Produced by and

CNN Host: Welcome to CNN.com, Robert Precht.

Robert Precht: Thank you very much for having me this afternoon.

CNN Host: During the trial, will the defense attorneys be laying a foundation for appeal as well as presenting a defense for their clients?

Robert Precht: In most trials, the trial lawyer needs to have an eye both on what's happening during the trial and on possible arguments he or she can make on appeal. So, I suppose in this case, lawyers not only will be trying to defend their clients to the jury, but also will be sensitive to any arguments they can make on appeal.

One of the arguments I expect the defense to make on appeal is the unfairness to their clients because of the extensive pre-trial publicity surrounding this case.

CNN Host: U.S. District Judge Leonard Sand has ruled that the post-arrest statements of the defendants are admissible. What kind of a case would the prosecution have without those statements?

Robert Precht: It would have been much harder for the prosecution to establish the criminal intent of the defendants. In a case like this, where there is lots of physical evidence linking the defendants to the crime, one of the few defenses available is that the defendants were unwitting pawns or dupes, and that the post-arrest statements of the defendants, at least two of them, if the prosecution is to be believed, contain statements claiming some level of responsibility for what happened. As it is, it will be very difficult for the defense to argue that the defendants did not know what they were doing.

CNN Host: Families of the victims are sitting behind the defense table during the trial. How could this affect the defendants and their attorneys?

Robert Precht: Well, this was actually something that happened during my trial. I can tell you, it is very unnerving. The defense lawyers are on some level as troubled and horrified as any American by the magnitude of the tragedy, yet they have been given a job in our criminal justice system. Our system is a division of labor, and so if my reactions are any indication, I think the defense lawyers are trying to do the best job they can, given the very difficult task they've been given, to defend these individuals.

At the same time, I'm sure that when they go home at night, and remember the family members and the expressions of sorrow and grief on their faces, they feel on a very human level the tragedy as well. I think it is also a real challenge, in this case, as horrible as it is, and this is primarily the judge's challenge, to try to eliminate or at least lessen the degree of emotion and outcry for vengeance that people naturally feel in a case of this magnitude. Because the jury needs to keep focused on the facts and the evidence, and as Judge Sand will instruct them at the conclusion, the jury cannot be swayed by the understandable emotions we all have about this horrible tragedy.

So, having the family members in the courtroom will also be a challenge to the jurors. Will they, at the end of the case, be able to set aside their emotions? Will they be able to set aside the emotions of the family members, and look dispassionately only at the evidence?

CNN Host: Defendant Wadih el Hage objected to the warrant-less searches and wiretaps on his home in Kenya. What laws and treaties control American law enforcement agencies when they are following leads in other countries?

Robert Precht: The short answer, very few, if any. Basically, the full range of protections American citizens have, and even foreigners in America have, including all of the protections in the Bill of Rights -- the right to be free from unreasonable search and seizures, the privilege against self-incrimination, and the protections we have against coerced confessions -- the Supreme Court has made clear that these rights and protections do not apply when U.S. law enforcement is in foreign countries.

So, however distasteful as some of the law enforcement conduct might strike some people, including their searching property and perhaps even coercing confessions, there is basically no legal remedy for the defense, and the defense may not even be able to argue these matters to the jury. I would expect, however, that in the case of another defendant, where a confession is coming in, they'll argue strongly that it was an unreliable confession, because the defendant was being threatened and coerced. But that's an argument to the jury. The evidence will be presented, but the judge will instruct the jury to weigh the evidence as the jury sees fit. If these actions of law enforcement had occurred on U.S. soil, much of this evidence could not be admitted at all.

CNN Host: Based on your experience as a federal public defender, how strong a case do you believe the prosecution has, and how difficult will it be for the defense to raise reasonable doubt?

Robert Precht: This is, from my perspective, a very strong case against the defendants. One thing striking to me is that this case has been prepared by the government for over two years. The World Trade Center case that I tried, the government had only six months to prepare.

