Prosecutor Sent Letters To Keep Quiet About Case
23/07/2004


The district attorney prosecuting Michael Jackson for molestation said his office kept people from speaking publicly about the case by notifying them they could be called as witnesses, according to a published report.

"We sent letters to some people saying we intended to call them as witnesses in order to keep them off TV," Santa Barbara District Attorney Tom Sneddon was quoted as telling fellow prosecutors Tuesday at a conference in Vancouver, Canada.

The Vancouver Globe and Mail reported that Sneddon made the remarks at a conference of the National District Attorneys Association.

Sneddon's spokeswoman, Susan Tellem, said she understood the remarks were made in a closed-door meeting and didn't know how a reporter got in. She also said she doesn't know if Sneddon was quoted accurately.

Attorneys contacted by The Associated Press late Thursday said that if Sneddon was purposely limiting speech by those he knew wouldn't be called as witnesses, he should be disciplined for abusing his power.

"He's saying I misused my power as district attorney in order to shut people up. ... That is a big, big violation," criminal attorney Russell Halpern said. "I think the state bar should investigate."

Halpern represents the father of Jackson's accuser in cases separate from the Jackson molestation case. He said he received a letter from the Santa Barbara district attorney's office in January saying he could be called as a witness, though he had no firsthand knowledge of the Jackson case. He has not been called.

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."

Defense attorney Steve Cron, who has handled high profile cases, called Sneddon's remarks "shocking" and "totally unethical."

"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."

Meanwhile, an investigation by the state attorney general's office into Jackson's claim that he was "manhandled" by sheriff's deputies at the Santa Barbara County Jail last year when he turned himself remains open, seven months after it began.

"The investigation into those allegations requires that it be one of the most exhaustive and thorough investigations the department has ever done," Nathan Barankin, a spokesman for Attorney General Bill Lockyer, told the Santa Barbara News-Press on Thursday.

Barankin said he did not know when the probe would be completed.

Source: Associated Press

DA Sneddon on Handling Attorneys, Witnesses in Jackson Case

MJJForum eNews #342 - July 22, 2004

Santa Barbara County prosecutor Thomas Sneddon said during a panel discussion at the National District Attorneys Association conference in Vancouver on Tuesday that he has not responded to inaccurate or misinformed information in relation to the Michael Jackson case in order to ensure a fair trial for the pop superstar.

According to Robert Matas of the Canadian "Globe and Mail," the panel was on how to handle the media in high profile cases, and the veteran district attorney used his allotted time to speak on how he has handled the Jackson case. He expressed his disdain for the media, and suggested prosecutors hire public relations firms should they become involved in high profile cases.

Sneddon also advocated the acquisition of court orders that would prohibit those involved with such cases from publicly speaking out. "We sent letters to some people saying we intended to call them as witnesses in order to keep them off TV," he declared candidly. "We were able to get some lawyers, if not off, at least more restrained."

The second half of the quote came courtesy of Matas, the only reporter allowed into the closed-door meeting, during an appearance on MSNBC's "The Abrams Report" Wednesday. Matas claimed that Sneddon made reference to defense attorneys on television who would speak on matters of the case, and that as the prosecuting attorney, he felt "an ethical responsibility to the case...so he modeled this gag order to try and control things and level out the playing field."

Matas further added that the protective order was to apply not only to the offending defense attorneys, but to others involved on the Jackson defense team, including witnesses and persons with inside information on the case and its evidence. It was in this context that the court orders were mentioned.

"Abrams" host Dan Abrams questioned the legality of these court orders, asking if said actions could be considered prosecutorial misconduct.

When contacted by "Abrams" for clarification of Sneddon's comments, Susan Tellem of PR firm Tellem Worldwide offered that one could not be given due to the court imposed gag order.

"None of us can respond to untruths and innuendoes swirling around," she released in a statement.

The next hearing in the Jackson case is scheduled for Tuesday, July 27.


Source: GlobeandMail/MSNBC/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/

Media Argues Against Jackson Secrecy
22/07/2004

Santa Barbara county prosecutor Tom Sneddon Jr. has been pilloried in the media for his handling of criminal charges against global entertainment icon Michael Jackson. He has felt the barbs but bitten his tongue, only occasionally breaking his silence.

But on a lazy summer morning in another country 2,000 kilometres away from home, Mr. Sneddon let loose with a tirade against the media and against lawyers who have criticized him.

Sounding as if he were licking his wounds, he said yesterday at the National District Attorneys Association summer conference in Vancouver that he has not responded to incorrect information or misinformed comment in order to ensure a fair trial.

Offering advice to prosecutors on handling high-profile cases, he cautioned against assuming the media would be fair. "They go with what they have to go with to beat the competition," he said. "It's a frenzy, driven by competition. Not a lot of rules apply."

He suggested prosecutors (called district attorneys in the United States) hire public-relations firms if they are involved in high-profile cases.

Mr. Sneddon also strongly advised them to obtain court orders prohibiting those involved in the case from speaking publicly. "We sent letters to some people saying we intended to call them as witnesses in order to keep them off TV," he frankly admitted.

Mr. Sneddon has been the district attorney in Santa Barbara county since 1982. A decade ago, he spent more than a year investigating lurid allegations of sexual molestation against Mr. Jackson after a youngster claimed Mr. Jackson had sex with him several times during a five-month relationship.

The case ended abruptly in 1994 after Mr. Jackson reportedly reached a $15.3-million (U.S.) settlement with the boy's parents.

After the investigation was suspended, Mr. Jackson wrote a song apparently about Mr. Sneddon. The lyrics for D.S. on Mr. Jackson's HIStory album say "Dom Sheldon" is a cold man out to get him dead or alive. "He out shock in every single way. He'll stop at nothing just to get his political say." Sheldon has been widely described as a pseudonym for Mr. Sneddon. Some say it sounds as if Mr. Jackson actually says "Sneddon" in the song.

Source: The Globe

Source: MJSTAR

Quincy Jones: Cable News is Turning into Something Dangerous
July 21, 2004


During an interview last night (July 20) with talk show host Tavis Smiley, legendary producer and composer Quincy Jones was asked about his feelings concerning the current situation of entertainment icon Michael Jackson, for whom he produced mega albums "Off the Wall," "Thriller," and "Bad." Jones stated that he feels "very pained" by Jackson's situation.

"Cable news is turning into something that is kind of dangerous...because they form--it's not a question of reporting the news," Jones said. "They're starting to create it."

He went on to add that he sees this to be the case with Jackson, Kobe Bryant, and political candidates.

"It's dangerous to have that much ideology and editorializing before the count's down," he continued. "People have a mindset already before [Jackson] even gets tried."


