This is a rush transcript from "On the Record ," March 25, 2008. This copy may not be in its final form and may be updated.
GRETA VAN SUSTEREN, HOST: Mayor Kilpatrick's former chief of staff Christine Beatty faces seven felony counts. Christine Beatty's lawyer Mayer Morganroth joins us live in Detroit. Mayer, it's nice to see you.
MAYER MORGANROTH, ATTORNEY: It's nice seeing you. My name is Mayer Morganroth.
VAN SUSTEREN: I apologize, sir.
? Video: Watch Greta's interview
MAYER MORGANROTH, ATTORNEY FOR CHRISTINE BEATTY: That is all right.
VAN SUSTEREN: Sir, tell me, do you know exactly what the alleged perjury is, what they allege your client did wrong?
MORGANROTH: No, not really. The complaint only says in the broadest of terms that there was perjury, but it does not identify what the particular statements are that comprise that perjury at all.
VAN SUSTEREN: Now, what we heard, discerning from, basically, press accounts that we are trying to piece this together, that the thrust of this is that she was a witness in a civil suit and denied having an affair with the mayor, and that that was particularly relevant because some police officers said they essentially got fired because of something to do with the mayor's affair and the security.
Was your client having an affair with the mayor?
MORGANROTH: Well, first of all, I am not going to get into the facts or the specifics at all. That would be inappropriate, and I would be trying the case on television.
There has been enough of that already, as you probably have seen. There was a press release and statement by the prosecutor, and that was nothing more than a final argument with all kinds of statements and allegations and so on and so forth. And that is inappropriate and improper, and that is something I will not do.
VAN SUSTEREN: Perjury is, for lack of a better word, an interesting charge. It is very literal as to whether somebody lied under oath.
Frankly, I was surprised to learn from the prosecutor that it does not have to be material in Michigan. You guys are apparently a little looser on perjury than in other parts of the country.
But if your client did not have an affair, she can pretty much walk away from this. If she did, she can -- go ahead.
MORGANROTH: First of all, as far as materiality is concerned, I may differ with that. There is case law that says that it does not have to be material, but there is a certain amount of sense that has to go with that. If somebody should say that I am 20, and its turns out they were really 21 and they made a mistake on their age or their birth date or their child's age or their anniversary, would that be perjury?
Secondly, as far as perjury is concerned, I understand that the prosecutor said that it does not make any difference in a civil case. They have prosecuted one. Well, my god, out of thousands of cases, she says one was ever prosecuted in a civil case.
And, by the way, she can't remember the name. So I have a problem with that. We have researched and can't find any in the last over 21 years.
In civil cases, I think you know the instruction is given to the jury in every case that you find for the one that you believe. And in every case, they find on a factual situation the side that they believe in. And therefore, that means the other side must have committed perjury.
But that is ridiculous. In civil cases, that just does not happen, and this is just some incident that is created in order to, I think, do something that's never done.
VAN SUSTEREN: Is your client still working for the city?
MORGANROTH: No, she is not. She resigned as of, I believe, February 8.
VAN SUSTEREN: And is that in any way related to the fact of the investigation, or was this sort of what she was expected to do? She found a better job, or something?
MORGANROTH: Well, she has not got a new job. She did resign. I have not specifically asked her why, and, frankly, if I had, I do not know if I could divulge that anyway because that would be privileged communication.
VAN SUSTEREN: Do you think your client can get a fair trial in Detroit?
MORGANROTH: Yes, I do. I definitely do.
VAN SUSTEREN: And the text messages that are the subject of this, which I assume the prosecution is going through now with a fine tooth comb as the newspaper did -- have you seen -- do you have copies of all those text messages, all 14,000?
MORGANROTH: I do not. In fact, I will have to get them from the prosecutor. And there is an electronic message act, federal act, that prohibits those particular text messages from being distributed or being invaded.
And it is called eavesdropping, and it is the same as eavesdrop on the telephone call. So the fact that they have them is probably inappropriate to start with.
VAN SUSTEREN: Unless, of course, they were subpoenaed and the court authorized them. But then there starts another whole round of interest litigation.
Thank you, sir.
MORGANROTH: You're welcome.
Content and Programming Copyright 2008 FOX News Network, LLC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. Transcription Copyright 2008 Voxant, Inc. (www.voxant.com), which takes sole responsibility for the accuracy of the transcription. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. No license is granted to the user of this material except for the user's personal or internal use and, in such case, only one copy may be printed, nor shall user use any material for commercial purposes or in any fashion that may infringe upon FOX News Network, LLC'S and Voxant, Inc.'s copyrights or other proprietary rights or interests in the material. This is not a legal transcript for purposes of litigation.