pbr
0
THE HIGHLIGHTS:
[font=verdana,arial,helvetica,sans-serif]January 19, 2005 - British TV journalist Martin Bashir asks a judge to reject prosecutor’s bid to have him testify. [/font]
[font=verdana,arial,helvetica,sans-serif]January 20, 2005 - Prosecutors want to bar the public from the courtroom during the testimony of the teenagers in the upcoming trial. [/font]
[font=verdana,arial,helvetica,sans-serif]January 20, 2005 – Defense Attorneys ask that the accuser and his family not be called 'victims', citing the fact that this has not yet been determined and that ultimately, they will prove it to be inaccurate.[/font]
[font=verdana,arial,helvetica,sans-serif]January 20, 2005 – Judge Melville has reportedly given Michael Jackson permission to make a televised statement refuting ‘leaks’ of secret grand jury testimony given by his accuser. [/font]
[font=verdana,arial,helvetica,sans-serif]January 21, 2005 - The Defense requests that potential jurors be questioned one at a time. [/font]
[font=verdana,arial,helvetica,sans-serif]January 21, 2005 - Prosecutors requested that any accusations, by the defense, about the complaining witnesses and complaining witness’ family be cleared with the judge first. [/font]
[font=verdana,arial,helvetica,sans-serif]January 21, 2005 - Prosecutors asked for defense lawyers to stop mentioning the enormous cost of this investigation to the taxpayers, and implying that District Attorney Tom Sneddon has a vendetta against Jackson. [/font]
[font=verdana,arial,helvetica,sans-serif]January 21, 2005 - Judge Rodney Melville gave prosecutors permission to introduce expert testimony about molestation during the trial. [/font]
[font=verdana,arial,helvetica,sans-serif]January 21, 2005 – Details were established as to how a 12-person jury panel would be selected for the trial. [/font]
[font=verdana,arial,helvetica,sans-serif]January 21, 2005 - Judge Melville said he will not release a DVD of a search of Michael Jackson's home but will make arrangements for the news media to view it in the courtroom. [/font]
[font=verdana,arial,helvetica,sans-serif]January 21, 2005 – Judge Melville censored landmark U.S. Supreme Court decisions.[/font]
[font=verdana,arial,helvetica,sans-serif][/font][font=verdana,arial,helvetica,sans-serif]THE DETAILS:[/font]
[font=verdana,arial,helvetica,sans-serif]January 19, 2005 – British TV journalist Martin Bashir asks a judge to reject the prosecutor’s bid to have him testify in the trial, citing the ‘Shield Law’. [/font]
[font=verdana,arial,helvetica,sans-serif]Bashir maintains that his 2003 documentary, "Living With Michael Jackson," speaks for itself. Bashir's motion also stated that ABC-TV, which aired it in the United States, can verify any part of it that is used as evidence in court. But prosecutors suggested that they wanted much more. [/font]
[font=verdana,arial,helvetica,sans-serif]Bashir, who is now employed by ABC News with plans to cover the Jackson Trial, contends that under California's shield law, reporters cannot be forced to testify about the things they observe in the course of doing a story. As a testifying witness, Bashir’s ability to report in the media on trial matters would be restricted. [/font]
[font=verdana,arial,helvetica,sans-serif]If the Judge does force him to testify, Bashir asked that the judge exempt him from a gag order that is placed on all attorneys and witnesses, calling it a violation of his 1st Amendment rights. [/font]
[font=verdana,arial,helvetica,sans-serif]Bashir's motion is to be considered at a Jan. 28 hearing.
