Mariana
2
NO SE SI ALGUIEN YA LO HA PUESTO, SI ES ASI ELIMINAR EL POST
SI ALGUIEN PUEDE TRADUCIR LO MAS IMPORTANTE...GRACIAS
On Day 21 of the trial, Judge Melville ruled that the jury can hear past allegations against Michael Jackson, although, prior to this trial, he has never been charged with any crime.
In most criminal cases, evidence of past behavior is not admissible against a defendant. However, the California Legislature changed that in 1995, specifically in cases of child molestation and domestic violence. The District Attorney is attempting to show a pattern of abuse by Michael Jackson. The prosecution has been campaigning from the beginning of the trial to include prior allegations in order to support, what many say, is a non-existent case.
Mr. Mesereau offered this argument, challenging the court to consider the prosecution's motivation for insisting upon using the prior allegations to substantiate their weak case.
(Excerpt from Court Transcript)
Mr. Mesereau: "...what has the Court seen in this courtroom? Is the case strong on credibility and substance or is it weak on credibility and substance? If it's really powerful, the Court probably is less worried. If there are credibility problems with their case and their witnesses, the Court has great concern to worry because the potential for lessening the burden of proof on the prosecution in this case would be great. Now, the Court is dealing with some unique situations. First of all, you have a celebrity. A celebrity who has been subjected to all kinds of innuendo, scandalous reporting and rumor, and a celebrity who has attracted all kinds of claims for money, who has developed a lifestyle at Neverland which he has advertised to the world, which he believes and contends, and many believe, is a benefit to society. The prosecution has come in to try and turn all this on its head and suggest that Neverland is some magnet for molestation and criminal behavior. Well, that's going to be an issue for the jury. But certainly at this point the Court knows, based on the evidence alone, that Mr. Jackson has developed Neverland as a Disney-like type of world that he uses to help children from the inner city, children around the world, et cetera. There's a bigger problem than the uniqueness of the case, and none of the cases cited by Mr. Sneddon deal with celebrities or anyone remotely close to Mr. Jackson in terms of notoriety and attraction for greed and misuse of the legal process.
"The Court has seen three witnesses who the Court -- who the prosecution suggests are victims. And without going into a lot of the details, which I don't think the Court wants me to give a closing argument at this point, but there is no question all three of those witnesses have been riddled with problems in their testimony. All have agreed they lied repeatedly. All were caught lying on the witness stand. All were themselves repeatedly. Every witness was a problem. Now, if the Court agrees there are significant credibility problems with Gavin Arvizo, Star Arvizo, and Davellin Arvizo -- and I believe the Court does, because I don't see how anyone watching the cross-examination could disagree with that. If the Court thinks there are issues to worry about, I would ask the Court to add to that concern the following: Gavin alleges two acts of alleged molestation. There is no eyewitness to either one. And there is no DNA to support it. In fact, there's no forensic evidence at all to support it. Star, along with his credibility problems, alleges – it changes, the number. But he appears to allege two acts of molestation, separate from those of Gavin that he watched. There is no eyewitness. There is no DNA. There is no forensics to support it.
"So as the Court looks at the evidence so far, what do you really have? You have what, in effect, is a very problematic case, and I submit the prosecutors know that. It's extremely problematic. It's filled with credibility issues. And those credibility issues I submit to the Court at this point are compounded by the evidence they've tried to introduce so far about conspiracy."
.....................................
(End of Excerpt)
This ruling involved Section 1108 of the California Criminal Code which allows prosecutors to introduce evidence similar past sexual allegations in order to show that the defendant had a "pattern" of similar previous behavior. The provision was added to California law in 1995 and promoted by District Attorney, Tom Sneddon, when a criminal investigation collapsed after Mr. Jackson reached a civil settlement with the boy in the 1993-94 case. However, judges may draw sharp definitions of what constitutes a similar case.
"The decision I have reached is I will now admit the testimony with regard to the sexual offenses and the alleged pattern of grooming," the judge said, making his crucial and long-awaited ruling on the issue.
Judges can also exclude testimony if would be unduly prejudicial. Mr. Mesereau says nearly all of the past cases fit that bill. The new material "could jeopardize the presumption of [Mr. Jackson's] innocence," he said. "The evidence they are trying to introduce [is] of an emotional and high inflammatory nature." Despite the pitfalls, appellate courts have only overturned one case.
The District Attorney did admit that three of the instances involve young men who have absolutely denied Mr. Jackson ever molested them. The incidents allegedly occurred 12 to 15 years ago, and the prosecutor acknowledged only one of the five boys has even agreed to testify at Mr. Jackson's trial. Some of the other testimony would come from the mothers of the two boys who pursued and eventually won settlements.
Defense attorney Thomas Mesereau Jr. asked Judge Rodney Melville to exclude the allegations, saying they were based on third parties, many of whom were after Mr. Jackson's money. The reference was to former Jackson employees who sued him in the past and lost, and were then ordered to pay Mr. Jackson $1 million in damages.
