News

Jackson Trial, ramifications of today's decision?

Discussion in 'Other Off Topic Forum' started by sjb509, Mar 28, 2005.

  1. sjb509

    sjb509 Guest

    While reading through the news today I noticed that the judge in the case has ruled that the previous allegations from 1993 will be allowed. What this means as I understand it is that the kids who reached a monetary settlement with MJ over a decade ago will be called and will testify about the details of their case, not this one.

    In my purely non-legal layman mind, how can this be allowed? Those cases did not go to trial because of the witnesses' unwillingness to testify after a seven-figure settlement. I've read that in the mid 90's, CA passed a law where basically a victim would have to testify regardless once the charges are made, I guess to prevent the same type of "get paid and clam up" situation with victims. It also seems as though this law would then be applied retroactively to these two old victims. Not sure how that works, either.

    It seems as though the prosecution has little but the word of a child and his shady family about the abuse. If nothing else, they will ruin Jackson and his name. Convince the jury that he is a creep, therefore he must be guilty regardless of the evidence, ala Scott Peterson.

    For the record, I remain neutral about his guilt or innocence. However, Jackson and his handlers should be convicted of the crime of incredible stupidity to allow himself to be put in this position again after those events years ago.

    Would any attorneys care to weigh in on this? Did this ruling just ensure that the case will be overturned on appeal if he is convicted?
     
  2. maranelloman

    maranelloman Guest

    Michael either kills himself or rents a private jet & flees to Mexico with all the money he has left.
     
  3. darth550

    darth550 Five Time F1 World Champ
    Lifetime Rossa

    Jul 14, 2003
    58,319
    With Stu
    Full Name:
    St Mark
    There is no question that Jacko will pull a Polanski.

    DL
     
  4. Auraraptor

    Auraraptor F1 World Champ
    Owner Lifetime Rossa

    Sep 25, 2002
    10,993
    MO
    Double jeopardy? (I need a lawyer to explain this one to me, I thought DJ prevents you from being tried 2x)
     
  5. Korr

    Korr F1 World Champ
    Silver Subscribed

    Dec 7, 2003
    14,630
    Full Name:
    C9H8O4
    He didn't go to trial for the first one.
     
  6. Auraraptor

    Auraraptor F1 World Champ
    Owner Lifetime Rossa

    Sep 25, 2002
    10,993
    MO
    ah... Gotcha.
     
  7. MarkG

    MarkG Formula Junior

    Nov 3, 2003
    369
    Colorado Springs
    Full Name:
    Mark
    Reversible error. Jackson walks on appeal (if convicted). Southern California DA's loose their 3rd straight celebrity case (O.J., Blake and this one).
     
  8. WILLIAM H

    WILLIAM H Three Time F1 World Champ

    Nov 1, 2003
    34,891
    Victory Circle
    Full Name:
    HUBBSTER
    The he had some poor lawyering, If I were his lawyer I would have demanded that the kids from 93 sign a contract stating they would NEVER discuss anything w any1 & put some HUGE fines in it
     
  9. Korr

    Korr F1 World Champ
    Silver Subscribed

    Dec 7, 2003
    14,630
    Full Name:
    C9H8O4
    IANAL, but I think this wouldn't go very far in a criminal proceeding.
     
  10. GoFerrari28

    GoFerrari28 Formula 3

    Jun 16, 2004
    2,242
    Ridgemont, CA
    Full Name:
    Jeff Spicoli
    If compelled by a court to testify, such a contract clause is unenforceable. What makes me wonder is how this testimony is being admitted. Normally, prior bad acts are not admissible for the purpose of proving the commission of the offense, but if the prosecutor is trying to elicit testimony of the methods or manner by which Mr. Potato Head perpetrated these offenses, then it may be VERY damaging since much of the prior claims will be heard by the jury. I still think it's a setup.
     
  11. SrfCity

    SrfCity F1 Veteran

    Nov 1, 2003
    9,842
    Orange County, CA
    There may be some truth to Jackson's recent claim that he's being set up so that others can get their hands on his music library. The guy has a history of inappropriate behavior with children. That combined with him being watched by the "foxes" will make things interesting. The prosecution is trying anything and everything to make this one stick.
     
  12. maranelloman

    maranelloman Guest


    Horse manure. Jackson's squandering of his own fortune, and his huge debt load, has already effectively caused a change of ownership of his music library. He is being prosecuted because he is a menace to society, and someone finally had the stones to file charges instead of selling out.
     
  13. wcelliot

    wcelliot Formula Junior

    May 7, 2004
    577
    Maryland, USA
    Full Name:
    Bill
    In my opinion, he's absolutely being set up.

    And in my opinion he's also guilty.

    Like an earlier post, I anticipate flight or suicide.

    Bill
     
  14. 2000YELLOW360

    2000YELLOW360 F1 World Champ
    Owner Consultant

    Jun 5, 2001
    19,732
    Full Name:
    Art
    William:

    Take a look at the California Slapp suit statute, its in the 425 series of the California Code of Civil Procedure, then tell me how you'd draft such a document.

    Art
     
  15. wax

    wax Four Time F1 World Champ
    Advising Moderator

    Jul 20, 2003
    42,378
    SFPD
    Full Name:
    Dirty Harry
    Indeedly-do, MJ's downfall was set up by his worst enemy, himself.