[/font]
[font=verdana,arial,helvetica,sans-serif][/font][font=verdana,arial,helvetica,sans-serif]January 20, 2005 - Prosecutors want to bar the public from the courtroom during the testimony of the teenagers in the upcoming trial. [/font]
[font=verdana,arial,helvetica,sans-serif]Mr. Jackson’s accuser and his brother, who are now 15 and 14 years of age, respectively, are expected to take the witness stand. However, the prosecution wants this to happen behind closed doors. [/font]
[font=verdana,arial,helvetica,sans-serif]Legal experts have expressed their concern that such a move would raise questions about the public's right to an open judicial system.[/font]
[font=verdana,arial,helvetica,sans-serif]According to a report by the LA Times, Robert Pugsley, a professor at Southwestern Law School in Los Angeles says, "The only reason for it that I can imagine is that somehow the children would be intimidated or distracted by the large group of adults in the courtroom. But it seems to me that if they're competent to give testimony in a matter with this degree of seriousness, then the courtroom should be opened." [/font]
[font=verdana,arial,helvetica,sans-serif][/font]
[font=verdana,arial,helvetica,sans-serif][/font]
[font=verdana,arial,helvetica,sans-serif]January 20, 2005 – Defense Attorneys ask that the accuser and his family not be called 'victims', citing the fact that this is has not yet been determined and that ultimately, they will prove it to be inaccurate. [/font]
[font=verdana,arial,helvetica,sans-serif]Attorneys defending Michael Jackson ask that the accuser and his family be referred to in court by their names or as "complaining witnesses" not as "victims." [/font]
[font=verdana,arial,helvetica,sans-serif]Additionally, in a motion released Wednesday, Mr. Jackson’s attorneys asked that the judge bar the district attorney from saying that he represents ‘the people' in a manner that implies that he represents the jury against the defendant, Mr. Jackson. [/font]
[font=verdana,arial,helvetica,sans-serif]"This is not a case where the only issue is the identity, and the complaining witnesses are victims regardless of the identity of the perpetrator," the Jackson defense motion stated. "Here, the jury is being asked to decide whether or not the events alleged by the complaining witnesses occurred at all." [/font]
[font=verdana,arial,helvetica,sans-serif]The motion will be considered at a Jan. 28 hearing [/font]
[font=verdana,arial,helvetica,sans-serif][/font]
[font=verdana,arial,helvetica,sans-serif]January 20, 2005 – Judge Melville has reportedly given Michael Jackson permission to make a televised statement to refute ‘leaks’ of secret grand jury testimony given by his accuser. [/font]
[font=verdana,arial,helvetica,sans-serif]This 1900+ page ‘leak’, whose source has curiously still not been identified, nor any party held accountable, contained the grand jury testimony of the complaining witnesses. [/font]
[font=verdana,arial,helvetica,sans-serif]According to Attorney Tom Mesereau’s January 13, 2005 statement, “The witnesses who testified before the Grand Jury were never subjected to cross-examination or impeachment by the defense. By law, no judge or defense lawyer was allowed to be present in the Grand Jury room. Furthermore, the defense had no opportunity to call its own witnesses to refute or criticize this one-sided proceeding. This case will be won in the courtroom and not through "leaks" in the media. When he has his day in court, Michael Jackson will be acquitted and vindicated.” [/font]
[font=verdana,arial,helvetica,sans-serif]Another Defense attorney, Bob Sanger explained, "Whether they (the transcripts) were actually released by the prosecutor or law enforcement or, even if they were purloined by those who support the prosecution, the impact is devastating," Sanger wrote. "Prior to the leaks, it would have been hard enough to obtain a fair and impartial jury. Now the attainability of that goal, under any circumstances, may be impossible." [/font]
[font=verdana,arial,helvetica,sans-serif]Jackson [/font][font=verdana,arial,helvetica,sans-serif]has taped a statement and an interview with Fox News reporter Geraldo Rivera that could be broadcast sometime prior to January 31, a spokeswoman said. [/font]