Members comments:

jowusu: "he really believes the media is destroying mj. i remember one time a reporter asked him about mj, and when he started to speak he was like dont go fox news on me now. he is really feeling the pain."

minnie jackson: "thanks Quincy support Michael... he know Michael is really hurt by media."

ILoveMichaelJ829: "I agree totally with what Qunicy said."


Source: Tavis Smiley (PBS)/MJJForum

British Artist To Unveil Jackson Painting
23/07/2004

Only last month, for instance, she unwittingly provoked a rumpus at the Royal Academy when she submitted her painting of Michael Jackson for the Summer Exhibition along with a note explaining that she thought the troubled singer was innocent of the child abuse charges he faces.

Did she express her love for Michael Jackson in her painting? "I certainly feel a rapport with him and his plight." What inspired you? "I was in the middle of my recent series of North Sea paintings in Suffolk and there were suddenly photographs of Michael Jackson in the papers and all the razzmatazz about him being arrested. I was driven to go into the studio and make some sort of response because I feel that he's innocent even though I've never met the man. The idea that he's innocent until proven guilty seems to have been thrown out of the window."

The picture is divided into two: on the left is Jackson in a white suit, his diffidence accentuated by the fact that he is in three-quarter profile, while on the right his legs are leaping in mid-air. "I feel he is a victim of all this. He had no childhood at all. For me there's no difference between Michael Jackson and the beggar I painted. It's a painting of the situation as I see it. On the left I'm trying to say something about his vulnerability and isolation and on the right about his genius as a performer."

Maggi Hambling's portrait of Michael Jackson goes on display at Marlborough Fine Art's summer show from July 27. Details: 020-7629 5161.

Source: The Guardian

MJSTAR

Monday Court Hearing Full Details
20/07/2004

Denouncing the motives of the news and entertainment media, Michael Jackson's
lawyers asked an appellate court Monday to refuse an expedited hearing on a
media access challenge and maintain the secrecy now surrounding his child
molestation case.

The defense team suggested that there would be no harm if information
currently sealed in the Jackson case was not released to the public until after the
trial was over.

Although defense lawyers acknowledged that appellate courts have consistently
supported First Amendment rights of access to court cases, they insisted that
Jackson's case should be treated differently because it involves a superstar.

They also said the case is not important enough to the administration of
justice to merit the attention of the appeals court.

"The interest in this case is more voyeuristic and entertainment related than
it is an interest of an audience concerned with matters of government or
public affairs," said the motion.

"One can imagine other cases which might have a direct impact on the public
welfare, national politics or international relations. This is not one," said
the motion signed by attorney Robert Sanger.

"The circus created by the news media in this case has defied all
rationality," the motion said. "... Mr. Jackson's innocence has been lost in the media
need to generate ratings, sell newspapers and garner mass audiences."

The motion suggested that the press wait until the trial is over to gain
access to the court file.

"Once the verdict and judgment are final, most of the court's concerns will
no longer control," they said.

First Amendment lawyer Douglas Mirell said the defense seems oblivious to the
fact that "old news is no news," and that the U.S. Supreme Court has
repeatedly held that prior restraint on the press is the most serious and intolerable
infringement on First Amendment rights.

"This bespeaks a level of ignorance that, whether deliberate or inadvertent,
is shocking," said Mirell.

Attorney Theodore Boutrous Jr., who filed the media appeal, said, "This brief
shows a shocking insensitivity to basic First Amendment values."

Boutrous pointed out that Jackson's lawyers have filed motions alleging an
unprecedented abuse of power by the prosecution in bringing the case against
their client but most of the motions remain sealed.

"The public has an interest in scrutinizing those briefs to test the
allegations," said Boutrous.

The defense also complained that consideration of a press appeal will be too
time consuming for the lawyers, the court and its staff.

"They're saying we shouldn't have a right to appeal because it will get in
their way," said Boutrous, who is representing a coalition of news media
including The Associated Press.

"The framers of the Constitution knew that the First Amendment would create
additional burdens," he said. "But they decided the benefits outweighed the
burdens."

Mirell called the time consumption claim "ludicrous," saying the court is
only marginally involved in the appeal process. The prosecutors have an office of
employees to handle such an appeal, he said, and the defense is represented
by a team of three law firms.

The motion filed on behalf of the legal team headed by Thomas Mesereau Jr.
went so far as to complain because, on occasion, Superior Court Judge Rodney
Melville has allowed Boutrous to sit at the counsel table in court while arguing a
motion. They called this "an almost unprecedented accommodation of the
press."

Boutrous said he didn't see the situation as unusual, but added, "I'm willing
to sit anywhere."

The motion complained that Jackson, who "faces the fight of his life for his
liberty ... is surrounded by wild rumors and salacious allegations. Because he
is a celebrity, the press and entertainment media hang on every allegation
and turn it into a lucrative entertainment venture. "

The lawyers said Jackson "is still entitled to the same due process rights as
anyone else who comes before the court in a criminal case."

But Mirell said the lawyers have turned that concept upside down.

"Jackson's lawyers are seeking special treatment that the First Amendment
does not allow to be granted to anyone," he said.

Asked why the defense would be pressing so hard to keep documents secret,
Mirell said, "Apparently, there's dynamite in there and they're afraid of
polluting the jury pool.".

Source: Associated Pres
Source: MJSTAR


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]



Positive Voices 4 MJJ
New Website:
http://pv4mjj.iscool.net


Website~MJJFAN:
http://www.mjjfan.2ya.com/

Eve - The Music Lady (Owner-Moderator)

Looking for Clues in All the Wrong Places
20/07/2004

Why the D.A.'s Search of Michael Jackson's P.I.'s Office Was Unlawful, And What the Court Should Do About That By JONNA M. SPILBOR

Tom Sneddon, Santa Barbara's top prosecutor, has ended up a witness in a case which he himself is litigating. In what's being touted as "an unusual move," the judge in the Michael Jackson case has ordered Sneddon to testify at an upcoming hearing slated for next month.

In November 2003 -- just hours before Michael Jackson was arrested on charges of committing lewd acts upon a child -- sheriff's deputies raided the Beverly Hills offices of private investigator Bradley Miller. Miller was working closely with Jackson's then-attorney Mark Geragos on the Jackson case.

The subject of the hearing centers around whether Sneddon - who authorized the search warrant application, as well as the subsequent search, and reportedly conducted his own personal surveillance on Miller's office building a couple of weeks prior - knew that Miller had been hired to assist in Jackson's defense. Superior Court Judge Rodney Melville has explained that the court is "very concerned about the factual issue, whether or not the district attorney...knew that Mr. Miller had been retained by Geragos."

If Sneddon did know, then why were obvious attorney-client privilege issues ignored? After all, Sneddon was authorizing a search of an employee of the defendant's attorney. Imagine if he'd tried, instead, to ransack the office of one of Geragos' paralegals! The illegality would be even more plain.

