Michael Jackson:Court to Admit 1993 Accuser Testimony
Posted on Mon Mar 28, 2005 at 08:43:53 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)
March 28, 2005
Bump and Update: The Judge has ruled evidence of the 1993 accusation against Jackson can be admitted. The judge also will allow evidence regarding four other accusers, including actor Macaulay Culkin and choreographer Wade Robson. The prosecution had sought to admit allegations from seven former accusers. The jury will hear that Jackson settled two lawsuits, one in 1990 and one in 1993. It will not hear amounts unless the defense brings it up. But this does not mean the five accusers will testify in person. In particular, the 1993 accuser, Jordan Chandler, is not expected to testify:
Jackson's lawyer then went into a point-by-point attack of the old material Sneddon wants to introduce. With the exception of Chandler and the maid's son, the five boys allegedly molested by Jackson--a group that includes actor Macaulay Culkin and choreographer Wade Robson--have all repeatedly denied being abused by the performer, Mesereau said. Additionally, since Chandler is not going to testify, Mesereau said, jurors would only hear direct testimony from one of the seven boys prosecutors claim Jackson sexually abused.
Mesereau said that many of the third-party witnesses Sneddon would call to testify about the prior abuse were tabloid informants, disgruntled former employees, and money-hungry litigants. He specifically mentioned a group of former Neverland workers who sued Jackson for wrongful termination and were routed in court (in fact, they lost a countersuit brought by Jackson and were hit with a seven-figure legal judgment, which drove some into bankruptcy).
Background on California's evidence rule that allows such evidence is here, and my opinion as to why this evidence should have been excluded is here.
Original Post:
Today will be the most important day in Michael Jackson't trial. The Judge will rule on whether he will allow evidence about Jackson's 1993 accuser to be admitted at his trial.
"Jackson's defense team was expected to argue that admitting past evidence would be prejudicial to their client and irrelevant. If it is allowed, however, they will be prepared to contend this case is similar to the 1993 allegations only because the current accuser is a copycat looking for a payoff."
Smoking Gun is following today's arguments. More here.
| < Colo. Supreme Court Reverses Lisl Auman's Felony Murder Conviction | Connected Today > |
