D.A. defends actions in Jackson case

SANTA MARIA, California (CNN) -- The district attorney who filed child molestation charges against pop star Michael Jackson was called to the stand Monday during a preliminary hearing focusing on the prosecutor's actions in the weeks before the charges were lodged.

Santa Barbara County District Attorney Tom Sneddon appeared relaxed as he took the stand to defend his actions.

The hearing began at 10 a.m. (1 p.m. ET).

At issue is the defense's claim that Sneddon violated attorney-client privilege between Jackson and his former attorney, Mark Geragos, when Sneddon conducted a search of the office of a private investigator.

The defense claims the prosecutor knew or should have known that the investigator, Brad Miller, was working for Jackson at the time. As a result, the defense wants any information obtained in the search of Miller's office thrown out.

Sneddon maintained throughout the hearing that he did not know that Miller was directly employed by Geragos.

"It just never dawned on you that Miller could be working for Mark Geragos?" defense attorney Thomas Mesereau asked.

"That's true," Sneddon responded.

But the district attorney later acknowledged that he was aware Geragos was working on a property matter for Jackson.

Sneddon has a long history with Jackson. He investigated the pop star in 1993 for child molestation against a boy, a case that never made it to trial because of a multimillion dollar settlement with the boy and his family.

The Jackson family has since said the prosecutor has an ax to grind with the pop star.

Jackson, dressed in a white suit with a gold band on one of his arms, attended Monday's hearing, arriving in a tour bus along with members of his family, including both his parents, as well as siblings Jermaine, Janet and LaToya.

About 50 to 100 fans -- a much smaller crowd than at his previous court visits -- cheered and waved signs of support outside the court when Jackson arrived. A security guard held a black umbrella for Jackson as he entered the courthouse.

Jackson, 45, has pleaded not guilty to child molestation. The singer is charged with seven counts of performing lewd or lascivious acts on a child under 14 and two counts of administering an intoxicating agent, reportedly wine.

In a development late Sunday, sources familiar with the investigation told CNN that the California attorney general's office has determined that Santa Barbara County sheriff's deputies treated pop star Michael Jackson properly when he surrendered himself to them last year. (Full story)

Jackson told CBS' "60 Minutes" in December that he was "manhandled very roughly" when he was taken into custody on the child molestation charges -- a claim the sheriff's department had denied.



Find this article at:
http://www.cnn.com/2004/LAW/08/16/jackson.case/index.html

Drama expected in Jackson case showdown
Mood:  energetic
SANTA MARIA, California (AP) -- A day before he is scheduled to appear in court for his child molestation case, Michael Jackson made a surprise visit Sunday to a church in south Los Angeles and met with about 35 Sunday school students.

One girl at the First AME Church asked if the children could visit Jackson's Neverland Ranch, to which the pop star replied: "You're welcome to come anytime."

Jackson, who wore a dark blue velvet jacket with a gold armband on one sleeve, was not made available for questions.

He appeared with his attorney, Tom Mesereau Jr., brother Randy and comedian Steve Harvey. Mesereau declined to comment on the case.

On Monday, Jackson's family will be standing by him for a courtroom confrontation with the man who wants to put him in prison -- a district attorney whose pursuit of Jackson dates back more than a decade.

Although the legal agenda for Monday's pretrial hearing is significant, emotional overtones may take center stage.

The subject of this session is District Attorney Tom Sneddon, the man who also tried to bring charges against Jackson in 1993 in a confrontation so bitter that Jackson wrote an angry song that only slightly disguised Sneddon's name.

On Monday, Mesereau gets to question Sneddon about his actions in the weeks before the current charges against Jackson were filed.

The defense is seeking to show that Sneddon invaded the sanctity of the attorney-client privilege between Jackson and his former attorney.

Jackson has not been required to attend pretrial hearings, but he decided he wanted to be present for this confrontation.

In the audience will be his parents, Joseph and Katherine, and siblings Janet, LaToya, Jermaine and Jackie.

"It's a face-off between Jackson and Sneddon," said Laurie Levenson, a Loyola University law professor and former federal prosecutor. "And emotionally, it's a big moment in the case. This is high drama."

The hearing is also important legally, she said, because prosecutors stand to lose their key evidence if it is found that they obtained it illegally.

"This is the basis of the conspiracy count," she said.

In addition, she said, a finding that the prosecution intentionally interfered with the attorney-client relationship could prompt a motion to dismiss the charge entirely.

