home

DA Tries to Block Evidence Re: Mother of Jackson's Accuser

By Jeralyn, Section Crime in the News
Posted on Sat Feb 05, 2005 at 12:15:41 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

The Judge has granted Michael Jackson another exemption from the gag order and his lengthy and exclusive interview with Geraldo airs tonight at 10 pm ET on Fox News.

In case news:

Court documents filed by the District Attorney in the Michael Jackson case show the prosecution is seeking to preclude evidence at trial regarding the accuser's mother and:

  • her lawsuit against WalMart JC Penneys in which she received a settlement of $137k after she alleged store security guards assaulted her and her sons in the store's parking lot;
  • Her alleged use of "psychiatric medication."
  • Her alleged extra-marital affairs
  • Her refusal to waive her attorney-client privilege with respect to what she told one or more lawyers she consulted about Michael Jackson.(pdf.)

Why could this information be relevant?

Jackson's team has alleged in pre-trial hearings that the boy's mother, known in court documents as Jane Doe, is a "liar" and a greedy opportunist who has a history of launching lawsuits aimed at winning financial settlements.

There's no indication on the court docket sheet that the Judge has ruled on these issues yet. Nor has the Judge ruled ono the issue of whether the 1993 accuser can testify. The problem with delaying these rulings is that it prevents the lawyers from making full use of voir dire. If it's not coming in, they don't want to be asking prospective jurors about it. If it is coming in, they need to probe jurors' attitudes on these matters. Voir dire is the lawyers' first chance to introduce the theme and theory of their case to the jury. It's a shame that the Judge is preventing them from doing so. These evididentiary rulings should have been made well before jury selection in my view.

< Michael Jackson's Court Attire | Sabrina Harman: One Charge of Prisoner Abuse Dropped >

  • Premium Ads

  • Blog Ads

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

    donate to TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    DA Tries to Block Evidence Re: Mother of Jackson's Accuser | 3 comments (3 topical)
    Re: DA Tries to Block Evidence Re: Mother of Jacks (none / 0) (#1)
    by cp on Sat Feb 05, 2005 at 06:09:09 PM EST
    i understand the relevance of everything but the claim of "extra marital affairs". i'm not sure how that factors in, unless it's merely another way of attacking the plaintif's credibility. as far as the wal-mart suit, surely you don't think wal-mart would settle, if they didn't believe there was anything to her case, do you? they weighed the risk of trial v settling, and chose to settle. given wal-mart's reputation for aggressively defending itself against everyone and everything, i'm hard pressed to believe they just wussied out to get rid of her. there must have been at least a grain of truth to her claim, in my opinion. i do agree that these evidentiary issues should have been settled prior to jury selection. given the judge's reputation as something of a hard ass, i'm kind of surprised by this.

    Re: DA Tries to Block Evidence Re: Mother of Jacks (none / 0) (#2)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sun Feb 06, 2005 at 09:54:49 AM EST
    I'd be interested to know if there's any evidence she pimped out her kid BEFORE selling him to MJ.

    Re: DA Tries to Block Evidence Re: Mother of Jacks (none / 0) (#3)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Feb 16, 2005 at 02:16:54 PM EST
    That lady didn't "sell" that kid anybody. They have a history of running these scams and now all of that will come back to bite them. And so much the better. I saw that interview with the attorney who represented J. C. Penney's. Two years after filing the lawsuit against JC Penney, it was about to go to court, she and the entire family "suddenly remembered" being sexually abused by one of the security guards. She apparently got the kids to lie to back up her miraculous recovered memory of sexual abuse. And they got $137,000 out of it. So I'm not surprised the defense will be very interested in that. $137,000 by the way is probably less than the JCPenney lawyer's fee. So I'm not surprised at the settlement. I was surprised at how adamant he was that this family had run a scam on JCPenney and was probably doing the same to Jackson. Oh, that all also claimed to have been brutally beaten with broken bones, but didn't provide any medical records proving this. So, yeah the defense is interested and the prosecution is trying to keep it out. It should definitely come in.

    DA Tries to Block Evidence Re: Mother of Jackson's Accuser | 3 comments (3 topical)