In this column, I will discuss why, exactly, the search of the private investigator's premises was unlawful, and what the court should do about it.

California Law on Attorney-Client Privilege Can Extend to P.I.s

The attorney-client privilege preserves the confidentiality of communications between an attorney and his client. Its purpose is to encourage the honest, unfettered exchange of information between attorney and client during the course of legal representation.

In California, Evidence Code sections 950 - 954 define the attorney-client privilege broadly. Under California law, the privilege encompasses virtually any information -- whether oral, written, photographic or otherwise -- conveyed by a client to his attorney during the course of their professional relationship.

In addition, Evidence Code section 954 makes clear that the privilege applies not only to lawyers but to those third parties "who are present to further the interest of the client in the consultation, or to accomplish the purpose for which the lawyer is consulted." (Emphasis added.) These third parties are best thought of as "necessary agents" - the persons the attorney needs to consult with to do his job.

Typically, such agents include experts, paralegals, secretaries, and, as in this case, private investigators retained by a party's counsel. Thus, once it has been established that the investigator was retained by legal counsel to represent a suspect, the investigator cannot be forced to reveal the product of his investigation.

The law in this regard is quite clear. So what was Sneddon thinking when he authorized the warrant application relating to Bradley Miller's offices?

The Prosecution's Claim of Ignorance Of the Geragos-Miller Link Is Implausible

Thus far, the prosecution is claiming simple ignorance: Sneddon says he did not know of Miller's relationship to Jackson's defense camp.

But that seems highly improbable at best. After all, consider what the prosecution did know at the time - both specifically about Geragos, Jackson and Miller, and more generally about the case.

First, let's look at the specific knowledge the prosecution had: The prosecution knew Geragos represented Jackson. (Indeed, they were dialoguing with Geragos in an effort to negotiate Jackson's voluntary surrender before literally busting down the door to Miller's office.) It plainly knew Jackson or his attorney had hired Miller, or why search his office in the first place? It knew enough about Miller's relationship with Jackson to include an affidavit of probable cause sufficient to convince a judge to issue a search warrant.

Second, let's look at the general knowledge the prosecution had. Remember, this search happened just hours before Jackson's arrest - and the arrest warrant was issued before the searches. This was not a prosecutor's office acting in the initial investigation of a case - it was an office on the verge of arresting the defendant. Its investigation, it seems, was mostly or entirely finished. Yet the Miller/Geragos link had never been revealed?

Also, this search apparently was one of three separate, simultaneous searches between Santa Barbara and Beverly Hills, all at precisely the same moment in time. The Neverland Rand search alone involved seventy police and prosecutors. With such a knowledgeable battalion working on the case, is it possible it occurred to not a single officer or prosecutor that Jackson's lawyer and his P.I. were working together?

For all these reasons, Sneddon's claim that the Geragos/Miller relationship was news to him and his office is highly incredible.

A Search With An Accompanying Special Master Would Have Been Legal

Ironically, prosecutors in the case could have conducted a legal search of Miller's office. California Penal Code section 1524 is not a wholesale prohibition on the DA's ability to search a premises where the privilege is likely to be asserted. Instead, it allows such a search, but sets out a specific procedure to be followed:

When the warrant is issued, the court must appoint a "special master" - that is, an independent person not associated with police or prosecutors - to oversee service of the warrant on the person in possession of the premises (here, Miller). Then, if that person (here, Miller) states that documents are privileged, they must be sealed by the special master and taken to court for a hearing.

Why didn't Sneddon play by these rules? It's hard to say for sure, but it's possible that the special master procedure was intentionally ignored because it would have undermined Sneddon's "sneak attack" strategy.

Sneddon plainly saw an advantage in ensuring that the three searches were done simultaneously at different locations, without advance notice to Jackson's defense team. And of course, the defense couldn't be present at three locations at the same time, to observe.

If the Court Deems the P.I. Office Search Illegal, What Sanction Should It Impose?

First and foremost - and assuming the search of Miller's office revealed evidence useful to the prosecution - the judge has the power to deem the illegally seized evidence from Miller's office inadmissible as "fruit of the poisonous tree." But here, the judge should do more.

There is a fine line between zealous prosecution and prosecutorial misconduct - and it's a line this district attorney may be dangerously close to crossing. As prior columns for this site by myself and others have discussed, Sneddon's apparent vendetta against Jackson has caused him to act improperly in the past, as well.

Suppressing evidence is not enough of a sanction when serious prosecutorial misconduct is at issue - as seems to be the case here. Only additional sanctions will properly punish and deter.

Unfortunately, however our system of justice is not exactly set up to mete out punishment to those who are supposed to be trusted officers of the court. Imposing fines against the attorneys themselves is always an option. Another possible (though rarely-used) remedy for prosecutorial misconduct, as I discussed in a prior column, would be to recuse the individual offending attorney -- or the entire District Attorney's office.

This remedy can be proper if the court is convinced that the district attorney's office has employed its discretionary powers to deprive the defendant of a fair trial. Did that happen here? Certainly, there is a strong argument that it did - based on the blatant violation of warrant procedures and the resulting seizure of potentially privileged material.

Finally, in the most serious of cases, there is but one remedy that both ensures a just resolution for an accused, and punishes prosecutors who fail to play by the rules: Dismissal of the charges. But it does so at a potentially great cost to the victim when the defendant is indeed guilty of the crime charged. Here, however, the evidence of the defendant's guilt is tenuous at best - and what evidence exists, may be less than credible.

In this case, then, dismissal might not be too extreme a sanction. The critical import, however, is that suppression of evidence is not enough when misconduct is as grave as occurred here.

Source: Find Law

Source: MJSTAR

Lawyers Argue Opening Jackson Records
20/07/2004

Michael Jackson's lawyers have asked an appeals court to maintain the secrecy surrounding his child molestation case.

His lawyers contend there would be no harm if the sealed information stayed that way until after the trial.

They also said that though appellate courts have supported First Amendment rights of access to court cases, they think Jackson's case should be treated differently because he's a superstar.

One of the attorneys says the interest in this case is more voyeuristic and entertainment related.

But an attorney representing a coalition of news media says the public has an interest in scrutinizing claims made by Jackson's attorneys.

Source: Associated Press

Source: MJSTAR

MJJsource Responds to Us Weekly Report

Us Weekly magazine reported on Tuesday, July 20, 2004, that Michael Jackson is about to become a father of quadruplets. MJJsource denies the validity of this report.

There will be no further comments on this matter from MJJsource.

Excerpts From the Transcript of the July 9, 2004 Hearing
Date: Sunday, July 18, 2004

Page 43

MR. MESEREAU:

5 "... (the settlement) agreement was a settlement of a negligence claim in

6 which he admitted doing nothing wrong.

7 As the Court knows better than I do, civil

8 settlements of this nature are often done where the

9 negligence claim is settled so that insurance

10 companies can fund the settlement. There was never

11 any admission by Mr. Jackson that he ever did

12 anything negligent or anything wrong at all.

13 There was public comment in the media,

14 again, about this 11-year-old case to the effect

15 that somehow he admitted negligence, which was

16 completely false. It was a technical legal way of

17 settling a case so insurance companies could fund a

18 settlement and he could get on with his personal

19 life and his business life.

20 I don't believe that the Court's gag order

21 precludes Mr. Jackson from commenting on an

22 11-year-old civil settlement. He has been involved

23 in other civil cases as well, and I do not believe

24 your gag order -- and please correct me if I'm

25 wrong. As I read it, it does not preclude him from

26 talking about other cases he's been in in his

27 lifetime.

28 Now, I would remind the Court that we have


Page 44

1 asked repeatedly for the prosecution to inform us if

2 they intend to introduce any evidence of alleged

3 similar facts under 1101, and they have stated on

4 the record they have not so notified us.

5 The question is, if somebody leaks this

6 document from an 11-year-old case in an obvious

7 attempt to prejudice this case, given the gag order,

8 is Mr. Jackson precluded from saying anything about

9 that 11-year-old case?

10 And Mr. Auchincloss has attempted to suggest

11 that these statements all relate to this case, and

12 that is untrue. I can go through them one by one

13 and show the Court how they relate to that '93 case

14 where he also denied any wrongdoing with respect to

15 any alleged act of child sexual assault or

16 molestation.

17 THE COURT: I don't think you need to do

18 that.

19 Let me cut you short here, because you're --

20 you're really missing the whole point.

21 The -- you were not the lead attorney at

22 the time that a lot of work was done on the gag

23 order with counsel contributing suggestions. And

24 the one that was finally adopted was, I think,

25 pretty agreeable to everybody, considering that

26 there was going to be a gag order, you know, given

27 that fact, and we got to an order that was accepted.

28 And the order prohibits a witness, and Mr.


Page 45

1 Jackson certainly comes within that potential, from

2 discussing evidentiary matters, and he in fact was

3 discussing a matter which you have just acknowledged

4 may or may not be evidence in this case, which is

5 exactly the problem, because the Court has yet to

6 rule on whether or not, if that evidence is

7 proffered, it will be admissible. So he's

8 discussing potential evidence.

9 Not only that, he addressed the jury venire

10 directly. He addressed the community. And so he

11 violated, in a sense, the gag order.

12 There is a thin line here, you know. The

13 Court certainly does not want to prohibit any

14 individual from stating their innocence, being

15 allowed to say, "I'm innocent," you know."

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Welcome to MJJsource.com. The objective of this site is to provide the public and media official reports and exclusive interviews pertaining to the Michael Jackson case.


Site Credits Advertising Info Contact MJJsource.com About CoDec Technology Legal Disclaimer Privacy Policy




Site Created By ROPA Promotions


? 2004 MJJsource

Media appeal in Jackson case was delayed by court clerk

Attorneys for the media filed documents on Thursday, July 8th with the California Second District Court of Appeal. An appeal filed was not docketed by an appellate clerk inside Santa Barbara County Superior Court Judge Rodney Melville?s office.

The appeal by news media seeking access to court motions that have been strategically placed under seal by both parties at the behest of Judge Melville went unfilled for a week by an appellate clerk in the judge?s office. The clerk stated that ?the court is not recognizing you as a party.?

Attorney Dominic Lanza, who is part of the legal team headed by Theodore Boutrous, Jr., filed the first notice of appeal on July 8th. He checked to make sure the matter had been docketed five days later.

Mr. Lanza said that it took until Thursday for the Court of Appeals to instruct the clerk that the notice of appeal should be filed.

The attorneys for the media have argued that Judge Melville has imposed extraordinary measures of secrecy in the case against Michael Jackson. The media including the Associated Press and eleven other news media organizations are suing for access to court files on behalf of the public.

?It?s clear that we have standing to appeal. So we were surprised to find out that our notice of appeal was not on the docket?, Mr. Boutrous said on Thursday.

Mr. Boutrous noted that in the hearings, ?Judge Melville has allowed us to participate fully in arguing to unseal documents. We have briefed and argued more motions than anybody."

Mr. Boutrous filed the 27-page brief on Thursday asking the appeals court for an expedited schedule stating, ?The public?s First Amendment right of access to judicial proceedings and documents is one that is exceedingly time-sensitive.?

He asked that the secrecy of issues be resolved before a major series of hearings begins on August 16th. The hearings will deal with the defense request to dismiss the indictment.

In the appeal filed, it notes that Judge Melville has ordered all documents in the case to be filed under seal for his consideration to be released later later. The judge has released only heavily edited portions of motions and search warrants and has kept secret key details of the indictment, the grand jury transcripts and the motion to change the trial date.

Mr. Boutrous does acknowledge that the judge justifies his stance on the unusual secrecy ?based on Mr. Jackson?s fame and celebrity status and the intense public and media interest in the case?, and fearful that the publicity generated might taint the jury pool and prejudice a right to a fair trial for the singer.

However, Mr. Boutrous quoted a recent appellate court decision in New York in conjunction to the Martha Stewart?s case, which said that media coverage was not a sufficient reason to close proceedings.

"In general, openness acts to protect rather than to threaten the right to a fair trial," said the decision he quoted from the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeal.

Sources: Associated Press/ 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/

Judge Seals Defense Requests That Trial Be Postponed

Michael Jackson's attorneys have requested that the trial start-up date for Mr. Jackson be postponed. Santa Barbara County Superior Court Judge Rodney Melville sealed the defense's motion on Wednesday. He gave no other reason to seal the motion other than a "good cause having been shown."

It is not publicly known what date the defense requested. All parties in the case are under a restricted gag order, therefore preventing them to comment when the trial may begin.

In May, Judge Melville set a target date of September 13th to start the trial. However, he did acknowledge that both sides might not be ready to present their case. The defense team claimed that the prosecution still had not given all of the evidence to them to examine on time.

The defense subpoenaed District Attorney Thomas Sneddon and six officers in connection to their role of the November 18th search of Private Investigator, Bradley Miller?s Beverly Hills office. The prosecution claims they did not know that Mr. Miller worked for Defense Attorney Mark Geragos, who was replaced in April by Defense Attorney Thomas Messereau. The prosecution claims they thought he worked for Mr. Jackson instead.

The defense filed a motion on June 8th that District Attorney Thomas Sneddon personally conducted a surveillance of Mr. Miller?s office. Then on November 18th invaded the office by using a sledgehammer to break down the door.

The defense said evidence obtained in the search should be returned to Mr. Jackson?s attorneys because police had no right to search Mr. Miller?s office due to attorney-client privilege. Prosecution has no right to learn the communication between the defendant and his attorneys under this privilege.

A defense motion on June 22nd asked that Judge Melville not allow the evidence, including videotapes and computer hard drives, to be admitted at trial.

The defense motion cited a memo drafted by the District Attorney that said he had visited the building where Mr. Miller?s office was located, photographed a list of offices there, and climbed the stairs to the second floor in an unsuccessful search for Miller?s office.

Mr. Sneddon proceeded to take several photographs of the building, then went to a phone booth where he looked up Mr. Miller?s telephone number. Afterwards he went to a meeting where he displayed driver license photos of Mr. Miller and others. The name of the person who saw the pictures was deleted from the court records released last Thursday.

Prosecutors responded that they had no evidence that Mr. Miller was working for Mark Geragos, who was Mr. Jackson?s attorney at the time of the search.

They also cited that the office of a lawyer or private investigator could be searched if prosecutors had reason to believe it held evidence not covered by attorney-client privilege.

In last Friday?s hearing, Judge Melville was ready for the defense to question the witnesses of the search, but Mr. Jackson's attorney, Robert Sanger, said he didn?t have sufficient time to look over documents that the prosecution handed over the night before. Therefore they needed more time before they could question the District Attorney and the officers.

Judge Melville reluctantly agreed, and ordered the District Attorney to testify in an upcoming hearing on July 27th.

"Every time we set a hearing it upsets the whole court structure here," Judge Melville said, alluding to adjustments made by Santa Maria court officials to accommodate the masses of media who cover the case against Mr. Jackson. "You're not being considerate of the demands of the court system."

Mr. Sneddon opposed the delay. He said "I'm prepared to testify in open court in front of everybody and get it done with. I have nothing to hide."

However, due to Mr. Sanger?s request for delay, Mr. Sneddon was miffed, shook his head, and threw his papers down on the counsel table and said ?I?ll be here.? Mr. Sneddon had planned on taking a vacation to celebrate his 37th wedding anniversary.

Judge Melville at first appeared unsympathetic to Mr. Sneddon's tantrum, noting that he himself had cut a July vacation short because of the case.

"If I can cancel my vacation, I guess you can cancel yours," he said.

Mr. Sneddon, visibly agitated about Melville's decision, sat in his seat with his face reddening and finally said, "All right, I'll be here."

Judge Melville later said that he didn?t want Mr. Sneddon to miss his vacation. "I'm sorry I'm upsetting you," Judge Melville said. "I don't want to upset anybody."

Judge Melville changed his mind and said Mr. Sneddon could give his testimony after his vacation or through a taped deposition.

Sources: Associated Press
www.jacksonaction.com

Major Love

Eve - The Music Lady

~~sending out a major love~~
"The Music Lady's"

http://launch.groups.yahoo.com/group/positivevoices4mjj/join
http://www.mjjfan.2ya.com
http://www.mjredemption.com/
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com



View other groups in this category.

Posted by MJ Friend Anna at 3:03 PM JST
Post Comment | Permalink | Share This Post

Letters of the Wrong Kind
by Obiechena

Days following the surrender of Michael Jackson to Santa Barbara authorities on charges of child molestation, the tantalizing tale of the infamous "love letters" he allegedly wrote to his now fourteen-year-old accuser began its circulation in the international press. Without as much as a blink of the eye, the American news media picked up the outlandish story and ran full speed ahead. There was no shortage of talking heads ready and willing to analyze this new "discovery" and crucify Jackson over a rumor that was still unsubstantiated...that was until a certain self-proclaimed reporter opened her big, fat, erroneous mouth to confirm the yarn.

On November 24, 2003, flibbertigibbet Diane Dimond was on "Larry King Live" (LKL) proclaiming her knowledge of these supposed love letters. When host King asked if anyone knew for a fact the existence of these letters, Dimond exclaimed, "I absolutely know of their existence!" According to what she had surreptitiously heard through the slandervine, Jackson realized at some point that allegations were going to be made and remembered letters he had written to his accuser.
_______________________________________________________________
"I hear that he realized allegations were on the way. He remembered love letters -- that's how they're described, love letters -- that he had written to this 12-year-old boy that were in the boy's home. At the time, the boy, the mother, the family was up at Neverland. Someone somehow was dispatched, I'm told, by the Michael Jackson camp down to their Los Angeles-area apartment, and suddenly, those letters disappeared. That's what Mr. Sneddon and the sheriff were looking for when they went into Neverland, that stack of love letters." -- LKL, 24 Nov 2003.
________________________________________________________________
She hears a lot of things, doesn't she? Quite a fascinating story. It always helps when you have a squawking demagogue like Nancy Grace present to assist with the facilitation of the notion that Jackson wrote said letters without any evidence to back up your claim.

The source of the media's information, The Daily Telegraph of Australia, stated that these letters were seized by authorities during the raid of Jackson's Ranch. A source cited by the Telegraph said that "the boy told investigators about letters and poems and their precise location inside Michael's home," and that these letters and videotapes that were seized are "very explicit and intimate and show a degree of familiarity. Basically, they appear to be love letters from Michael to the boy."

Would it be safe to say that what one man sees as money, another sees as green paper?

It is quite amazing how no one stopped to think of the implausibility of what Dimond and her counterparts overseas were presenting. Maybe it would help reiterating. Anticipating allegations of sexual misconduct, Jackson dispatched someone to reclaim the purported love letters from the accuser. This someone does just that, but does not destroy them. He instead decides to take the incriminating evidence back to Neverland.

Yeah, real smart.

Since these letters were considered potentially damaging, why would Jackson keep them? The man was smart enough to have the letters removed, but not smart enough to have them destroyed?

The reiteration doesn't make the tabloid version of the matter any less confusing.

Arguing over the existence of these letters would be moot, for the hysteria surrounding them imploded at a rate much faster than its explosion. Following a conversation with Santa Barbara District Attorney Thomas Sneddon, Kansas City prosecutor Nola Foulston appeared on "On the Record with Greta Van Sustren" with a bombshell of her own.
________________________________________________________________
"Well, I can tell you tonight that in my discussion with Mr. Sneddon within the last hour, there are no love letters that have been found ... the information that is being disseminated is not from law enforcement .... So I'm telling you this evening, there are no such animals. The New York Post has the wrong story and Diane Dimond has the wrong story because it is not correct." -- On The Record - 24 Nov 2003.
________________________________________________________________
It is necessary to point out that this statement was made an hour after Dimond had proclaimed on LKL that she knew so absolutely of these so-called love letters.

So much for spreading the eagle.

The issue of the letters has again resurfaced, this time in relation to the raid of the office of private investigator Bradley Miller. Miller had been hired by former Jackson counsel Mark Geragos, and it was he who reportedly took statements in February 2003 of the family denying that anything ontoward had happened between any of them and Jackson.

According to the prosecution's opposition to the Jackson defense "Motion to Suppress" evidence seized during the office raid, the accuser's mother alleged that "Jackson people" had stolen certain letters written by the entertainer to her son. She claims that the letters had gone missing when her stored property was returned to her. Prosecutors apparently believe that Miller acted on behalf of Jackson when he allegedly placed the accusing family's belongings into a storage unit and illegally snagged the letters. This allegation is one which would place Miller squarely in the position of being a co-conspirator to covering up a purported crime.

Before continuing down the line of conspiracy, there is still a problem with this current story. The first version has Jackson dispatching someone (supposedly Miller) to the home of the accuser to retrieve the letters. The Telegraph reported that the accuser told authorities "their precise location inside Michael's home." It has now been learned via the prosecution motion that the accuser's mother is alleging that Miller stole these letters when he had their possessions placed into storage.

Which one is it? Jackson had the letters removed from their home or he had them removed from their things in storage? Or are both one and the same? Even if you believe either scenario, the Telegraph and their unnamed source would like to have one believe that Jackson then turned around and told his accuser exactly where he kept these alleged letters in Neverland??

Please don't insult my intelligence.

The prosecution's belief that Miller was involved in the "unlawful taking" of these supposed letters is the kind of speculative reasoning that garnered the warrant used to break into Miller's office with a sledge hammer. Allegedly. If it is the theory of the prosecution that Miller did as he has been accused, why hasn't he been named as one of the infamous Jackson Five: the alleged co-conspirators? What about Mark Geragos? Surely the still unindicted quintet cannot be named while Geragos and Miller are not, particularly when they all reportedly acted under the direction of Geragos.

So, what gives? Do these "love letters" exist at all? Are the earlier reported letters and those mentioned in the search warrant affidavit one and the same?

Considering the 54 known executed warrants to date, one would expect that these letters (or evidence thereof) would have long since surfaced and been passed on to Diane Dimond by now. The denial of the documents six days following the megalithic raids allows for the speculative to wonder whether the accuser's mother mistook letters from a mental institution for letters of endearment from Jackson. It is also a possibility that said letters had all been a figment of a highly overactive imagination.

This is mere speculation, of course.

As the Jackson saga continues to unfold, more will undoubtedly be revealed about this case and its players. In the meantime, here are a few letters for you: E, S, X.

A special prosecutor and his rabblerousing pet would agree that those are the real love letters.

Reportedly.

? 2004 ANP


? 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/

UP -TO-DATE News
By LINDA DEUTSCH

AP Special Correspondent

SANTA MARIA, Calif. (AP) -- Michael Jackson's prosecutor was ordered Friday to testify at an upcoming hearing about how much he knew of the relationship between Jackson's former attorney and a private investigator before officials broke into the investigator's office and took evidence.

"I have nothing to hide," said Santa Barbara County District Attorney Tom Sneddon, who offered to testify immediately. But defense attorneys asked for a delay in order to study materials just turned over to them.

Law enforcement officials said they had a search warrant targeting the investigator's office.

The defense countered that officers exceeded the warrant's limitations, and evidence taken from Miller's office should be returned to Jackson's attorneys.

At Friday's hearing, Superior Court Judge Rodney Melville initially ordered Sneddon to cancel his vacation - a prepaid trip to Alaska for his 37th wedding anniversary - to attend the hearing scheduled for July 27.

Sneddon, obviously miffed, shook his head, threw his papers down on the counsel table and said, "I'll be here."

But the judge reconsidered and suggested the defense try to accommodate the prosecutor either with a videotaped deposition or an appearance at a later hearing.

The judge said he did not want to force Sneddon to cancel his trip.

The issue had been scheduled for a hearing Friday, but defense attorney Robert Sanger said at the start of the session that he had just received transcripts the night before.

"It's a transcript of a videotape, a law enforcement interview of the mother of the complaining witness," Sanger said.

The interview was done on July 6, 2003, four months before Jackson was charged or arrested, he said.

Sneddon objected to the delay, explaining that he had brought witnesses to testify from Los Angeles and wanted to go ahead. But the judge, after scolding the defense for not warning him of the request for a delay, agreed to wait.

"I have been very concerned about the factual issue, whether or not the district attorney ... knew Mr. Geragos was working for Mr. Jackson and knew that Mr. Miller had been retained by Geragos," the judge said, referring to Jackson's previous attorney, Mark Geragos, and his investigator, Bradley Miller.

"It is an issue that needs to be factually established," Melville said.

Sanger argued that Sneddon had approached him this week and told him that he was willing to concede that he knew about the relationship before a search warrant was executed on Miller's office. But Sneddon stood up and denied that.

He said he would explain the entire situation from the witness stand, asserting "I have nothing to hide."

Jackson, 45, has pleaded not guilty to committing a lewd act upon a child, administering alcohol and conspiracy to commit child abduction, false imprisonment and extortion.

In other matters, the judge ruled that Jackson does not have to appear personally for an Aug. 16 hearing on suppression of evidence that is expected to last up to two weeks. The singer has waived his personal appearances at most hearings.

The attorney for a coalition of media organizations, including The Associated Press, urged the judge to unseal grand jury transcripts in the case and to release the balance of edited documents that he made public this week.

Theodore Boutrous Jr. said the motion disclosed on Thursday revealed accusations against Sneddon, claiming the prosecutor had personally surveilled Miller and that officials broke into Miller's office with a sledge hammer to seize evidence.

"These are serious accusations, " said Boutrous. "Case law has held that where there is an accusation misconduct, that is the zenith of the need for public access. One of the reasons for public access is so the public can serve as a check on government."

The judge, however, refused to release the full documents.

"I am not going to release at this point more than I've already released," Melville said.

The judge also ruled that Jackson recently violated a court gag order when he commented on a leak of information to the media about a case he was involved in 11 years ago.

But the judge said he was willing to overlook it because Jackson's new attorney, Thomas Mesereau Jr., probably was unfamiliar with the terms of the gag order.

He told Mesereau to make sure his client doesn't comment again.

"Is it appropriate for me to say you are no longer the new kid on the block?" the judge asked Mesereau.

"Yes," said the lawyer, who previously argued that Jackson should be allowed to answer when there are damaging leaks of information. The judge said he would have to approve such responses.

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/M/MICHAEL_JACKSON?SITE=NVLAS&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT

Source: www.mjsunitednation.com

Major Love

Eve - The Music Lady




~~sending out a major love~~
"The Music Lady's"

http://launch.groups.yahoo.com/group/positivevoices4mjj/join
http://www.mjjfan.2ya.com
http://www.mjredemption.com/


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - Send 10MB messages!


View other groups in this category.

NEW TWIST IN JACKO CASE

MICHAEL JACKSON's lawyers have asked a judge to throw out the singer's grand jury indictment on the basis of what they see as insufficient evidence, lack of "strong suspicion" and improper conduct on the part of the government.

The star's lawyer Robert Sanger signed a motion which was filed on Tuesday (July 6) and released on Wednesday (7), appealing to Santa Barbara County Judge Rodney Melville.

Jackson has pleaded not guilty to a ten count indictment which includes charges of child molestation, extortion, false imprisonment, child abduction and giving a minor an intoxicating agent.

The motion cites what the defence deems to be unfair proceedings, highlighting the conveying of information to the jurors "without regard to the rules of evidence," and the behaviour of the prosecutors.

Also included is the allegation that the prosecutors "bullied and argued with witnesses" and "ran the proceedings as if they employed grand jurors".

According to BBC News, the motion said: "There is no case in the history of the state of California that has condoned anything like the abuse of power demonstrated in this grand jury proceeding."

Jackson is set to stand trail on the child molestation charges in California's Santa Barbara on September 13.


Published: 09-07-2004-07-14

?Get more from the NME with a subscription and save!

The indictment against pop-star Michael Jackson was unsealed, allowing the press and the public to view the charges against him
July 10,2004
By K.C. Arceneaux
RAW STORY COLUMNIST

Jackson has been charged with four counts of committing a lewd act upon a child, one count of attempting to commit a lewd act upon a child, and four counts of administering an intoxicating agent.
The additional charge of conspiracy, not included in the first set of charges against him, included twenty-eight separate criminal acts.

Those alleged acts include child abduction, child imprisonment, and extortion. Jackson pleaded not guilty to all counts. On the same day that the indictment was unsealed, there was another
and far less public event unfolding, one that may have a future impact on the Jackson case. Serious allegations of a pattern of abuses among Santa Barbara law enforcement and the DA's office, including District Attorney Tom Sneddon, were made by Santa Barbara County dentist, Thambiah Sundaram, in an interview on Online Legal Review Talk Radio.

Sneddon is the DA prosecuting the child-molestation case against Michael Jackson. In the interview, conducted by Ron Sweet, Sundaram stated that there was opposition to a non-profit medical clinic he
operated. Sundaram said that when city officials were unable to shut down his clinic, he was arrested on multiple counts, including impersonating a doctor, grand theft, and malicious mischief. Sundaram's wife was arrested, as well. An employee at the clinic was also charged, of committing a drive-by shooting. Neither Sundaram, his wife nor the
employee were convicted. Sundaram said that he eventually won a judgment against Sneddon and the DA's office for a substantial, six-figure amount, for causes including conspiracy, false imprisonment, and other violations of his civil rights.

Sundaram's allegations against Sneddon were serious, in that he also claimed to have heard, first-hand, statements by Sneddon and others in the DA's office that suggest that Santa Barbara police persecution of
innocent citizens is planned, common, and often racially motivated. Sundaram said that in 1994, he attended a fund-raising event with Tom Sneddon and other city officials, where ways to "get Michael Jackson out of the county" were discussed. Racist remarks were allegedly made on that occasion. According to Sundaram, other alleged vendettas were
discussed as well, to the extent where he said it resembled a Mafia planning session.Sundaram's allegations are not an isolated instance.

There have been many complaints and law-suits against the Santa Barbara DA's office.

The new counts against Jackson may be consistent with a pattern that Santa Barbara defense attorney Gary Dunlap has called "stacking charges."

In an interview on MJJF Talk Radio, on January 2, 2004,Dunlap gave his opinion that "stacking charges" was a common practice of the DA's office, and claimed that this was a tactic used against him.
Sneddon had charged and prosecuted Dunlap on twenty-two counts. After being acquitted on all counts, Dunlap is currently suing Sneddon and others in the DA's office for $10 million for malicious prosecution, and multiple other alleged offenses, including civil rights violations.

Dunlap said, ". . . I mean, it's one thing to be charged
with one crime and have a trial and be acquitted on it, but the
district attorney in Santa Barbara has a policy that if they throw
enough charges against you, the jury is bound to convict you on
something."

The above cases add to the pattern of what may be law enforcement abuses of power in Santa Barbara. There are multiple civil cases alleging false arrests, physical brutality by the police, tampering
with evidence and perjury, in cases settled out of court, at tax-payer's expense.

There is the example of George Beeghly, whose
case against Santa Barbara law-enforcement was also settled out of court. The defendants in the case were Santa Barbara Sheriff Jim Thomas, and Santa Barbara police officers. Beeghly sued for illegal
search and seizure, false arrest and false imprisonment, the use of excessive force, conspiracy to violate his civil rights, battery and failure to investigate, among other charges.

This information reveals a new side to the Michael Jackson child-molestation case.

The extent of the law suits for false arrests,
false imprisonments, condoning of excessive force by the police, tampering with evidence, and multiple civil rights violations suggests a culture of corruption among Santa Barbara law-enforcement.
The taxpayers of Santa Barbara have paid substantial settlements in these cases. DA Tom Sneddon's public relation's firm, Tellem Worldwide, was contacted and, citing a protective order as prohibiting their ability to respond, has declined to comment. It remains unclear how the allegations made by Dr. Sundaram and the cases involving Beeghly and
Dunlap are affected by the protective order issued in the Jackson case.

When Gary Dunlap was asked, in his interview, to comment on the Jackson case, he said that he had no opinion one way or another on the case.

However, he went on to say, ". . . the very fact that he's being
prosecuted by Sneddon's office does not cause me to have any reason to
believe that he's guilty in that, because of what I know about the
district attorney's office, I know that they do vindictive
prosecutions on a routine basis."

If Dunlap's allegations are true, then an investigation of the DA's office might shed new light on the Jackson case.
K. C. Arceneaux, Ph.D. karcx@yahoo.com

� SneddonExposed.com 2004. Article � RawStory.com


Eve - The Music Lady



~~sending out a major love~~
"The Music Lady's"

Jackson prosecutor to take stand
Defense questions raid on private investigator's office
Friday, July 9, 2004 Posted: 5:37 PM EDT (2137 GMT)


SANTA MARIA, California (AP) -- In a highly unusual move, the judge in the Michael Jackson child-molestation case ordered the district attorney Friday to take the stand and explain a raid on a private investigator's office.