Jackson, 45, is charged with committing a lewd act upon a child, administering an intoxicating agent and conspiring to commit child abduction, false imprisonment and extortion. He has pleaded not guilty and is free on $3 million bail.

Sneddon was subpoenaed by Jackson's attorneys to testify about surveillance he personally conducted at the office of a private investigator working for Jackson's former attorney, Mark Geragos.

The investigator, Bradley Miller, was not in his Beverly Hills office when Sneddon went there and photographed the building and its roster of occupants.

Santa Barbara County sheriff's officials already have testified that they used a sledgehammer to break into Miller's office and seize videotapes and files related to the Jackson case. They maintain that they did not know Miller was employed by Geragos.

The defense says any materials seized from Miller's office should be suppressed as evidence.

The seized materials are believed to be crucial to the prosecution case -- among them a videotape of Jackson's 12-year-old accuser and his family praising the singer's character.

Prosecutors claim the tape was made under duress, with Jackson holding the family prisoner at his Neverland Ranch.

Without the tape, a central theory of the case against Jackson would be severely undermined.



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

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/08/15/michael.jackson.ap/index.html

Sheriff wants to release Jackson arrest probe

SANTA BARBARA, California (AP) -- The sheriff has asked a judge's permission to release the results of a state probe into allegations that Michael Jackson was "manhandled" by authorities after his arrest for investigation of child molestation.

But Santa Barbara County Sheriff Jim Anderson's request to publicize the investigation's findings were ordered sealed by Superior Court Judge Rodney Melville, according to court documents released Friday.

It was unclear whether the state attorney general's investigation had been completed because significant portions of Anderson's motion, filed Thursday, were blacked out.

Anderson asked for a state investigation last year after Jackson claimed he was mistreated while in custody.

In a CBS "60 Minutes" interview, the singer alleged that authorities locked him in a feces-smeared restroom for 45 minutes after he asked to use the facilities. He showed what he said was a bruise on his right arm and claimed his shoulder was dislocated.

TV news cameras, however, recorded Jackson waving with both arms to fans as he was let out of jail.

Sheriff's officials and Nathan Barankin, a spokesman for Attorney General Bill Lockyer, declined to comment, the Santa Barbara News-Press said.

Anderson's motion was among at least 17 court records released Friday. Many had numerous deletions, continuing the pattern of secrecy imposed by Melville throughout Jackson's case.

In one filing, media attorney Theodore Boutrous Jr. asked that media be allowed to film and photograph court proceedings August 16 when District Attorney Tom Sneddon is scheduled to testify.

"Mr. Sneddon's testimony is a quintessential example of the kind of proceeding that warrants camera coverage," wrote Boutrous, who represents a coalition of media organizations including The Associated Press.

Jackson's defense did not oppose the media's request, according to court records.

Other documents released Friday contain requests by defense lawyers to throw out evidence seized by law enforcement during raids on November 18, 2003.

Jackson is charged with committing a lewd act upon a child, administering an intoxicating agent and conspiring to commit child abduction, false imprisonment and extortion. He has pleaded not guilty and is free on $3 million bail.



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

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/08/14/jackson.sheriff.ap/index.html

Janet Jackson Nightclub Trouble (MJ related: must read)

02/08/2004

Sexy singer JANET JACKSON was reportedly held back by security guards in a Los Angeles night club last week (26JUL04), after she tried to punch a man who was being rude about her brother MICHAEL.

According to British newspaper the DAILY MIRROR, the THAT'S THE WAY LOVE GOES singer was in the VIP section at the city's Concorde Club when she heard someone say that Michael was a "f***ing freak".

A witness says, "She suddenly lost her composure and lunged towards him.

"It looked as though it was about to kick off when security came in and the guy was dragged out of the club."

Janet returned to the dance floor but couldn't get back into the party atmosphere.

The source adds, "It definitely ruined her night."

Source: NY Daily

MJSTAR

MJJForum eNews #350 - August 2, 2004 Jackson Lawyers Seek Whether District Attorney Violated Gag Order

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/

Timeline emerges in Jackson abuse case

MJJForum eNews #349 - July 31, 2004


Details are emerging on the conspiracy charge against Michael Jackson from one of the alleged five non-indicted co-conspirators. Ronald Konitzer, a former business associate of the entertainer, has spoken for the first time since the conspiracy charge was included in the new charges against Mr. Jackson.

Mr. Konitzer said that the documentary of Mr. Jackson?s life made by Martin Bashir, Granada and ITV named ?Living With Michael Jackson? set off a public relations firestorm that threatened the King Of Pop?s livelihood. In the video, it shows Mr. Jackson saying that it is okay to share your bed with children and is seen holding hands with the teenage boy who would later become his accuser.