Additionally, Mr. Mesereau pointed out that Macaulay Culkin, one of the five called by the District Attorney and a frequent visitor to Mr. Jackson's Neverland Ranch, "has repeatedly said he was never molested."
The media-hungry uncle of the alleged victim in the 1993 case said Sunday his now 25-year-old nephew would not testify at Mr. Jackson's trial. Reportedly, he wants nothing to do with the case.
Before Melville's ruling, Mr. Mesereau said that "willy-nilly third party witnesses" are "99 percent" of the evidence Sneddon wants to bring in. "The potential for prejudice there is overwhelming." Mr. Jackson’s lawyer called some of the witnesses "lying [former] plaintiffs” and he suggested that tainted bystanders were no substitutes for actual victims. "How can you allow a parade of third-party characters to come in without any victims?" he said. Mr. Mesereau told the judge he would put on a "mini-trial" on each allegation the jury is allowed to hear. "You can't stop the defense from putting on a full-blown defense and I mean just that," the defense attorney warned.
Mr. Jackson was not present during the arguments but arrived later to cheers from fans.
Culkin's publicist, Michelle Bega, said Monday the "Home Alone" star "is presently not involved with the proceedings and we do not expect that to change."
After the judge's ruling, comedian George Lopez took the stand and told about helping Mr. Jackson's current accuser as the boy battled cancer. Lopez said he came to believe the boy's father was more interested in money than helping his son. He testified the father accused the comedian of stealing $300 from the boy's wallet.
Lopez said he finally cut off the family because of the father's frequent and aggressive requests for help. When the father asked what he was supposed to tell his son, Lopez testified he responded: "Tell him his father's an extortionist."
The defense contends Lopez, star of the ABC sitcom "George Lopez," is among celebrities who were targeted by the accuser's family in schemes to make money. But prosecutors contend any such schemes were the work of the boy's father, who is now divorced from the mother.
Sneddon said one boy from the five earlier cases will come forward and his mother also will testify. That case involved a boy who was allegedly involved in a 1990 incident and received a $2.4 million settlement from Mr. Jackson in 1994. The district attorney also promised testimony from the mother of a boy who reached a multimillion-dollar settlement with Mr. Jackson in 1993. It was unclear exactly what Mr. Jackson was accused of doing with each of the five boys.
The judge excluded two other boys named by the prosecution but did not say why.
In a hearing after jurors left the courtroom, Sneddon said he planned to begin presenting evidence of the past allegations in about two weeks. The judge said he would give jurors special legal instructions on the issue of past acts before that testimony is offered.
Source: MJJsource / AP / AFP / Newsweek
SI ALGUIEN PUEDE TRADUCIR LO MAS IMPORTANTE...GRACIAS
On Day 21 of the trial, Judge Melville ruled that the jury can hear past allegations against Michael Jackson, although, prior to this trial, he has never been charged with any crime.
In most criminal cases, evidence of past behavior is not admissible against a defendant. However, the California Legislature changed that in 1995, specifically in cases of child molestation and domestic violence. The District Attorney is attempting to show a pattern of abuse by Michael Jackson. The prosecution has been campaigning from the beginning of the trial to include prior allegations in order to support, what many say, is a non-existent case.
Mr. Mesereau offered this argument, challenging the court to consider the prosecution's motivation for insisting upon using the prior allegations to substantiate their weak case.
(Excerpt from Court Transcript)
Mr. Mesereau: "...what has the Court seen in this courtroom? Is the case strong on credibility and substance or is it weak on credibility and substance? If it's really powerful, the Court probably is less worried. If there are credibility problems with their case and their witnesses, the Court has great concern to worry because the potential for lessening the burden of proof on the prosecution in this case would be great. Now, the Court is dealing with some unique situations. First of all, you have a celebrity. A celebrity who has been subjected to all kinds of innuendo, scandalous reporting and rumor, and a celebrity who has attracted all kinds of claims for money, who has developed a lifestyle at Neverland which he has advertised to the world, which he believes and contends, and many believe, is a benefit to society. The prosecution has come in to try and turn all this on its head and suggest that Neverland is some magnet for molestation and criminal behavior. Well, that's going to be an issue for the jury. But certainly at this point the Court knows, based on the evidence alone, that Mr. Jackson has developed Neverland as a Disney-like type of world that he uses to help children from the inner city, children around the world, et cetera. There's a bigger problem than the uniqueness of the case, and none of the cases cited by Mr. Sneddon deal with celebrities or anyone remotely close to Mr. Jackson in terms of notoriety and attraction for greed and misuse of the legal process.
