ORTH: But at that point, they were—he was so much a bigger star and they were so afraid of his celebrity and putting up one little kid up against him. And obviously, the defense position is going to be to attack their credibility. I appreciate it. When we come back: What kind of person is fit to be a juror in a case against Michael Jackson? What would each side really want? Does he have the money to pay? Please keep an open mind and let me have my day in court. I will be acquitted and vindicated when the truth is told.
The question, as this jury selection process continues: Who is the ideal prosecution juror, and what is the defense looking for? Joining me now, defense attorney extraordinaire, Gerry Spence, former prosecutor Paul Pfingst and jury consultant Marshall Hennington.
Gerry, let me start with you. And the answer is, Oh, yes, I can. And so the presumption of innocence is gone in this case, totally gone. So what am I looking for? When I select a jury, I like to think of a person that I might be sitting with out in a meadow, a nice meadow with trees and the forest around. And trust and credibility are going to ultimately be the issue here. Half of the people want to be on this jury? I disagree with Gerry in that regard, I think, particularly in a case like this, where the prosecutors definitely have holes in their case.
So what do you—what do you look for? Thank you. Throw that in there, as well. Also—this is very important here—I think that the defense is definitely going to be looking for individuals that do not believe because Michael Jackson paid off those other two cases, that that automatically means that he has committed any type of wrongdoing.
Is that too much to ask, that they have not even heard about these previous allegations? If the judge permits people on the jury who say, Yes, I do know that there were prior complaints, that is not a good thing for Michael Jackson, unless, of course, ultimately, the judge rules that these prior complaints do come in. And that covers a huge number in this population. But the prosecutor is sitting here in the cat—what is it, the cat seat chair? There are not problems. You know? Let me tell you something, Gerry.
I do not believe that the presumption of innocence has to apply outside a courtroom. I think that it would hamper all of us in our lives to be forced to presume—every—it would be presuming the police get it wrong in every case. Let me ask just quickly Marshall Hennington—race significant? Does it matter? Which way does it cut? I actually suggested very early on that Mr. Mesereau should have tried to get a change of venue because that particular jury panel that they have up there is not a representative sample.
And certainly, those individuals are not going to advocate strongly for Michael Jackson, if, in fact, they hear some of the You know, we tend to support people that have good hearts, good—you know, spirits, people that want to do well for society. And I think that Michael Jackson fits into that category, and I certainly believe that irregardless of what these allegations are that—African-Americans tend to keep a very open mind when it comes to these types of allegations.
And so I believe that it would have worked to his advantage if, in fact, they would have perhaps tried this case in Los Angeles. All right. The question is going to be, Does the judge allow these jurors to hear about the past allegations?
It will determine, I think, whether he takes the stand, and it could determine the outcome of this case. I never intend to place myself in so vulnerable a position ever again.
And remember that there were allegations made back in against Jackson. And now here we are again. So, Paul Pfingst, the law in California has changed since and, in fact, probably because of the Michael Jackson case. But I think what we have to take a look at in this case in deciding who should be on the jury for the defense is what the defense is.
The defense is that this is a shakedown. The parents of this youngster intend to shake down Mike Jackson and get part of his fortune. If you hate the parents, they put the kid up to it, and you must acquit. But the bottom line is, the kid is going to be 15 and his brother is going to be You might go after this child in a very kindly way. What does he really want to do? What is his desire in taking the stand here?
There must be some things here that we could think about. His parents have been talking to him. The prosecutor has been talking to him. How many times has he been talked to by all of these people, where and under what circumstances? How many times you been to see the prosecutor?
What did you do? Does he really have any money left? Coming up. The Michael Jackson trial is under way. Gerry is saying that you take a sort of compassionate approach to these boys. What do you make of it? And the people who put them up to it are his folks.
The jury is going to see it. And the lawyer is the one who finally is seen by the jury as the defendant or the prosecutor in the case. You ask all the questions that you would in a very pickax-ish sort of cross-examination, but you do it in a kindly way. I believe what Mr. Spence says is correct. And that is that, you certainly want to get the truth out and you want to allow these children to make the missteps along the way. The bottom line is, according to the defense and according to Michael Jackson, these boys are making up a story about him for money.
They are lying. They are going to lie under oath. They lied to the grand jury. What you do you is, you act like a human being to these people. You know, the boy is a victim. What kind of a thing is being done this child? And we ought to know about that. We ought to look at this child as a victim, not as somebody to attack. He spent millions for the rights to hundreds of Beatle and Elvis songs. All these expenses have added up.
All right, Brett, let me start with you. Now, the big question out there is how leveraged that asset is. The big question now is what was the status is with that asset.
But from my discussions with people at Sony and people who would know, the fact of the matter is, they still consider that a joint venture with Michael Jackson. We talk about it at the minute mark of the podcast. Army Maj. She may have cost prosecutors their case. The defense made the case that she was a grifter with a history of using her children to try to extract cash from celebrities. She interrupted lawyers, gave rambling, confusing answers, and scolded jurors. It was a humiliating moment for Jackson, whose mother Katherine Jackson was among the people barraged with the magazine.
And second…. We read from the trial transcript of the testimony at the minute mark of the podcast. Francia was asked on cross-examination if he had ever received money from Jackson.
The defense tried to show he was unreliable because his mother had sought money from Jackson before. Gary Coleman covered the trial. She dated Willis Todd Bridges.
0コメント