    Some would say he was targeted by Law Enforcement, after all, §1108 was created in 1995, a response to MJ paying off in hush money, ostensibly to "forever silence" the "alleged" victims.

    Malice aforethought?

    On MJ's part, by all appearances, Yes, several times over;
    On the Law's? Yes and No. This was created to ensure one pays the price for morally reprehensible and life-altering experiences, not a price for "cheap thrills" experienced during what is supposed to be a life-affirming visit anytime, anywhere, including NeverLand.

    I wouldn't call the Law's intent "Malice," though. Preventative Maintenance, which MJ ignored at his own peril.

    California Evidence Code, Division 9


    §1108 Evidence of another sexual offense by defendant; disclosure; construction of section

    (a) In a criminal action in which the defendant is accused of a sexual offense, evidence of the defendant’s commission of another sexual offense or offenses is not made inadmissible by Section 1101, if the evidence is not inadmissible pursuant to Section 352.

    (b) In an action in which evidence is to be offered under this section, the people shall disclose the evidence to the defendant, including statements of witnesses or a summary of the substance of any testimony that is expected to be offered, at least 30 days before the scheduled date of trial or at such later time as the court may allow for good cause.

    (c) This section shall not be construed to limit the admission or consideration of evidence under any other section of this code.

    (d) As used in this section, the following definitions shall apply:

    (1) "Sexual offense" means a crime under the law of a state or of the United States that involved any of the following:

    (A) Any conduct proscribed by Section 243.4, 261, 261.5, 262, 264.1, 266c, 286, 288, 288a, 288.2, 288.5 or 289, or subdivision (b), (c), or (d) of Section 311.2 or Section 311.3, 311.4, 311.10, 311.11, 314, or 647.6, of the Penal Code.

    (B) Contact, without consent, between any part of the defendant’s body or an object and the genitals or anus of another person.

    (C) Contact, without consent, between the genitals or anus of the defendant and any part of another person’s body.

    (D) Deriving sexual pleasure or gratification from the infliction of death, bodily injury, or physical pain on another person.

    (E) An attempt or conspiracy to engage in conduct described in this paragraph.

    (2) "Consent" shall have the same meaning as provided in Section 261.6 of the Penal Code, except that it does not include consent which is legally ineffective because of the age, mental disorder, or developmental or physical disability of the victim.

    ______

    Will the soulless MJ lose everything? I certainly hope so.
     
  16. jsa330

    jsa330 F1 Veteran
    Silver Subscribed

    Oct 31, 2003
    9,377
    predestined
    Full Name:
    Scott
    Anyone know if Paul McCartney bought his song catalog back from MJ?
     
  17. CMY

    CMY F1 Veteran

    Oct 15, 2004
    9,915
    Redondo Beach, CA
    Full Name:
    Chris
    http://www.snopes.com/music/artists/jackson.htm

    Interesting read, especially the last two paragraphs. I guess MJ owns the rights, but gets 50% of the money generated by ownership. The other 50% has always gone to the Lennon/McCartney side.

    Basically if/when Paul gets his hands on MJ's ownership, he'll get 75% of the profits. Of course, I don't think he needs the money..

    -Chris
     
  18. wax

    wax Four Time F1 World Champ
    Advising Moderator

    Jul 20, 2003
    42,378
    SFPD
    Full Name:
    Dirty Harry
    2003 query: http://ask.yahoo.com/ask/20031210.html

    Does Michael Jackson still own the publishing rights to the Beatles song catalog?

    Sony reports that Jackson used his half of the Beatles' catalog as collateral for a loan from the music company. If Jackson defaults on the loan, Sony has the right to buy his share. In 2001, Jackson stated: "The Beatles catalogue is not for sale, has not been for sale and will never be for sale."

    ^One of a few paragraphs^
     
  19. jsa330

    jsa330 F1 Veteran
    Silver Subscribed

    Oct 31, 2003
    9,377
    predestined
    Full Name:
    Scott
    I don't remember the exact story , but I don't think Paul and Yoko could get their act together to prevent MJ from buying the catalog from whoever owned it. It's just been an ego thing for Paul.
     
  20. RussianM3_dude

    RussianM3_dude F1 Rookie
    BANNED

    Mar 15, 2004
    4,054
    Switzerland/Montreal
    Full Name:
    Nikolai Petroff
    Which website has a good run-down on all the facts and has good updates. Somthing impartial if possible, even though I think Michael is guilty. If it walks like a duck...
     
  21. Uberpower

    Uberpower Formula Junior

    Feb 6, 2004
    902
    Sigma Draconis IV
    Kind of an OT legal question, but if MJ had Johnny Cochran defending him what impact would it have had on the trial?
     
  22. darth550

    darth550 Five Time F1 World Champ
    Lifetime Rossa

    Jul 14, 2003
    58,319
    With Stu
    Full Name:
    St Mark
    None, until rigor sets in!

    DL
     
  23. CMY

    CMY F1 Veteran

    Oct 15, 2004
    9,915
    Redondo Beach, CA
    Full Name:
    Chris
    Paul and Yoko not be able to get their act together? Who would've thought! ;)

    It must be an ego thing, Paul makes it sound like someone stole his baby (but forgets to mention that he still makes boatloads of cash off the abduction).

    -C.
     
  24. triXXXter

    triXXXter Formula Junior

    Nov 11, 2003
    652
    Ft. Worth TX
    Full Name:
    Steven G. Ogden
    ouch! that was cold.
     

Share This Page