[font=verdana,arial,helvetica,sans-serif][/font][font=verdana,arial,helvetica,sans-serif]January 21, 2005 – The Defense requests that potential jurors be questioned one at a time to find out what they know about the one-sided grand jury transcripts that were “leaked” to the press last week and aired on ABC Television’s “Primetime Live”. [/font]
[font=verdana,arial,helvetica,sans-serif]"The grand jury transcripts have been leaked to the media, and, as a result, the jury pool has been prejudiced," defense attorney Robert Sanger wrote in the motion. [/font]
[font=verdana,arial,helvetica,sans-serif]"Whether they were actually released by the prosecutor or law enforcement or, even if they were purloined by those who support the prosecution, the impact is devastating," Sanger wrote. "Prior to the leaks, it would have been hard enough to obtain a fair and impartial jury. Now the attainability of that goal, under any circumstances, may be impossible." [/font]
[font=verdana,arial,helvetica,sans-serif][/font]
[font=verdana,arial,helvetica,sans-serif]January 21, 2005 – Prosecutors requested that any accusations, by the defense, about the complaining witnesses and complaining witness’ family be cleared with the judge first. [/font]
[font=verdana,arial,helvetica,sans-serif][/font]
[font=verdana,arial,helvetica,sans-serif]January 21, 2005 – Prosecutors asked for defense lawyers to stop mentioning the enormous cost of this investigation to the taxpayers, and implying that District Attorney Tom Sneddon has a vendetta against Jackson. [/font]
[font=verdana,arial,helvetica,sans-serif]Senior Deputy District Attorney Gordon Auchincloss wrote in the motion "Jackson has been brought to trial after a grand jury indicted him. The prosecution's personal motives are completely immaterial." [/font]
[font=verdana,arial,helvetica,sans-serif]It is important to note, as Mr. Mesereau stated, that the witnesses who testified before the Grand Jury were never subjected to cross-examination or impeachment by the defense. By law, no judge or defense lawyer is allowed to be present in the Grand Jury room. Furthermore, the defense had no opportunity to call its own witnesses to refute or criticize this one-sided proceeding. [/font]
[font=verdana,arial,helvetica,sans-serif][/font]
[font=verdana,arial,helvetica,sans-serif]January 21, 2005 – Judge Rodney Melville gave prosecutors permission, Friday, to introduce expert testimony about molestation during the trial. [/font]
[font=verdana,arial,helvetica,sans-serif]The specialist is expected to help prosecutors explain why the now 15-year-old complaining witness waited months to tell his family or any authorities about his ‘claims’ that he had been molested. [/font]
[font=verdana,arial,helvetica,sans-serif]Defense attorney Thomas Mesereau Jr. said the expert testimony should not be allowed if the defense can prove the complaining witness and his family "aren't victims at all.” [/font]
[font=verdana,arial,helvetica,sans-serif]"What if they are flat out liars?" Mesereau offered referring to the accusers. "What if they have a history of lying? What if the boy lied in the past to help his mother obtain money through the legal process?" [/font]
[font=verdana,arial,helvetica,sans-serif]The mother of the complaining witness in this case, Mesereau said, had not mentioned molestation until she contacted an attorney who had sued Jackson in the past. He said allowing such expert testimony would only be "an attempt to bolster a hopeless case." [/font]
[font=verdana,arial,helvetica,sans-serif]"We're quite confident of what they're going to look like after they're subjected finally to cross-examination," Mesereau said. [/font]
[font=verdana,arial,helvetica,sans-serif]He also said the family had made inconsistent statements to police, social workers, Jackson and Jackson's employees. Mesereau added that the defense would show that the family had lied "in their community, in their school, in their acting school." [/font]
[font=verdana,arial,helvetica,sans-serif][/font][font=verdana,arial,helvetica,sans-serif]January 21, 2005 – Details were established as to how a 12-person jury panel would be selected for the trial, which is expected to start with jury selection on January 31 and last around six months, according to court officials. [/font]
[font=verdana,arial,helvetica,sans-serif]Judge Melville said he had reviewed a proposed questionnaire for prospective jurors that prosecutors and defense lawyers submitted. "Quite frankly," Melville told the attorneys of the questionnaire, contents of which will remain secret, "I gutted it." [/font]
[font=verdana,arial,helvetica,sans-serif]The process will begin on January 31 and last until February 8 when they will turn up at the Santa Barbara Superior Court in Santa Maria in waves of 150, and will be led into the court in groups of 18 to be questioned by both the defense and the prosecution. The selection process will continue until 20 suitable candidates are accepted by the prosecution, the defense and the judge. [/font]
[font=verdana,arial,helvetica,sans-serif][/font]
[font=verdana,arial,helvetica,sans-serif]January 21, 2005 – Judge Melville said he will not release a DVD of a search of Michael Jackson's home but will make arrangements for the news media to view it in the courtroom. [/font]
[font=verdana,arial,helvetica,sans-serif][/font]
[font=verdana,arial,helvetica,sans-serif]January 21, 2005 – Judge Melville censored landmark U.S. Supreme Court decisions, b lacking out the words "obscenity," "pornographic" and "sexual conduct" from the text of landmark U.S. Supreme Court decisions before releasing a legal motion filed by the Defense. [/font]
[font=verdana,arial,helvetica,sans-serif]According to the Associate Press, Professor Laurie Levenson states, "I thought we had seen it all in this case, but this is absurd. We have now begun censoring Supreme Court decisions. It is absolutely unprecedented." [/font]
[font=verdana,arial,helvetica,sans-serif]Judge Rodney Melville has imposed extreme measures of secrecy in this case seeking to protect all involved, yet extensive leaks of information levied against Mr. Jackson have continued. [/font]
[font=verdana,arial,helvetica,sans-serif]In the motion, Defense Attorney Brian Oxman, explains that the magazines and books that were seized at Mr. Jackson’s ranch, should not be described to the jury as obscene or pornographic because that would clearly be a legal judgement. “The suggestion these materials, which can be purchased on any corner drug store, are illegal is prejudicial to the jury because the inference is false." [/font]
[font=verdana,arial,helvetica,sans-serif]He continues, "The books, magazines, and photographs do not depict any crime, let alone the alleged crime in this case, nor do they establish the participation of any person in any of the acts alleged to be part of this proceeding." [/font]
[font=verdana,arial,helvetica,sans-serif]The motion said that this would be "a blatant appeal to the jury's emotions” by prosecutors. [/font]
[font=verdana,arial,helvetica,sans-serif][/font][font=verdana,arial,helvetica,sans-serif]By Team MJJsource[/font]
[font=verdana,arial,helvetica,sans-serif]January 19, 2005 - British TV journalist Martin Bashir asks a judge to reject prosecutor’s bid to have him testify. [/font]
[font=verdana,arial,helvetica,sans-serif]January 20, 2005 - Prosecutors want to bar the public from the courtroom during the testimony of the teenagers in the upcoming trial. [/font]
[font=verdana,arial,helvetica,sans-serif]January 20, 2005 – Defense Attorneys ask that the accuser and his family not be called 'victims', citing the fact that this has not yet been determined and that ultimately, they will prove it to be inaccurate.[/font]
[font=verdana,arial,helvetica,sans-serif]January 20, 2005 – Judge Melville has reportedly given Michael Jackson permission to make a televised statement refuting ‘leaks’ of secret grand jury testimony given by his accuser. [/font]
[font=verdana,arial,helvetica,sans-serif]January 21, 2005 - The Defense requests that potential jurors be questioned one at a time. [/font]
[font=verdana,arial,helvetica,sans-serif]January 21, 2005 - Prosecutors requested that any accusations, by the defense, about the complaining witnesses and complaining witness’ family be cleared with the judge first. [/font]