"The Court has seen three witnesses who the Court -- who the prosecution suggests are victims. And without going into a lot of the details, which I don't think the Court wants me to give a closing argument at this point, but there is no question all three of those witnesses have been riddled with problems in their testimony. All have agreed they lied repeatedly. All were caught lying on the witness stand. All were themselves repeatedly. Every witness was a problem. Now, if the Court agrees there are significant credibility problems with Gavin Arvizo, Star Arvizo, and Davellin Arvizo -- and I believe the Court does, because I don't see how anyone watching the cross-examination could disagree with that. If the Court thinks there are issues to worry about, I would ask the Court to add to that concern the following: Gavin alleges two acts of alleged molestation. There is no eyewitness to either one. And there is no DNA to support it. In fact, there's no forensic evidence at all to support it. Star, along with his credibility problems, alleges – it changes, the number. But he appears to allege two acts of molestation, separate from those of Gavin that he watched. There is no eyewitness. There is no DNA. There is no forensics to support it.
"So as the Court looks at the evidence so far, what do you really have? You have what, in effect, is a very problematic case, and I submit the prosecutors know that. It's extremely problematic. It's filled with credibility issues. And those credibility issues I submit to the Court at this point are compounded by the evidence they've tried to introduce so far about conspiracy."
.....................................
(End of Excerpt)
This ruling involved Section 1108 of the California Criminal Code which allows prosecutors to introduce evidence similar past sexual allegations in order to show that the defendant had a "pattern" of similar previous behavior. The provision was added to California law in 1995 and promoted by District Attorney, Tom Sneddon, when a criminal investigation collapsed after Mr. Jackson reached a civil settlement with the boy in the 1993-94 case. However, judges may draw sharp definitions of what constitutes a similar case.
"The decision I have reached is I will now admit the testimony with regard to the sexual offenses and the alleged pattern of grooming," the judge said, making his crucial and long-awaited ruling on the issue.
Judges can also exclude testimony if would be unduly prejudicial. Mr. Mesereau says nearly all of the past cases fit that bill. The new material "could jeopardize the presumption of [Mr. Jackson's] innocence," he said. "The evidence they are trying to introduce [is] of an emotional and high inflammatory nature." Despite the pitfalls, appellate courts have only overturned one case.
The District Attorney did admit that three of the instances involve young men who have absolutely denied Mr. Jackson ever molested them. The incidents allegedly occurred 12 to 15 years ago, and the prosecutor acknowledged only one of the five boys has even agreed to testify at Mr. Jackson's trial. Some of the other testimony would come from the mothers of the two boys who pursued and eventually won settlements.
Defense attorney Thomas Mesereau Jr. asked Judge Rodney Melville to exclude the allegations, saying they were based on third parties, many of whom were after Mr. Jackson's money. The reference was to former Jackson employees who sued him in the past and lost, and were then ordered to pay Mr. Jackson $1 million in damages.
Additionally, Mr. Mesereau pointed out that Macaulay Culkin, one of the five called by the District Attorney and a frequent visitor to Mr. Jackson's Neverland Ranch, "has repeatedly said he was never molested."
The media-hungry uncle of the alleged victim in the 1993 case said Sunday his now 25-year-old nephew would not testify at Mr. Jackson's trial. Reportedly, he wants nothing to do with the case.
Before Melville's ruling, Mr. Mesereau said that "willy-nilly third party witnesses" are "99 percent" of the evidence Sneddon wants to bring in. "The potential for prejudice there is overwhelming." Mr. Jackson’s lawyer called some of the witnesses "lying [former] plaintiffs” and he suggested that tainted bystanders were no substitutes for actual victims. "How can you allow a parade of third-party characters to come in without any victims?" he said. Mr. Mesereau told the judge he would put on a "mini-trial" on each allegation the jury is allowed to hear. "You can't stop the defense from putting on a full-blown defense and I mean just that," the defense attorney warned.
Mr. Jackson was not present during the arguments but arrived later to cheers from fans.
Culkin's publicist, Michelle Bega, said Monday the "Home Alone" star "is presently not involved with the proceedings and we do not expect that to change."
After the judge's ruling, comedian George Lopez took the stand and told about helping Mr. Jackson's current accuser as the boy battled cancer. Lopez said he came to believe the boy's father was more interested in money than helping his son. He testified the father accused the comedian of stealing $300 from the boy's wallet.
Lopez said he finally cut off the family because of the father's frequent and aggressive requests for help. When the father asked what he was supposed to tell his son, Lopez testified he responded: "Tell him his father's an extortionist."
The defense contends Lopez, star of the ABC sitcom "George Lopez," is among celebrities who were targeted by the accuser's family in schemes to make money. But prosecutors contend any such schemes were the work of the boy's father, who is now divorced from the mother.
Sneddon said one boy from the five earlier cases will come forward and his mother also will testify. That case involved a boy who was allegedly involved in a 1990 incident and received a $2.4 million settlement from Mr. Jackson in 1994. The district attorney also promised testimony from the mother of a boy who reached a multimillion-dollar settlement with Mr. Jackson in 1993. It was unclear exactly what Mr. Jackson was accused of doing with each of the five boys.
The judge excluded two other boys named by the prosecution but did not say why.
In a hearing after jurors left the courtroom, Sneddon said he planned to begin presenting evidence of the past allegations in about two weeks. The judge said he would give jurors special legal instructions on the issue of past acts before that testimony is offered.
Source: MJJsource / AP / AFP / Newsweek
Última edición:
