when federal regulations require nursing homes to maintain expensive staffing and service levels. But many senior activists and gerontologists say Oregon is wise to keep regulation of its system to a minimum.

ELIZABETH KUTZA, Gerontologist: I think we have to be very cautious because we'll lose what we like about this system in terms of its more informal nature, more flexible nature. Sometimes we want to get in there and try and make everything right with no risk, and it's going to actually change the character, I think, eventually of what we have.

MR. HOCHBERG: Still, even supporters of Oregon's system admit there are abuses of the elderly within it.

BARBARA SULLIVAN, Ombudsman: People who are not qualified are being able to start these adult foster care homes, and the quality of life is absolutely going down the tube.

MR. HOCHBERG: Barbara Sullivan is one of four hundred volunteer ombudsmen entrusted with the responsibility to drive around Oregon and inspect conditions of the state's adult foster homes. She says state law, which requires only that foster home operators take an 18-hour training course, is far too lenient, and there are no requirements for those the homeowners hire to take care of the elders.

BARBARA SULLIVAN: Many of those people coming in on the weekends have no training whatsoever. They could be street people. And believe me, without being facetious, I have seen street people taking care of the elderly. I have found alcoholics. I have found drug addicts. You know, I wanted to just cry really.

JIM WILSON: Of course, there are some risks in doing this. Abuse occurs in foster homes. It occurs in in-home situations. It also occurs in nursing homes, but we have seen no evidence that the frequency of abuse in community-based settings is higher than it is in, for instance, nursing homes. In fact, there's quite a bit of evidence that it's not as high.

MR. HOCHBERG: Pearl Long has settled into an adult foster home in the Portland neighborhood where she grew up. For her, whatever risks there are are outweighed by the dignity she's regained.

PEARL LONG: Oh, I feel like I'm a human being again, you know, because I'm with people that, at least they take an interest in you. I feel more like I'm going to live again, I really do.

MR. HOCHBERG: In the next months, stories like Long's will be scrutinized closely by a Congress eager to keep costs down and afford choice for the nation's burgeoning elderly population. CONVERSATION - TWO VOICES

MS. WARNER: Finally tonight, we continue Charlayne Hunter-Gault's series of Middle East conversations reflecting on the Israeli-PLO accord. In Jordan, Charlayne talked with two Palestinian journalists, one quite optimistic, the other quite pessimistic about what the accord would mean for the Palestinian people. The optimist was Rami Khoury. Charlayne asked him why he thought the two longtime enemies came to an accord now.

RAMI KHOURY, Palestinian Journalist: I think both the Israelis and the Palestinians realized that neither was going to defeat the other. I think the shock of missiles falling in Israeli cities from Iraq scared the daylights out of the Israelis and made them realize that all of their arguments about the strategic depth of the West Bank and all of the baloney that the Israelis kept giving westerners, western diplomats, western media, western scholars, they tell you, look, it's 14 miles long or 12 miles long, this is baloney, when missiles were falling from four or five hundred miles away, so both people realized finally that the only security that really they could ever aspire to comes from the recognition of their enemy, and their enemy is not their enemy. Their enemy is their brother, is their historical twin. Their enemy is somebody that they have lived with for literally thousands of years. The Jews and the Christians and the Muslims in Palestine have a tradition of coexistence and tolerance that, that goes back to the beginning of Judaism, and Christianity, and Islam. It took a while for people to overcome their narrow fears and their nationalistic madness, to realize that really they had to live together, and if they're going to live together, they're going to share the land, and if they're going to share the land, they're going to have to sit and talk to each other.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: What's the mood among Palestinians now? And I know how loaded that question is because there's not any one group of Palestinians.

RAMI KHOURY: I think there is a general mood among most of the Palestinians, and it is one that is basically a mood of skepticism, and there's a lot of skepticism. There's very few people who are really gung ho about this agreement and who are sure it's going to bring peace and justice and prosperity. There are some like that, but most of the Palestinians don't think this is really going to work very smoothly. But at the same time, most of them seem to be willing to try it. And this is the critical historical difference.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: You described yourself as an optimist on this. What does an optimist see as a potential mine field here?

RAMI KHOURY: There are a lot of possibilities why this agreement may not work as smoothly as we would like it to, or why it may collapse in the end. I think the greatest challenge is going to be people's impatience, especially on the Palestinian side, because there must be fast and meaningful improvement in the quality of life of the people, the Palestinians living under Israeli occupation, and Palestinians, several million probably, two million of them, living in the neighboring Arab countries, some in refugee camps, others living in, in society as your average, normal citizens.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: Because most of them aren't going to benefit for at least five years. I mean, the first part of this accord deals primarily with those in Gaza and Jericho.

RAMI KHOURY: I think the, the litmus test of sustained progress is going to be a quick Israeli withdrawal, a disengagement from as much of the occupied territories as possible, transferring real authority to the Palestinians, not just a symbolic thing, but real authority, so that the Palestinians feel that they are in charge of their destiny, that they can govern themselves, that they can determine the future of themselves and their children, and third, that the, the injustice that has been done for all Palestinians, whether in Palestine or outside Palestine, will be redressed in a phased process in the sense that people living outside in camps or otherwise can feel that they will either have a chance to go to Palestine, or they will be compensated for the land that was lost when Israel was created, or they have a place in the future where they can at least get a passport, a Palestinian passport for their children, and that they can be guaranteed say a university, a place if they want to go a university, or the access to a judicial system that they think treats them fairly, or a passport to travel, whatever they, they want to do as normal human beings. These things have to happen quickly within the next, within the next year. If this happens, then in an ideal situation, the process of physical disengagement between Israelis and Palestinians, and a transfer of authority to Palestinians from Israelis will then be followed by a process of psychological detente. And I think we're seeing the beginnings of that process, of overcoming the, the legacy of, of the past, and returning to the patterns of coexistence and, and pluralism, and communal peace that have always defined this region historically.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: But Palestinian Journalist Lamis Andoni isn't as optimistic about the accord.

LAMIS ANDONI, Palestinian Journalist: Many believe, even those who support it think that the actual agreement has fallen short of the aspirations, and people are afraid that -- some people are hopeful that it will be a first step, a prelude to a Palestinian state and to the attainment of Palestinian national rights, and many, including the supporters of the accord, are still afraid that it won't -- would stop the -- that it wouldn't pave the way for Palestinian sovereignty.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: We've been told by some that the majority of Palestinians want this to work and are willing to, to trust.

LAMIS ANDONI: The majority of the Palestinians are willing to give it a chance because they're afraid that it will be another mistake that in the past the Palestinians have rejected other compromises, and now we are, Palestinians are having to accept less and less, but the problem is that the majority are really supporting what they view as a prelude, as a precursor of Palestinian state or at least a full Israeli withdrawal. But if this will not lead the Palestinian state or some kind of a Palestinian entity where people, where Palestinians will finally feel secure, and that they have, they are to have passports, their own security, and their own, their own, to realize their national identity and national aspiration and nationalist practice, the Palestinian right of self-determination, then in time this support will either, it will shift this fear that if you -- if the PLO is accepting these conditions, then it's, it will be difficult for the PLO in the future to try to really support international or Arab support for any, for more than us. For example, the world now is treating this effort as the biggest -- as if the problem has already been solved. And in the eyes of the world and in the eyes of people, in the eyes of our scientists, if the Palestinians accept that, why should the others ask for more? While, while the PLO has actually accepted that hoping that it will be an opening, not an end, that it will, it will enable the PLO to pursue its, its goals peacefully.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: So in other words, the fear is that by accepting this accord now, even the framework, with a promise to negotiate these other things, that will fix in place the present reality?

LAMIS ANDONI: The present realities and that will leave the Palestinians alone, isolated, trying to struggle for more demands but for the world the Palestinian problem would have -- I mean, would think that the Palestinian problem has been solved. The other thing is that many countries have been demanding like the lifting of the Arab boycott, normalization of relations with the Arab world, and Israel, and this is, this could be very dangerous for the Palestinians because many Palestinians do not really oppose a final normalization. They know that as an outcome of any deal between the Palestinians and the Israelis it will lead eventually to some sort of normalization even what they call cold peace between Israel and the Arab world, but if it --

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: It wasn't a cold peace.

LAMIS ANDONI: Cold peace, but if this is done at an early stage, why would Israel, which has been seeking acceptance in the region and it has not been accepted because of the Palestinian problem, what will make Israel at the latest stage make any more concessions?

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: One of the sharpest differences between the two journalists is the issue of the status of Jerusalem.

RAMI KHOURY: But really the Jerusalem problem I think is overblown. I think the Israelis can see Jerusalem as a capital, and they think it is their capital. And fine, it is their capital. It's also our capital. There's no reason why it can't be the shared capital of two people. We're not claiming that we want to divide Jerusalem. We're just saying that we want acts that have a certain political substance to them, that allow us as Palestinians to say Jerusalem is my capital, and Jerusalem is also the capital of Israel, and it's not a question of having to choose. Say they can stay united, they can stay undivided, whatever you want to call it, it can be their capital, it can be our capital, and it has to be the linchpin and the symbol of the peace that we are trying to develop on a broader level between Arabs and Israelis. There's no need to get into this, you know, battle between who owns Jerusalem. Jerusalem is not the exclusive property of any one faith or ethnic group.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: How widely is that view shared, the one you just articulated, among Palestinians?