[font=verdana,arial,helvetica,sans-serif]January 21, 2005 - Prosecutors asked for defense lawyers to stop mentioning the enormous cost of this investigation to the taxpayers, and implying that District Attorney Tom Sneddon has a vendetta against Jackson. [/font]
[font=verdana,arial,helvetica,sans-serif]January 21, 2005 - Judge Rodney Melville gave prosecutors permission to introduce expert testimony about molestation during the trial. [/font]
[font=verdana,arial,helvetica,sans-serif]January 21, 2005 – Details were established as to how a 12-person jury panel would be selected for the trial. [/font]
[font=verdana,arial,helvetica,sans-serif]January 21, 2005 - Judge Melville said he will not release a DVD of a search of Michael Jackson's home but will make arrangements for the news media to view it in the courtroom. [/font]
[font=verdana,arial,helvetica,sans-serif]January 21, 2005 – Judge Melville censored landmark U.S. Supreme Court decisions.[/font]
[font=verdana,arial,helvetica,sans-serif][/font][font=verdana,arial,helvetica,sans-serif]THE DETAILS:[/font]
[font=verdana,arial,helvetica,sans-serif]January 19, 2005 – British TV journalist Martin Bashir asks a judge to reject the prosecutor’s bid to have him testify in the trial, citing the ‘Shield Law’. [/font]
[font=verdana,arial,helvetica,sans-serif]Bashir maintains that his 2003 documentary, "Living With Michael Jackson," speaks for itself. Bashir's motion also stated that ABC-TV, which aired it in the United States, can verify any part of it that is used as evidence in court. But prosecutors suggested that they wanted much more. [/font]
[font=verdana,arial,helvetica,sans-serif]Bashir, who is now employed by ABC News with plans to cover the Jackson Trial, contends that under California's shield law, reporters cannot be forced to testify about the things they observe in the course of doing a story. As a testifying witness, Bashir’s ability to report in the media on trial matters would be restricted. [/font]
[font=verdana,arial,helvetica,sans-serif]If the Judge does force him to testify, Bashir asked that the judge exempt him from a gag order that is placed on all attorneys and witnesses, calling it a violation of his 1st Amendment rights. [/font]
[font=verdana,arial,helvetica,sans-serif]Bashir's motion is to be considered at a Jan. 28 hearing.
[/font]
[font=verdana,arial,helvetica,sans-serif][/font][font=verdana,arial,helvetica,sans-serif]January 20, 2005 - Prosecutors want to bar the public from the courtroom during the testimony of the teenagers in the upcoming trial. [/font]
[font=verdana,arial,helvetica,sans-serif]Mr. Jackson’s accuser and his brother, who are now 15 and 14 years of age, respectively, are expected to take the witness stand. However, the prosecution wants this to happen behind closed doors. [/font]
[font=verdana,arial,helvetica,sans-serif]Legal experts have expressed their concern that such a move would raise questions about the public's right to an open judicial system.[/font]
[font=verdana,arial,helvetica,sans-serif]According to a report by the LA Times, Robert Pugsley, a professor at Southwestern Law School in Los Angeles says, "The only reason for it that I can imagine is that somehow the children would be intimidated or distracted by the large group of adults in the courtroom. But it seems to me that if they're competent to give testimony in a matter with this degree of seriousness, then the courtroom should be opened." [/font]
[font=verdana,arial,helvetica,sans-serif][/font]
[font=verdana,arial,helvetica,sans-serif][/font]
[font=verdana,arial,helvetica,sans-serif]January 20, 2005 – Defense Attorneys ask that the accuser and his family not be called 'victims', citing the fact that this is has not yet been determined and that ultimately, they will prove it to be inaccurate. [/font]
[font=verdana,arial,helvetica,sans-serif]Additionally, in a motion released Wednesday, Mr. Jackson’s attorneys asked that the judge bar the district attorney from saying that he represents ‘the people' in a manner that implies that he represents the jury against the defendant, Mr. Jackson. [/font]