Mr. Konitzer detailed the steps he and others took to protect the singer?s reputation. ?Take Two: The Footage That You Were Never Meant To See? was a production that cast Mr. Jackson in a positive light, said Konitzer. It was nothing more than damage control.

His story significantly contrasts with the narrative prosecutors presented in the July 27th court hearing in Santa Maria. Prosecutors said that the singer?s ?henchmen,? ?hirelings? and ?thugs? conspired to abduct, imprison and coerce the boy and his family to participate in a video that countered the ITV-Granada documentary.

Mr. Konitzer said that he or the other members of Mr. Jackson?s associates did nothing conspiratorial in regards in their actions after the documentary.

"It was a very natural development of events and a normal professional move that has been taken out of context -- there was no cover-up," Mr. Konitzer said in an interview Friday. "We were working around the clock at the ranch for 10 days in a row -- with my family even there -- and I can tell you the one thing I remember is a bunch of kids running around and having fun. There was nothing I saw that even resembled anything near imprisonment."

In the July 27th hearing, prosecutors described a conspiracy to keep the boy and his family at the singer?s Neverland Valley Ranch against their will, hiding them out at hotels and arranging for a trip to Brazil, so that they would appear in the ?Take Two? video more favorable to the pop legend.

Currently the Santa Barbara District Attorney?s office has not filed any charges against the five alleged co-conspirators. The co-conspirators are alleged to be Mr. Konitzer, former manager Deiter Wiesner; Vincent Amen, who had worked for Mr. Jackson?s production company, and his friend Frank Tyson. Mr. Tyson is the singer?s former personal assistant and has known Mr. Jackson since his youth; and F. Marc Shaffel, who assisted in the production of the ?Take Two? rebuttal video.

Mr. Konitzer and the lawyers for Mr. Amen and Mr. Tyson said that the allegations of a conspiracy are absurd.

Mr. Konitzer recalled that he was in a Miami hotel room with Mr. Wiesner putting the finishing touches on a business strategy to boost the entertainer?s career when they received a transcript of the ITV-Granada produced documentary ?Living With Michael Jackson? by Martin Bashir, that was aired in England first.

"Within 48 hours, the Bashir scandal hit," Mr. Konitzer said. "We knew it could be damaging for the business and that it needed to be addressed. The first action was trying to stop it."

An immediate action ensued, and lawyers were hired to block the airing of the documentary, but that did not work. The documentary was shown in England on February 3rd. The video was then sold to ABC to be broadcast in the United States. ?We had to prepare for the U.S. airing . . . It was like a hurricane was coming and we were going through the protective checklist.?

More than a dozen lawyers were hired to deal with business issues. ?Hiring a defense lawyer was basically to complete a 360-degree advisory board,? said Mr. Konitzer. He chose defense attorney Mark Geragos two days after the documentary aired in the United States on February 6, 2003.

He also hired public relations and crisis-management professionals to counteract the fallout of the documentary. He was on conference calls from Miami and then Los Angeles during nonstop brainstorming about how to stave off potential negative effects of the documentary on Mr. Jackson?s career and livelihood.

"We were looking for the right ammunition to discredit Bashir," he said. "Then we realized there was this other footage that hadn't been shown."

Mr. Jackson had his own videographer filming him during the time Mr. Bashir was filming for the documentary. The team went to Neverland to gather the footage for the ?Take Two? which ultimately aired on Fox on February 20th.

Mr. Konitzer said that the singer was at the ranch, but like a CEO of a large company, he let the hired professionals do the work.

"Everybody worked around the clock to get it all together," he said. "It was teamwork -- not a conspiracy."

The teenager and his mother were at the ranch, and did not appear in the final cut of the rebuttal video.

Mr. Amen?s attorney, Michael Bachner said, "From what Vincent Amen saw, these people were certainly in no way under any type of duress. This family was not under any type of force or compulsion to remain anywhere. They freely went around to speak to whoever they wanted. They went shopping. They made phone calls. They did everything free people do."

Mr. Tyson?s lawyer Joseph Tacopina said that his client also said that the family was not held against their will. "If she (the mother) were being held hostage, then I guess during one of her shopping sprees on Rodeo Drive she could have told a store manager while she was buying a thousand-dollar dress."

For prosecutors to characterize Neverland as a "place designed to entice children" is ridiculous, he said. "To say Neverland was constructed to be a predator's mansion is, quite frankly, very offensive. Thousands of children have been through there, and it's been the greatest moments in their lives."

Both lawyers say they doubt charges will ever be filed against their clients, but if they are, Mr. Tacopina said, "the last thing Tom Sneddon wants is my client to testify at his trial. . . . They have no interest in charging these men -- because if they do, we'll answer to the charges, and then they'll really have problems."

Prosecutors declined to comment Friday, citing a gag order in the case.

Sources: Newspress/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/

Details Emerge at Hearing on Defense Motion for Dismissal of Charges
Date: Tuesday, July 27, 2004

Author: Team MJJsource

Deputy District Attorney Gordon Auchincloss today revealed some details of the prosecution?s case against Michael Jackson. It is the contention of the prosecution that the alleged abuse occurred after the airing of the Martin Bashir documentary, during a time when glaring media attention was completely focused on Mr. Jackson and his activities.

Mr. Auchincloss stated the family was ?imprisoned? and that Mr. Jackson sent his private jet to take the family to his Neverland Ranch and whisked them away to vacations in luxury resorts. Auchincloss also berated Mr. Jackson?s former attorney, Mark Geragos, for going on national television and saying the case was a ?shakedown?.

Defense attorney Thomas Mesereau replied, ?If this is an issue of prior counsel saying it was a shakedown, I say it was a shakedown!? Mr. Mesereau derided the entire prosecution?s case and ridiculed the assumption that the trips constituted false imprisonment, saying, "The idea that they were imprisoned and forced to fly on private jets to Florida, to socialize with celebrities such as Chris Tucker, is absurd on its face. It would be laughed out of court by a jury." Mr. Mesereau demanded dismissal of all charges.

Mr. Jackson's attorneys were seeking a delay in the trial as well as outright dismissal of the charges. In a motion unsealed Monday, they stated, "the scope of the prosecution's investigation is breathtaking" and called the prosecution's case "an effort to take down a major celebrity?, also noting that ?the expenditure of resources by the prosecution is unprecedented and extravagant."

The defense team asked that the September trial be pushed back four months, until early next year. The motion was filed July 13. Defense attorney Steve Cochran accused the prosecution of not providing access to certain critical items that Mr. Jackson?s attorneys need for preparation of his defense and said it would take them months to study all the information gathered by the prosecutors.

The trial has been moved to January 31, 2005.

MJJSource

PR Expert Explains Free Work For Michael Jackson Prosecutor
NBC 4

Tellem: 'No One Was Guiding This Press Conference'
POSTED: 2:19 PM PDT July 16, 2004
UPDATED: 3:11 PM PDT July 16, 2004

LOS ANGELES -- The public relations expert helping District Attorney Tom Sneddon with press on the Michael Jackson case has told other publicists she volunteered because Sneddon badly mishandled his first press conference and she thought he needed help.

"No one was guiding this press conference. It was a debacle," Susan Tellem told a seminar of the Public Relations Society of America on Thursday, according to the Santa Barbara News-Press.

"We felt it was imperative for us to help get to the district attorney and perhaps take another crack at doing a press conference that was better organized and conveyed information in a more practical way to the media," said Tellem, president of the public relations firm Tellem Worldwide.

She spoke via telephone conference call to an audience of about 200 who paid between $50 and $150 to hear about her Jackson case experience, the newspaper said.

Tellem is providing services to Sneddon for free and estimated it would have cost "in the millions by now" if she was charging him.

Sneddon, who was unavailable for comment and who is bound by a publicity gag order from speaking, drew harsh criticism after his Nov. 19 announcement of molestation allegations against Jackson. Many said that Sneddon's joviality at the press conference was inappropriate.

Tellem said the prosecutor held a second press conference at her suggestion after he filed charges against Jackson and "Mr. Sneddon did a fabulous job and even changed public opinion."

There was no immediate response Friday to calls from The Associated Press seeking comment from Tellem.
Copyright 2004 by The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

Defense Team Seeks Indictment


Jackson Defense Team Seeks Indictment Dismissal

Lawyers for Michael Jackson are expected to argue in court today that the indictment against the entertainer be dismissed due to mismanagement of the grand jury proceedings by prosecutors.

In a motion requesting to set aside the indictment, the defense alleges "a complete disregard on the part of the prosecutor for his duties to present evidence fairly and accurately and to behave in a manner that would have been approved by a judge."

The motion also includes the accusation that Santa Barbara County District Attorney Thomas Sneddon "bullied" grand jurors and allowed prejudicial testimony about Jackson, including a referral to him as "the devil" by the accuser's mother, to pass without interruption. Jackson's lawyers argue that prosecutors did not provided enough evidence to warrant the charge of conspiracy.

Prosecutors in response argued that ample evidence was presented to show that Jackson was an active part of the alleged conspiracy. They also denied that grand jurors were pressured to issue the indictment against the pop icon, and argued that though they consider "the devil" statement to be a "tame" description coming from a mother who believes her children abused by Jackson, it had no prejudicial effect on grand jurors.

According to Darrel Parker, assistant executive officer of the Santa Barbara County Superior Court, arguments on this issue will continue until Wednesday or Thursday.

Media attorney Theodore Boutrous, Jr. will argue at today's hearing to have grand jury transcripts in the case unsealed. Boutrous has appealed Melville's sealing orders to the 2nd District Court of Appeal, requesting that the Court hear arguments to unseal all records in the Jackson case by August 10.

"I have no doubt that Judge Melville is trying to protect the trials rights of the parties in this case," Boutrous said. "However, the law is clear that the mere fact that a case gets high-profile attention does not warrant secrecy, and that openness is better for a fair trial."

Jackson will not be at today's hearing. He has pleaded not guilty to all the charges.


Source: Santa Maria Times/MJJForum

Judge postpones Jackson trial

From Miguel Marquez and Dree de Clamecy
CNN

SANTA MARIA, California (CNN) -- The judge in the child molestation case against pop star Michael Jackson has announced he will push back the start of the trial to January 31, 2005.

Judge Rodney Melville granted the defense motion to continue the trial, acknowledging that he had been "overly optimistic" when he originally scheduled the trial to start on September 13.

Jackson faces 10 counts -- including four counts of child molestation, four counts of administering an intoxicating agent, one count of attempted child molestation and one count of conspiracy to commit child abduction, false imprisonment and extortion.

Jackson, 45, pleaded not guilty to the counts in a court appearance on April 30.

Earlier in Tuesday's hearing on a defense motion to set aside the charges against Jackson in the grand jury indictment, prosecutors outlined what they said were 28 "overt acts" that warranted the conspiracy charge.

Those alleged acts stemmed from the airing of a documentary on ABC in February, 2003, in which the singer explained his fondness for children.

Santa Barbara County Deputy District Attorney Gordon Auchincloss said the documentary "ignited a fireball of negative publicity" for Jackson, damaging his career and finances, and made Jackson "an international object of loathing."

"It represented a complete and utter ruin of his image, his empire and his career," the deputy district attorney said.

In the Martin Bashir documentary, Jackson explained that his fascination with children was innocent and defended sleeping in the same bedroom with young guests at his Neverland ranch.

"Why can't you share your bed? The most loving thing to do is to share your bed with someone," the singer said.

"You say, 'You can have my bed if you want it. Sleep in it. I'll sleep on the floor. It's yours.' I always give the beds to the company."

In the backlash from the airing of his comments, the prosecution contends, Jackson engaged in a conspiracy to force the boy he's accused of molesting and the boy's family to exonerate the singer in a news conference, to "quell the firestorm."

Auchincloss said the alleged victim's mother was told by Jackson that she would be safe only if her son agreed to participate in the news conference to clear Jackson of the allegations.

The prosecution contends that John Doe -- the alleged victim -- and his mother, Jane Doe, were virtual captives at Neverland, where Jackson attempted to divide them by creating a permissive atmosphere in which the boy didn't do homework, watched movies frequently and went on rides at the ranch's amusement park.

Auchincloss described Neverland as a "resort and an amusement park rolled into one, designed to entice and attract children," and noted that Jackson is in charge of who comes and goes from the gated estate.

He said Jane Doe needed permission from co-conspirators at the ranch to leave, and she was told she could leave but her child had to stay.

Jackson defense attorney Thomas Mesereau, Jr., disputed the prosecution's claims, saying that the mother and son were flown on private jets to Florida during the time they were supposedly held against their will at Neverland and stayed in hotels in Miami.

He also said the mother had a hotel room in Calabasas, Calif., and a credit card with no limit on it.

The defense also argued that the judge should throw out the grand jury indictment against Jackson because of Santa Barbara County District Attorney Tom Sneddon's "outrageous" behavior during the grand jury proceedings in April.

Mesereau charged that Sneddon intimidated witnesses, misstated the law to the grand jurors and tried to act as a judge during the session.

