Will Jackson’s Past Settlements Come Into Current Case?

The judge presiding in the case against Michael Jackson may very well hold hearings on whether or not the prosecution can add in past allegations made against the pop star. The judge had already told the prosecution that he wanted to see if they had a strong case against Mr. Jackson before bringing in the past allegations. The prosecutor’s have asked for a hearing on the matter "sooner rather than later”. Superior Court Judge Rodney Melville indicated that it may come next week. He told the defense to file a motion in opposition before this Friday. The defense said that they too would want to call in some witnesses. District Attorney Tom Sneddon has put on the accusing family first to get to whether or not he can bring in the 1993-1994 allegations made against Mr. Jackson by two families. The first family ended up filing a civil lawsuit against Mr. Jackson before any criminal proceeding could get under way. The attorneys for Mr. Jackson requested that the civil lawsuit be put on hold until after the criminal trial had taken it’s course, but the civil judge denied that motion. Mr. Jackson ended up settling that lawsuit out of court for an estimated $15-20 million. The entertainer maintained his innocence throughout and only settled on negligence. The “molestation” accusation made by the family was taken out of the settlement papers. The second lawsuit came from a former maid at Neverland who accused Mr. Jackson of touching her son in 1994. This lawsuit was settled out of court for a reported $2 million dollars. With the current case in shambles because of the current family’s inconsistencies and memory loss in their testimony, the district attorney is hoping that the judge will grant him this life-saver by bringing in these past accusations made against Mr. Jackson. "It's crucial," said Laurie Levenson, a professor at Loyola School of Law who is observing the trial. Although California law allows evidence of a defendant's disposition to commit sex crimes to be introduced at trial, the law also leaves the decision up to the judge. The judge could include all, some or none of the evidence, Ms. Levenson said. Whatever the judge decides, both sides are anticipating that at least some of Mr. Jackson's past interaction with boys will be part of the trial. Defense attorneys said the prosecutors want a group of "disgruntled former employees, paid tabloid informants and other disreputable characters" to testify about Mr. Jackson’s past. The prosecution needs for Mr. Jackson’s past to come into play because they need to counteract the defense’s assertion that the current allegations "were fabricated by the victim and his family for financial gain," said Senior Deputy District Attorney Gerald Franklin in a motion filed earlier this year. California's evidence code was changed a decade ago to allow prosecutors to include past crimes and even uncharged allegations of a crime in sex offense cases. "As a matter of logic, the best way to prove that a man is a sex offender is to prove that he has sexually offended again and again," Mr. Franklin said. The only caveats are that such evidence must be relevant and support the prosecution's theory regarding a defendant's intent, motive, opportunity and plan or scheme to commit the charged offense. A Court of Appeal opinion upholding the law said, "The Legislature has determined the need for this evidence is 'critical' given the serious and secretive nature of sex crimes and the often resulting credibility contest at trial." The author of the 1995 legislation, former Assemblyman James Rogan, R-Glendale, a one-time prosecutor and judge, said it was important to include this sort of evidence. ”The law allows a judge to make a "common sense" assessment of the evidence, and if it is allowed, gives juries a chance to make a rational assessment of the probability or improbability for the defendant to commit such a crime,” Mr. Rogan said. The prosecution is claiming that there are other boys that Mr. Jackson was allegedly involved with around 1993-1994, but once the first accusing family accepted the settlement, the case fell apart. They could not explain, however, why these other alleged victims of Mr. Jackson couldn’t testify against him in a criminal court without the first family involved. Currently, the prosecution only has the former Neverland maid’s son, who is now in his twenties, willing to come forward. It was reported by prosecution insiders that the first boy, also in his twenties, would only take the stand if his testimony was necessary to convict Mr. Jackson. However, other sources have contradicted that notion and said that he is either not a willing participant or he may eventually testify on behalf of Mr. Jackson. MSNBC consultant and a prosecution mouth piece, former Santa Barbara County Sheriff Jim Thomas said that the prosecution wants to use the evidence to show a pattern of behavior. "I think it's very important, because it would show the jury that there's a past pattern and practice," said Mr. Thomas. The more parallels prosecutors can show, the more it bolsters the claims of the current accuser, he said. The focus of the case might also turn from the problems of the accuser and his family to Mr. Jackson. "If it comes in, I think the momentum of the case changes," Mr. Thomas said. "The defense will continue to discredit these witnesses, but the jury at some point might say, 'Wait a minute, all these people can't be lying.'" However, the defense contends that the 1993 case was a blueprint for other potential accusers to come in and say that Mr. Jackson did something to them. Defense attorney Robert Sanger said in court papers that prosecutors have for more than a decade had a sort of "open casting call for witnesses who are willing to make these types of allegations." It has been reported by the Santa Barbara Sheriff’s department that the case in 1993 is still active to this day. Sources: News-Press/MJJForum/eMJey