NEWS FROM CNN
9/11 Investigation: Heat on Rice; Abortion Debate: Late-Term ban Challenged; Judge Rules Tyco Trial can Resume in New York
Aired March 29, 2004 - 12:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
WOLF BLITZER, CNN ANCHOR
...
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
BLITZER: In the child molestation case against Michael Jackson, a grand jury begins hearing testimony today. It will decide if there's enough evidence to proceed to trial.
Our Miguel Marquez is in Santa Barbara, California. He's joining us now with the latest -- Miguel.
MARQUEZ: Wolf, and that grand jury may be hearing testimony right now. It's being held in a very secret sort of circumstances. Typically, we don't know a whole lot about grand jury proceedings because of the nature of them. This time, we really don't.
Typically, they're here in this building, the Santa Barbara Superior Court building. But this time, it is being held in a secret location off site here.
Just what will grand jurors hear? Well, there has been a lot of evidence in this case. Certainly a lot of search warrants.
Eighteen search warrants in all. A veritable ream of documents. The first search occurred last year, November 17, at Mr. Jackson's Neverland Ranch. The latest search occurred early this morning north of Los Angeles in a storage facility.
So far, they've netted everything from letters, notes, magazines, some specifics. Thirty-two computers they've taken from Mr.Jackson and his associates and his property; 107 videotapes and digital disks; 506 pages of cell phone records. What exactly are they looking for? The affidavit for the most recent search warrant indicates that the investigators are trying to establish a relationship between Mr.Jackson and others in unedited videotape.
They surmise that they have tons of edited videotape that portrays Jackson in a positive light. They're looking for the raw stuff. There is also a passage in that affidavit indicating that someone may have asked a witness to deposit items in a safe deposit box because they were concerned about a property or residence being searched.
Now, who will testify? That's another question everybody wants to know.
There are reports that the accuser in this case may testify. There are also reports that Mr. Jackson's accuser from 1993 may, in fact, testify. But keep in mind, with grand jury proceedings, it is not necessary for principal witnesses to testify necessarily. So you could have investigators, police, psychologists, doctors testifying on the behalf of those witnesses.
Whoever will testify and whatever evidence the jury will hear, it will be about two weeks we understand. And then they will choose to indict or not indict Mr.Jackson. Twelve of the 19 jurors must vote on each and every count that a prosecutor asks for to indict Mr. Jackson. If that happens, Mr. Jackson has to be re-arraigned. So we could see what happened in Santa Maria back in January all over again -- Wolf.
BLITZER: I take it Michael Jackson is nowhere near that courthouse today, is that right?
MARQUEZ: From what we understand, he was invited to testify before the grand jury, but most legal experts say there's no way he's going to take them up on that. Most defendants do not testify before a grand jury. So I doubt he's anywhere near here. But you never know.
BLITZER: All right. Miguel Marquez -- thanks, Miguel, very much.
Joining us now with some legal perspective on this case is our legal analyst, Christopher Darden.
Chris, thanks very much for joining us.
CHRISTOPHER DARDEN, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: My pleasure.
BLITZER: Why did the prosecution go with the grand jury road as opposed to another legal road they easily could have taken as well? What's the advantage to them?
DARDEN: Well, they could have gone to a preliminary hearing, where they could have called the victim, all of the detectives, and they could have subjected their alleged victim to cross-examination by Mark Geragos. By going to the grand jury, they have many, many advantages.
The first is that they can call anyone they'd like. And that individual won't be subjected to cross-examination.
They won't be required to put on any exculpatory evidence or any evidence that might suggest that Michael Jackson is guilty -- or rather not guilty. They need only to advise the grand jury that such evidence exists. And then it's up to the grand jury essentially to ask for it.
But in every grand jury there is a grand jury adviser who advises a grand jury on the law and helps move their deliberations along. That grand jury adviser is always a prosecutor. And so to be a prosecutor in a grand jury is to be in a very, very friendly environment.
BLITZER: So what's the downside, if there is any, for going before the grand jury from the prosecution's standpoint?
DARDEN: Well, one of the downsides -- and I think it is fairly obvious -- is that it clearly indicates that the prosecution really doesn't have its stuff together. I mean, we've see a situation here where they obtained an arrest warrant, arrested Michael Jackson without filing charges, promised to file charges by a certain date, filed later than that date. Then, upon filing criminal charges, now they come back three months later and they want to indict MichaelJackson.
It may indicate that their case isn't nearly as strong as they may have indicated before. But one thing it does indicate is that their victim is probably doing a lot better than we all thought in terms of his health. Because, otherwise, the smart thing would be to put on a preliminary hearing.
BLITZER: As you well know, there's an old expression in the law that a good prosecution can get a grand jury to indict a ham sandwich. Is that fair?
DARDEN: I think it is very, very fair. Eighteen months ago, I defended a case. There was a grand jury indictment out of L.A. County, 30 counts. My client was acquitted of all 30 counts.
And a grand jury indictment doesn't guarantee anything. Nothing at all.
BLITZER: So what happens? Assuming that the prosecution does get the grand jury to indict Michael Jackson, walk us through the process that would follow.
DARDEN: Well, if an indictment is, in fact, obtained, that indictment would be unsealed in front of the presiding judge in Santa Barbara County Superior Court. Shortly thereafter, there will be an arraignment.
There will be a public release of the indictment while Michael Jackson is present. He'll enter a plea of not guilty, as he did before. And the case will be set for trial.
BLITZER: And that will be that. We'll continue to watch. Chris Darden, thanks very much for shedding some light on this legal matter.
DARDEN: Thank you.
BLITZER: Thank you.
:nav Source: http://www.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0403/29/nfcnn.01.html
9/11 Investigation: Heat on Rice; Abortion Debate: Late-Term ban Challenged; Judge Rules Tyco Trial can Resume in New York
Aired March 29, 2004 - 12:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
WOLF BLITZER, CNN ANCHOR
...
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
BLITZER: In the child molestation case against Michael Jackson, a grand jury begins hearing testimony today. It will decide if there's enough evidence to proceed to trial.
Our Miguel Marquez is in Santa Barbara, California. He's joining us now with the latest -- Miguel.
MARQUEZ: Wolf, and that grand jury may be hearing testimony right now. It's being held in a very secret sort of circumstances. Typically, we don't know a whole lot about grand jury proceedings because of the nature of them. This time, we really don't.
Typically, they're here in this building, the Santa Barbara Superior Court building. But this time, it is being held in a secret location off site here.
Just what will grand jurors hear? Well, there has been a lot of evidence in this case. Certainly a lot of search warrants.
Eighteen search warrants in all. A veritable ream of documents. The first search occurred last year, November 17, at Mr. Jackson's Neverland Ranch. The latest search occurred early this morning north of Los Angeles in a storage facility.
So far, they've netted everything from letters, notes, magazines, some specifics. Thirty-two computers they've taken from Mr.Jackson and his associates and his property; 107 videotapes and digital disks; 506 pages of cell phone records. What exactly are they looking for? The affidavit for the most recent search warrant indicates that the investigators are trying to establish a relationship between Mr.Jackson and others in unedited videotape.
They surmise that they have tons of edited videotape that portrays Jackson in a positive light. They're looking for the raw stuff. There is also a passage in that affidavit indicating that someone may have asked a witness to deposit items in a safe deposit box because they were concerned about a property or residence being searched.
Now, who will testify? That's another question everybody wants to know.
There are reports that the accuser in this case may testify. There are also reports that Mr. Jackson's accuser from 1993 may, in fact, testify. But keep in mind, with grand jury proceedings, it is not necessary for principal witnesses to testify necessarily. So you could have investigators, police, psychologists, doctors testifying on the behalf of those witnesses.
Whoever will testify and whatever evidence the jury will hear, it will be about two weeks we understand. And then they will choose to indict or not indict Mr.Jackson. Twelve of the 19 jurors must vote on each and every count that a prosecutor asks for to indict Mr. Jackson. If that happens, Mr. Jackson has to be re-arraigned. So we could see what happened in Santa Maria back in January all over again -- Wolf.
BLITZER: I take it Michael Jackson is nowhere near that courthouse today, is that right?
MARQUEZ: From what we understand, he was invited to testify before the grand jury, but most legal experts say there's no way he's going to take them up on that. Most defendants do not testify before a grand jury. So I doubt he's anywhere near here. But you never know.
BLITZER: All right. Miguel Marquez -- thanks, Miguel, very much.
Joining us now with some legal perspective on this case is our legal analyst, Christopher Darden.
Chris, thanks very much for joining us.
CHRISTOPHER DARDEN, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: My pleasure.
BLITZER: Why did the prosecution go with the grand jury road as opposed to another legal road they easily could have taken as well? What's the advantage to them?
DARDEN: Well, they could have gone to a preliminary hearing, where they could have called the victim, all of the detectives, and they could have subjected their alleged victim to cross-examination by Mark Geragos. By going to the grand jury, they have many, many advantages.
The first is that they can call anyone they'd like. And that individual won't be subjected to cross-examination.
They won't be required to put on any exculpatory evidence or any evidence that might suggest that Michael Jackson is guilty -- or rather not guilty. They need only to advise the grand jury that such evidence exists. And then it's up to the grand jury essentially to ask for it.
But in every grand jury there is a grand jury adviser who advises a grand jury on the law and helps move their deliberations along. That grand jury adviser is always a prosecutor. And so to be a prosecutor in a grand jury is to be in a very, very friendly environment.
BLITZER: So what's the downside, if there is any, for going before the grand jury from the prosecution's standpoint?
DARDEN: Well, one of the downsides -- and I think it is fairly obvious -- is that it clearly indicates that the prosecution really doesn't have its stuff together. I mean, we've see a situation here where they obtained an arrest warrant, arrested Michael Jackson without filing charges, promised to file charges by a certain date, filed later than that date. Then, upon filing criminal charges, now they come back three months later and they want to indict MichaelJackson.
It may indicate that their case isn't nearly as strong as they may have indicated before. But one thing it does indicate is that their victim is probably doing a lot better than we all thought in terms of his health. Because, otherwise, the smart thing would be to put on a preliminary hearing.
BLITZER: As you well know, there's an old expression in the law that a good prosecution can get a grand jury to indict a ham sandwich. Is that fair?
DARDEN: I think it is very, very fair. Eighteen months ago, I defended a case. There was a grand jury indictment out of L.A. County, 30 counts. My client was acquitted of all 30 counts.
And a grand jury indictment doesn't guarantee anything. Nothing at all.
BLITZER: So what happens? Assuming that the prosecution does get the grand jury to indict Michael Jackson, walk us through the process that would follow.
DARDEN: Well, if an indictment is, in fact, obtained, that indictment would be unsealed in front of the presiding judge in Santa Barbara County Superior Court. Shortly thereafter, there will be an arraignment.
There will be a public release of the indictment while Michael Jackson is present. He'll enter a plea of not guilty, as he did before. And the case will be set for trial.
BLITZER: And that will be that. We'll continue to watch. Chris Darden, thanks very much for shedding some light on this legal matter.
DARDEN: Thank you.
BLITZER: Thank you.
:nav Source: http://www.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0403/29/nfcnn.01.html