In the embassy bombing case, the government will weave an enormous web of circumstantial evidence linking the defendants physically to the conspiracy. The circumstantial evidence will consist of telephone records, probably financial records, and a multitude of other physical evidence. Each piece of evidence may not point to guilt, but together they will cumulatively portray these defendants as deeply involved in the conspiracy.

The only chance, and it's a slim one, that the defense has to create a reasonable doubt, is to argue that the defendants, although they physically committed many of the acts, did not know the full consequences of their actions. In other words, the defense will argue that the defendants were relatively low-level actors in the conspiracy, and that they were misled by the mastermind, bin Laden. But this will be a very hard argument to make, especially given the existence of confessions.

Question from halai: Could you please tell me that if you have been able to find out the real motive of the culprits who were behind bombing of those U.S. embassies? Why did they really carry out such an attack? Any ideas?

Robert Precht: The government believes that the bombings were the brainchild of Osama bin Laden, and that bin Laden has a hatred of the U.S. that goes back to the American involvement in the Gulf War. So, I think the motive is to get back at, and punish the U.S. for perceived misdeeds of America in the Middle East.

But you raise a very good point, because it's very clear in this trial that the government is putting bin Laden on trial as much as it is the other four defendants. That was clear Tuesday [February 6] with the government's first witness, who is described as a close associate of bin Laden, and this witness gave detailed testimony about bin Laden's hatred of America, and the early plans of bin Laden to strike back at America.

Question from CharliGirl: What kind of sentence is the prosecution after in this case?

Robert Precht: In the case of two defendants, the prosecution is seeking the death penalty. In the case of two other defendants, the prosecution is seeking a life sentence without parole. This case may be one of the first where the jury will be asked to rule on a death sentence in New York.

Question from Beagle: Are there any prosecution witnesses that the defense attorneys can treat as hostile witnesses to weaken the government's case?

Robert Precht: Yes. The witness from yesterday I mentioned is a prime example. This is a witness who, in his own words, was a close associate of bin Laden, and who then struck a deal with U.S. prosecutors. He pleaded guilty to a terrorism charge, but the agreement specifies that in return for his cooperation the government will recommend to the judge that the witness receive a much more lenient sentence than he would be entitled to.

The defense, I expect, will try to cross-examine this witness about the details of the agreement with prosecutors, to suggest to the jury that the witness is not objective but is testifying to please prosecutors in hopes of receiving a lenient sentence. The defense will further argue that the witness' testimony should be discounted because it is the result of subtle pressure to give testimony that the prosecutors will like.

Question from halai: As you said, there is a connection of these men with bin Laden's group ... so why don't you suggest to the government to get hold of the real culprit himself?

Robert Precht: This is a huge headache for the government, I'm sure, because there is basically something unsatisfying about having a trial for this terrible offense and not having on trial the main culprit. So, bin Laden is going to dominate the trial, even though the prosecutors say he is not on trial.

Further, I think that because the prosecutors are spending so much time explaining bin Laden's involvement, the trial may serve a completely different purpose from simply determining the guilt or innocence of the four defendants on trial. The trial may in fact be a prelude to the U.S. putting great diplomatic pressure on Afghanistan, which is the country bin Laden is believed to be in. Afghanistan has thus far refused to turn over bin Laden to U.S. authorities.

But if you have a trial that over the course of six to nine months lays out in great evidentiary detail the culpability of bin Laden, this may turn the tide of public opinion and make it much easier for the U.S. administration to exert diplomatic or even military pressure on Afghanistan to turn over bin Laden.

CNN Host: Do you have any final thoughts to share with us today?

Robert Precht: As an American, I'm saddened and depressed that the whole subject of terrorism is still with us as much today as it was in 1993 when I tried the World Trade Center bombing case.

CNN Host: Thank you for joining us today, Robert Precht.

Robert Precht: Thank you very much for having me.