[font=verdana,arial,helvetica,sans-serif]"This is not a case where the only issue is the identity, and the complaining witnesses are victims regardless of the identity of the perpetrator," the Jackson defense motion stated. "Here, the jury is being asked to decide whether or not the events alleged by the complaining witnesses occurred at all." [/font]
[font=verdana,arial,helvetica,sans-serif]The motion will be considered at a Jan. 28 hearing [/font]
[font=verdana,arial,helvetica,sans-serif][/font]
[font=verdana,arial,helvetica,sans-serif]January 20, 2005 – Judge Melville has reportedly given Michael Jackson permission to make a televised statement to refute ‘leaks’ of secret grand jury testimony given by his accuser. [/font]
[font=verdana,arial,helvetica,sans-serif]This 1900+ page ‘leak’, whose source has curiously still not been identified, nor any party held accountable, contained the grand jury testimony of the complaining witnesses. [/font]
[font=verdana,arial,helvetica,sans-serif]According to Attorney Tom Mesereau’s January 13, 2005 statement, “The witnesses who testified before the Grand Jury were never subjected to cross-examination or impeachment by the defense. By law, no judge or defense lawyer was allowed to be present in the Grand Jury room. Furthermore, the defense had no opportunity to call its own witnesses to refute or criticize this one-sided proceeding. This case will be won in the courtroom and not through "leaks" in the media. When he has his day in court, Michael Jackson will be acquitted and vindicated.” [/font]
[font=verdana,arial,helvetica,sans-serif]Jackson [/font][font=verdana,arial,helvetica,sans-serif]has taped a statement and an interview with Fox News reporter Geraldo Rivera that could be broadcast sometime prior to January 31, a spokeswoman said. [/font]
[font=verdana,arial,helvetica,sans-serif][/font][font=verdana,arial,helvetica,sans-serif]January 21, 2005 – The Defense requests that potential jurors be questioned one at a time to find out what they know about the one-sided grand jury transcripts that were “leaked” to the press last week and aired on ABC Television’s “Primetime Live”. [/font]
[font=verdana,arial,helvetica,sans-serif]"The grand jury transcripts have been leaked to the media, and, as a result, the jury pool has been prejudiced," defense attorney Robert Sanger wrote in the motion. [/font]
[font=verdana,arial,helvetica,sans-serif]"Whether they were actually released by the prosecutor or law enforcement or, even if they were purloined by those who support the prosecution, the impact is devastating," Sanger wrote. "Prior to the leaks, it would have been hard enough to obtain a fair and impartial jury. Now the attainability of that goal, under any circumstances, may be impossible." [/font]
[font=verdana,arial,helvetica,sans-serif][/font]
[font=verdana,arial,helvetica,sans-serif]January 21, 2005 – Prosecutors requested that any accusations, by the defense, about the complaining witnesses and complaining witness’ family be cleared with the judge first. [/font]
[font=verdana,arial,helvetica,sans-serif][/font]
[font=verdana,arial,helvetica,sans-serif]January 21, 2005 – Prosecutors asked for defense lawyers to stop mentioning the enormous cost of this investigation to the taxpayers, and implying that District Attorney Tom Sneddon has a vendetta against Jackson. [/font]
[font=verdana,arial,helvetica,sans-serif]Senior Deputy District Attorney Gordon Auchincloss wrote in the motion "Jackson has been brought to trial after a grand jury indicted him. The prosecution's personal motives are completely immaterial." [/font]
[font=verdana,arial,helvetica,sans-serif]It is important to note, as Mr. Mesereau stated, that the witnesses who testified before the Grand Jury were never subjected to cross-examination or impeachment by the defense. By law, no judge or defense lawyer is allowed to be present in the Grand Jury room. Furthermore, the defense had no opportunity to call its own witnesses to refute or criticize this one-sided proceeding. [/font]
[font=verdana,arial,helvetica,sans-serif][/font]
[font=verdana,arial,helvetica,sans-serif]January 21, 2005 – Judge Rodney Melville gave prosecutors permission, Friday, to introduce expert testimony about molestation during the trial. [/font]