RAMI KHOURY: I think it's the dominant view. I think it's a view that the majority of Palestinians share because we realize again that it's not realistic to say that we want East Jerusalem back purely as an exclusive Arab domain. That's not going to happen.

LAMIS ANDONI: Yes, it might be true that Palestinians will be ready to share Jerusalem, although I'm not sure but I think even if we assume the Palestinians will be ready to be more flexible in Jerusalem so far there have been no indications whatsoever that Israelis, including Rabin and Peres, who are behind the accord, are willing to compromise on Jerusalem, so I'm talking about Jerusalem being a sticking point not just because the Palestinians are insisting on having Jerusalem as their capital because so far there have been no indications whatsoever of any flexibility on the part of the Israelis.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: Behind you, over your shoulder are two pictures, one of Nazareth and the other of --

RAMI KHOURY: Jafa.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: Jafa. Nazareth where your people came from, Jafa from where your wife's people came. Don't those people want who came from both areas during the war, will they ever be happy if they don't get their land back?

RAMI KHOURY: They would be happier if they could go live in their own land under the sovereignty of their own people, the Palestinian Arabs, but the majority of them accept now that that's not going to happen, that we are a small people entangled in a very large historical process that includes superpowers and oil and Arab interests and Islamic sentiment and East-West relations. I mean, the drama that we're involved in is so huge and so long over a period of time that people I think now are much more realistic than they were forty and fifty years ago. What we're saying, the Palestinians are saying to the Israelis, is that we accept this historical compromise, we accept the partition of Palestine now. Take 4/5 of Palestine, keep it as an Israeli state, but I want 1/5 of Palestine back, to me, the Palestinians, so that we can set up our national sovereign state and we can then provide the Palestinian people with the protection and the identity of an independent state exactly like the Israelis did.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: What do you think about Palestinians who came from those areas, Bethlehem, Nazareth, Jafa, are they going to be happy with 1/5 of the land?

LAMIS ANDONI: There is a difference. I mean, people from Bethlehem like my family is considered part of the West Bank and it's included, it will be under the autonomy plan, but it falls under the autonomy plan while people from Nazareth and Jafa are from towns that are now included what we call -- in Israel what the world recognizes as Israel and not what the PLO recognizes as the state of Israel. So this is one source of discontent among the Palestinians because the accord has left us, the Palestinians who were displaced in 1948 by not mentioning anything about the Palestinians and diaspora, especially those who were displaced in 1984, it has the, the effort has raised fears that there are hidden -- not agreements but understandings -- I mean, that there, the Palestinians and diaspora will be settled permanently in Jordan, Egypt, Lebanon, wherever they are.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: You're convinced that there will be a Palestinian state in your lifetime?

RAMI KHOURY: Oh, absolutely. There will be a Palestinian state probably before the end of the decade, and the Israelis should welcome it. Intelligent, rational, genuine Jewish moralists, the people who genuinely reflect the morality of Moses and Abraham and the Jewish religious, moral traditions should not only accept the Palestinian state they should work actively for it in the same way that I as a Palestinian, if I am true to my Arab identity and my Palestinian heritage and my religion, I happen to be a Christian but most Arabs are Muslims, but people who are true to their morality and their faith should work also for coexistence between Palestinian and Israeli states side by side because that's the only way.

LAMIS ANDONI: If these terms do not take into consideration mutual recognition, a mutual, authentic, genuine recognition of both sides between, a mutual recognition between the Palestinians and the Israelis of the two sides or the two people's right to self-determination, then it will not last for long. And so far we haven't seen an indication of that. Maybe, maybe this effort or the negotiations will lead to that, and it will lead to a mutual recognition of the Israelis and the Palestinians to self- determination, then it will be really, really a basis for a permanent peace in the region.

MS. WARNER: Charlayne's Middle East conversations continue next week with Israeli and Palestinian views from the West Bank. RECAP

MR. LEHRER: Again, the major stories of this Wednesday, a Los Angeles jury found black defendant Damian Williams innocent of attempting to murder white truck driver Reginald Denny. The Clinton administration denied it was pressuring Haiti's civilian government to accept a deal with military coup leaders, and late this afternoon President Clinton and Senate Minority Leader Dole reached agreement on a resolution about sending U.S. troops overseas. The agreement averts a Senate floor fight that could have limited the President's authority to send troops to Haiti and to Bosnia. Good night, Margaret.

MS. WARNER: Good night, Jim. That's it for the NewsHour tonight. I'm Margaret Warner. We'll see you tomorrow. Thank you, and good night.