He also said the district attorney "screwed up" the grand jury instructions because the panel was never told what the "specific intent" was and because the grand jurors were allowed to assume that conspiracy is simply guilt by association.

Melville said he would take under consideration the motion to set aside the grand jury indictment, which was reached after the panel saw 111 exhibits and sat through testimony that covers 1,903 pages.

CNN's Ed Payne contributed to this story.


Find this article at:
http://www.cnn.com/2004/LAW/07/27/jackson.trial/index.html

Former Employee As Key Witness

27/07/2004

A Las Vegas woman who worked briefly as a spokesperson for Michael Jackson was a key prosecution witness whose grand jury testimony linked the King of Pop to a criminal conspiracy targeting the singer's teenage accuser and the boy's family, The Smoking Gun has learned.

Ann Gabriel, 43, appeared earlier this year before a Santa Barbara grand jury and testified about Jackson's finances and his "crisis management" style in the wake of the February 2003 broadcast of Martin Bashir's controversial documentary. In a heavily redacted court filing docketed Friday, Jackson's attorneys unloaded on Gabriel, saying that she was a "peripheral, bit player who, after the fact, was willing to give testimony about anything to be important."

While Gabriel's name was redacted from the filing, TSG sources identified her as the "key" witness for District Attorney Thomas Sneddon referred to in court motions. In a brief interview this afternoon, Gabriel declined to answer questions about her grand jury testimony, citing a gag order imposed by Judge Rodney Melville.

The defense filing contends that prosecutors used Gabriel to establish that possible "economic loss" and damage to the performer's image were motivating factors that triggered Jackson and his underlings (Sneddon terms them "henchmen") to allegedly hatch a plot to abduct, falsely imprison, and extort the accuser, now 14, and his family. According to prosecutors, the Bashir documentary "galvanized" Jackson and five coconspirators "to do something to mitigate the disastrous effect it promised to have on defendant's personal reputation and financial future." That effort allegedly included Team Jackson holding family members at Neverland Ranch against their will and arranging to ship them off to Brazil for safekeeping.

Defense lawyers argue that Sneddon presented Gabriel's testimony in an "attempt to show economic loss and damage to a client's image," though she was unqualified to speak about the financial condition or state of mind of Jackson, whom she has never met. As an example of Gabriel's vamping, attorney Robert Sanger pointed to how she testified, "without any foundation," about how Jackson cellular phone ring tones "could be worth $500-$700 million."

Gabriel was employed by the so-called Michael Jackson Working Group for about three weeks in early-2003 to prepare press releases, monitor media response to the Bashir documentary, and help with the preparation of the "reply video," which aired on Fox Television two weeks after the Bashir broadcast. In her grand jury testimony, Gabriel acknowledged that she was terminated by the Jackson camp after only three weeks, a firing that one TSG source attributed to Gabriel's overstepping her authority by trying to appear on TV as a Jackson mouthpiece.

According to one source, Gabriel was brought into the Jackson Working Group (a consortium of lawyers, financiers, and other advisers) by David LeGrand, a Las Vegas attorney who began representing the singer in January 2003 (and who knew Gabriel via their mutual involvement in Internet broadcasting issues). Gabriel is the president of Webcaster Alliance, a not-for-profit trade group representing small online broadcasters. She also runs Gabriel Media, which specializes in "public relations, marketing and promotional tools and services tailored for the entire webcasting community."

While introduced to grand jurors as "Ann Gabriel," the witness's real name is Ann Kite. Referring to the Gabriel surname as her "professional name," she told TSG that she began using the handle after a divorce, when she wanted a "name I could call my own." Noting her career in streaming media, she added that horn-toting Gabriel was the "patron saint of broadcasting."

Source: The Smoking Gun

MJSTAR

Why the DA's search of Michael Jackson's PI's office was unlawful

Jonna M. Spilbor, FindLaw Columnist
Special to CNN.com



(Findlaw) -- 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 plainer.

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
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." 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
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 Ranch 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 private investigator 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.

How a search could 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.

Assessing possible sanctions
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. 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 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.

Jonna M. Spilbor, a FindLaw columnist, is a frequent commentator on television news networks. In the courtroom, she has handled hundreds of cases as a criminal defense attorney, and also served in the San Diego City Attorney's Office, Criminal Division, and the Office of the United States Attorney in the Drug Task Force and Appellate units. She is a graduate of Thomas Jefferson School of Law, where she was a member of the Law Review.


Find this article at:
http://www.cnn.com/2004/LAW/07/26/spilbor.jackson.sneddon/index.html

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

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