Superior Court Judge Rodney Melville wants to know if the seizure of videotapes and computer hard drives from investigator Bradley Miller's office in November 2003 violated Jackson's attorney-client privilege.

The defense says Miller was working for the pop star's lawyer at the time, Mark Geragos.

District Attorney Tom Sneddon said Friday he did not know Miller was working for Geragos when authorities with a search warrant broke into Miller's office with sledgehammers.

"I have nothing to hide," Sneddon said.

The judge said he wants to find out what Sneddon knew at the time.

"I have been very concerned about the factual issue, whether or not the district attorney ... knew Mr. Geragos was working for Mr. Jackson and knew that Mr. Miller had been retained by Geragos," Melville said.

The judge at first ordered Sneddon to cancel his vacation -- a prepaid trip to Alaska for his 37th wedding anniversary -- to testify July 27. He then suggested the defense try to accommodate the prosecutor, either with a videotaped deposition or an appearance at a later hearing.

Jackson fired Geragos in April. His legal team is now led by Thomas Mesereau Jr.

Jackson, 45, is charged with molesting a boy and plying him with alcohol.



-----------------------------------------------------

Copyright 2004 The Associated Press. All rights reserved.This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.


Find this article at:
http://www.cnn.com/2004/LAW/07/09/michael.jackson.ap/index.html

Jackson hearing centers on keeping many aspects of case under wraps
Friday, June 25, 2004 Posted: 12:07 AM EDT (0407 GMT)


SANTA MARIA, California (AP) -- The judge in the Michael Jackson child molestation case has scheduled a pretrial hearing Friday -- a proceeding likely to focus on whether many aspects of the case will be kept from public view.

The majority of 13 items on Friday's calendar concern the secrecy surrounding the case and the sealing of almost all documents.

Prosecutors and Jackson's new defense lawyer have consistently sought to keep documents under seal. A coalition of news media has opposed those efforts, asking for portions of a grand jury transcript, a grand jury indictment and at least 47 sealed search warrants to be made public.

A court-maintained Web site also shows Judge Rodney Melville has been holding private telephone hearings with the parties. The judge is expected to field news media complaints about these secret hearings Friday.

Jackson will not attend. His lawyer has declined to comment on why he wants so many documents sealed, and on a motion to suppress evidence against the singer.

Legal experts suggest the Jackson case is emblematic of a new brand of American justice, especially when trials involve celebrities. In those cases, judges increasingly are trying to keep their proceedings and related documents from the public eye.

"Since the last hearing, the practice has continued to be to file virtually every document under seal. They're keeping the public in the dark," said attorney Theodore Boutrous Jr., who represents a coalition of news organizations, including CNN and The Associated Press, fighting for greater access.

"The obsession with secrecy appears now to have gone off the deep end," First Amendment lawyer Douglas Mirrell said.

He said the Colorado rape case against basketball star Kobe Bryant is surrounded by secrecy unseen in normal cases, with pretrial hearings held behind closed doors.

In the recent Martha Stewart case, the entire jury selection was closed. Transcripts were released only after an appeals court ruled the closure had been a clear violation of the First Amendment.

"They are making unavailable to the public information and documentation historically available in other cases," Mirrell said of the high-profile cases.

Jackson, 45, has pleaded not guilty to committing a lewd act upon a child, administering alcohol and conspiracy to commit child abduction, false imprisonment and extortion.

Key sections of the indictment are blacked out. The names of five alleged coconspirators remain secret, as do 28 specific acts the prosecution alleges in support of the charges.

Both prosecution and defense attorneys are under a court-imposed gag order -- supported by both sides -- that prevents them from commenting on any aspect of the case.

Copyright 2004 The Associated Press. All rights reserved.This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.


Find this article at:
http://www.cnn.com/2004/LAW/06/24/michael.jackson.ap/index.html

Critical Jackson Defense Motion Is Sealed
Sat Jul 03, 6:31 PM ET

Key details surrounding Michael Jackson's child molestation case were again hidden from public view when a judge sealed a critical defense motion in the case without comment.

Santa Barbara County Superior Court Judge Rodney Melville on Friday sealed a motion that seeks dismissal of charges against the singer at the request of defense attorney Thomas Mesereau Jr., continuing a pattern of secrecy imposed throughout the proceedings.

Mesereau's motion said sealing was needed "based on the overriding interests of Mr. Jackson's rights to due process and a fair trial."

In response, the judge said merely that "good cause appearing," he would seal the motion to set aside the indictment and all accompanying documents.

The ruling means the public will not know on what grounds Jackson is challenging the indictment that charges him with committing a lewd act upon a child, administering alcohol, and conspiracy to commit child abduction, false imprisonment and extortion. Details from the indictment, including exactly what acts Jackson is accused of committing and the names of his alleged co-conspirators, also are being kept secret.

An attorney representing media organizations promised to file an opposition to the sealing order before a hearing scheduled for July 9.

"To seal such a fundamental motion in the case without any explanation flatly violates the First Amendment," said Theodore Boutrous Jr., the attorney who is representing The Associated Press and other media organizations.

"In this motion Michael Jackson is attacking the prosecution's entire case and it's important for the public to understand the nature of those claims and the nature of the indictment," Boutrous said.

The latest ruling comes on the heels of a series of orders from Melville sealing some 40 search warrants executed in the case. Melville said he was concerned that anything he revealed would be analyzed and reported by the media and would make it difficult to find an unbiased jury pool.

"This is as close to a secret trial as I have ever seen in a high profile case," said Loyola Law School professor Laurie Levenson.

"The fact that the judge wants to keep a lid on the media is not an overriding interest," said Levenson. "He's made the media the enemy. The inherent problem is not recognizing the valid function the media serves and the public's right to know the facts."


Copyright ? Yahoo! and The Associated Press All rights reserved.


Copyright ? 2004 Yahoo! Inc. All rights reserved.
Questions, comments, suggestions? Send us feedback.

Michael's Ex Won't Back Down
June 29, 2004


Things are heating up between MICHAEL JACKSON and his ex DEBBIE ROWE over custody of their children, 6-year-old PRINCE MICHAEL and 5-year-old PARIS. Jackson's chief assistant, EVVELYN TAVACCI, has reportedly been called to give a deposition on July 19 in connection with Rowe's ongoing child custody litigation, and more subpoenas may be issued. An inside source close to Debbie is said to believe that Tavacci contributed to the rift and eventual breakup of Debbie Rowe and Michael Jackson. The source says the children's nanny, GRACE RWARMBA, may be called too.

In February, Debbie filed court papers asking a retired judge to mediate an issue concerning her and Michael's divorce agreement. ET was told at that time that Debbie's approach in her fight will be to claim that Jackson violated many aspects of the divorce agreement, which allegedly includes the stipulation that Jackson gets sole custody of the children.