[font=verdana,arial,helvetica,sans-serif]The specialist is expected to help prosecutors explain why the now 15-year-old complaining witness waited months to tell his family or any authorities about his ‘claims’ that he had been molested. [/font]
[font=verdana,arial,helvetica,sans-serif]Defense attorney Thomas Mesereau Jr. said the expert testimony should not be allowed if the defense can prove the complaining witness and his family "aren't victims at all.” [/font]
[font=verdana,arial,helvetica,sans-serif]"What if they are flat out liars?" Mesereau offered referring to the accusers. "What if they have a history of lying? What if the boy lied in the past to help his mother obtain money through the legal process?" [/font]
[font=verdana,arial,helvetica,sans-serif]The mother of the complaining witness in this case, Mesereau said, had not mentioned molestation until she contacted an attorney who had sued Jackson in the past. He said allowing such expert testimony would only be "an attempt to bolster a hopeless case." [/font]
[font=verdana,arial,helvetica,sans-serif]"We're quite confident of what they're going to look like after they're subjected finally to cross-examination," Mesereau said. [/font]
[font=verdana,arial,helvetica,sans-serif]He also said the family had made inconsistent statements to police, social workers, Jackson and Jackson's employees. Mesereau added that the defense would show that the family had lied "in their community, in their school, in their acting school." [/font]
[font=verdana,arial,helvetica,sans-serif][/font][font=verdana,arial,helvetica,sans-serif]January 21, 2005 – Details were established as to how a 12-person jury panel would be selected for the trial, which is expected to start with jury selection on January 31 and last around six months, according to court officials. [/font]
[font=verdana,arial,helvetica,sans-serif]Judge Melville said he had reviewed a proposed questionnaire for prospective jurors that prosecutors and defense lawyers submitted. "Quite frankly," Melville told the attorneys of the questionnaire, contents of which will remain secret, "I gutted it." [/font]
[font=verdana,arial,helvetica,sans-serif]The process will begin on January 31 and last until February 8 when they will turn up at the Santa Barbara Superior Court in Santa Maria in waves of 150, and will be led into the court in groups of 18 to be questioned by both the defense and the prosecution. The selection process will continue until 20 suitable candidates are accepted by the prosecution, the defense and the judge. [/font]
[font=verdana,arial,helvetica,sans-serif][/font]
[font=verdana,arial,helvetica,sans-serif]January 21, 2005 – Judge Melville said he will not release a DVD of a search of Michael Jackson's home but will make arrangements for the news media to view it in the courtroom. [/font]
[font=verdana,arial,helvetica,sans-serif][/font]
[font=verdana,arial,helvetica,sans-serif]January 21, 2005 – Judge Melville censored landmark U.S. Supreme Court decisions, b lacking out the words "obscenity," "pornographic" and "sexual conduct" from the text of landmark U.S. Supreme Court decisions before releasing a legal motion filed by the Defense. [/font]
[font=verdana,arial,helvetica,sans-serif]According to the Associate Press, Professor Laurie Levenson states, "I thought we had seen it all in this case, but this is absurd. We have now begun censoring Supreme Court decisions. It is absolutely unprecedented." [/font]
[font=verdana,arial,helvetica,sans-serif]Judge Rodney Melville has imposed extreme measures of secrecy in this case seeking to protect all involved, yet extensive leaks of information levied against Mr. Jackson have continued. [/font]
[font=verdana,arial,helvetica,sans-serif]He continues, "The books, magazines, and photographs do not depict any crime, let alone the alleged crime in this case, nor do they establish the participation of any person in any of the acts alleged to be part of this proceeding." [/font]
[font=verdana,arial,helvetica,sans-serif]The motion said that this would be "a blatant appeal to the jury's emotions” by prosecutors. [/font]
[font=verdana,arial,helvetica,sans-serif][/font][font=verdana,arial,helvetica,sans-serif]By Team MJJsource[/font]
