Michael Jackson?s lawyers filed a motion to the court on Monday to seek whether the lead District Attorney Tom Sneddon violated the ?gag? order.
?Mr. Jackson respectfully requests the Court for clarification as to whether the foregoing reported statements by Mr. Sneddon violated the Protective Order? in the case.
District Attorney Tom Sneddon?s reportedly made some remarks in regards to the case at a District Attorneys Association conference he attended in Vancouver on July 20th.
A Canadian journalist, who was attending the conference, reported on July 21 in his Globe and Mail newspaper article that the district attorney said to his colleagues, ?we sent letters to some people saying we intended to call them as witnesses in order to keep them off TV.?
In the filed documents, the defense requests ?whether Mr. Sneddon?s statements violated the order in that the statements were made for public dissemination as to the existence or possible existence of any document or any other evidence in regards to the letters to witnesses, or the admissibility of which may have to be determined by the Court.?
Santa Barbara Superior Court Judge Rodney Melville has barred all case participants involved discussing it in public without his permission.
Many in the legal field have criticized the district attorney suggesting that his remarks were inappropriate. They suggested that he was using the power of the grand jury to silence people who he did not intend to call as witnesses so they would not publicly discuss the details revolving around this case.
Defense attorney Steve Cron, who has handled high profile cases, called Sneddon's remarks "shocking" and "totally unethical."
Mr. Sneddon?s spokeswoman, Susan Tellem said in response to the court filing by the defense, "Mr. Sneddon has said publicly that he has not violated the gag order.?
Mr. Sneddon also gave an interview to the Associated Press?s Linda Deutsch. In her article on July 23rd, the district attorney said that his statements were taken out of context.
He also understood that he was speaking at a "training session" which would not be covered by the press.
Mr. Sneddon, who was on a panel with other prosecutors in high profile cases, said they were holding a panel discussion on the subject of what to anticipate if one of these cases hits your jurisdiction. ?I was assigned the topic of how you preserve a fair trial for both sides and prevent a change of venue,? he said.
He acknowledged he had cautioned his colleagues not to expect the press to be fair and that other panelists agreed with him.
"Everybody said it's the impact of cable TV and when they come to town it's a feeding frenzy," Sneddon said.
But he reiterated that his remark about sending gag order letters to witnesses was misinterpreted.
"We have never ever sent a letter to someone telling them that they were under a gag order and not subpoenaed them and not had them testify," Sneddon said. "We have never used this to keep people from talking publicly."
"We've never used that as a way to shut people up and keep them from talking," said Sneddon. "I would have to be criminally dumb to get up and say that. I may have some failings but that's not one of them."
However, Russell Halpern, the attorney representing the accuser?s father, said that he received one of those letters from the Santa Barbara district attorney?s office in January of this year. It stated that he could be called as a witness, though he had no firsthand knowledge of the child molestation case against the singer. He has not been called.
"He's saying I misused my power as district attorney in order to shut people up. ... That is a big, big violation. I think the state bar should investigate,? he said.
Mr. Halpern said he was considering a lawsuit against Sneddon for violating his First Amendment rights.
"I have a lot of things I could say and I haven't voiced them because I've actually been intimidated to some degree," he said. "I felt all along that he was (disingenuous) when he sent me a letter saying I was a potential witness. His real interest was to stymie any comments made about his case."
"I am just astounded. He is saying that he's using the judicial process untruthfully and improperly," he said. "I'm not surprised someone would do it. I'm surprised he would think there is nothing wrong with it."
Sources: Associated Press/Reuters/MJJForum
? MJJForum.com - This news can be reposted with a credit to MJJForum.com
MJJForum.com - Bridging the gap between Michael Jackson and his fans.
MJJForum website: http://www.mjjforum.com/