Court TV Host: Prosecutors say they are seeking the death penalty for David Westerfield, charged with the murder of seven-year-old California girl, Danielle van Dam. How will that change the case? Ask criminal defense attorney Alvin Michaelson, after his appearance on Catherine Crier Live.

Court TV Host: Welcome, Mr. Michaelson.

Alvin Michaelson: Hello.

Court TV Host: Is there anything that you didn't get a chance to say on Crier that you'd like to say here?

Alvin Michaelson: There are certain things that are obvious, we all know that in the OJ case, a lot was made of the DNA, it could not have been more clear and precisely dead-on so you had to believe that cops deliberately fudged it. And you have a situation here where people may believe some of the evidence was fudged.

Question from: LawNurse: Mr. Michaelson, do you feel that by asking for the death penalty, it will make it harder for the prosection to get a guilty verdict, because the jury may not want the death penalty?

Alvin Michaelson: No, because what happens when you have the death penalty cases, the jury is more conservative. Because people who are more liberal or against the death penalty don't get a chance to sit on such a jury. You have to tell the judge that you're willing to give the death penalty -- that excludes a lot of more liberal thinking people. That's a major advantage for the prosecution.

Question from: ripley51: Mr. Michaelson, hello. Do you know if there was any plea bargain offered to Mr. Westerfield?

Alvin Michaelson: I don't know. I would doubt it in this case. The only bargain that might be made was for life in prison, but I would doubt it. That's just a guess.

Question from: deano: Mr. Michealson, why do you think the prosecution made the decision to seek the death penalty against Mr Westerfield?

Alvin Michaelson: If you believe in the death penalty, and you think it applies to cases, then this would be one of those cases. I've read things about this DA, I don't know him, but people think he's honorable. And if you support the death penalty, this is that kind of case. Had he not chosen to go for death penalty, I think that he would have found a lot of problems with his constituency. It's a particularly heinous murder, a child, planned, not spontaneous.

Question from: alvin: Do you think that Mrs van Dam meeting Mr. Westerfield in the bar two weekends in a row was coincidence or that Westerfield was fishing for info?

Alvin Michaelson: I don't know if that actually happened. We have to find out if that in fact did happen.

Question from: ripley51: Mr. Michaelson, if you were defending Mr.Westerfield would you risk putting your defendant on the stand in his own defense?

Alvin Michaelson: A lawyer never makes that choice until hearing the evidence that comes in against a defendant when the prosecution rests its case. You see what the evidence is and how damning it is, and then see whether you need to take your chances. You know, OJ wanted to testify, and his lawyers insisted that he did not, and apparently his lawyers were right,

Question from: jerseygirl: Do you think there will be backlash with the jury if Westerfield's defense paints the parents in a less than parental light?

Alvin Michaelson: If in fact it's relevant to show that other people could have done it because of their lifestyle, then you have to put that evidence on. But if you're just doing it to besmirch them, I think it's a counterproductive technique, and you're not going to get anywhere with it. That's a very dicey call, you have to be sure that it's true and relevant. If it's not the case, then you could really lose the jury -- forever.

Question from: LawNurse: Mr. Michaelson, how much do you think the VanDam's "lifestyle" will figure into the case?

Alvin Michaelson: This is a circumstantial evidence case and that may be a circumstance that is relevant. Or it may not be.

Question from: kapsekom: Hi Mr. Michaelson - Do you think that Mr. Westerfield was represented and treated fairly from the beginning?

Alvin Michaelson: I have no idea. I do know that if the cops attempted to visit him after he was represented by counsel, it's about as egregious a violation as you can get. And if that is the case, it would show desperation, and then maybe the case isn't that strong.

Question from: LawNurse: Mr. Michaelson, as a defense attorney, what do you feel is the largest problem the defense will have in this case?

Alvin Michaelson: Off the top of my head, the DNA evidence. But, if you'll remember, it didn't kill Mr. OJ.

Question from: Thanks Mr. Michaelson for being our guest today.