CNN SATURDAY MORNING NEWS
Legal Briefs with Nelda Blair, Lida Rodriguez-Taseff
Aired December 18, 2004 - 08:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
NGUYEN: The attorney for Michael Jackson asked to have the child molestation charges against him dismissed. He claims prosecutors spend more time on the singer than on capital murder cases. So far more than 100 search warrants have been served.
Former Texas prosecutor Nelda Blair joins us from San Antonio today. And civil liberties attorney Lida Rodriguez-Taseff is at her usual post in our Miami bureau.
Good morning, ladies.
NELDA BLAIR, FMR. TEXAS PROSECUTOR: Good morning.
LIDA RODRIGUEZ-TASEFF: Good morning.
NGUYEN: Nelda, let start with you. Prosecutors want to introduce evidence in this Michael Jackson case that say that he committed sexual crimes over the years. Now this evidence, how can they admit it this -- first of all what evidence are we talking about and how can they admit it if he was never charged in these cases?
BLAIR: What we're talking about is evidence he's been accused of sexually molesting other young boys. We call it propensity evidence. In California it's sometimes admissible.
It shows a jury that if a person could have done these things in the past has a tendency to do it over and over and over that perhaps he's also guilty of what he's charged with currently, which is molestation of a young boy.
Whether the judge is going to let this in, we don't know. But in California, it is good evidence and the prosecutors, if they can use it, I think it could help their case tremendously.
NGUYEN: Lida, should the judge let it in?
RODRIGUEZ-TASSEF: Absolutely not. For three centuries, we have kept propensity evidence out of the courtroom.
In California in 1995, the California legislature passed this kooky law following a federal law that was passed in 1994, allowing propensity evidence to be admitted in sexual abuse cases.
The interesting thing here, though, is what you pointed out, Betty, is he's never been charged with these crimes. When the prosecution wants to put on evidence in the Jackson case that says he did it before, he did it again. How can they prove that he did it before? You're going to end up with a trial within a trial where the prosecution is going to have to put on evidence that he did it before. This is going to become an absolute circus. I very much doubt the judge will admit it. Even in kooky California, this would be unacceptable.
NGUYEN: OK, but what if the judge does let it in? Does this destroy the defense's case, Nelda.
BLAIR: Absolutely. It harms it greatly. Remember, the reason Jackson has never been charged is because he paid millions, millions of dollars to these at least two families, not to pursue the charges against him. The fact that he hasn't been charged does not mean that he's innocent. If the prosecution can use that at all, it will definitely hurt the defense's case, no question about it. Right now all they have is the word of a little boy. If they can get more evidence, it will help them.
NGUYEN: Let's move on quickly. Debbie Rowe, Jackson's ex-wife, she has been subpoenaed to testify. She's the mother of two of Jackson's children. What is she going to say in this case, Lida?
RODRIGUEZ-TASSEF: She wants to kick up the dirt. This is a woman, let's not forget, that is trying to get custody of her children by arguing Jackson is an unfit father. The prosecution is taking full advantage of the fact this woman is looking for money and looking for her kids back.
They're looking for an opportunity to use her to provide them with al sorts of nasty, sordid evidence about Jackson and about his habits with children.
BLAIR: Now, Lida, isn't is it just possible that she knows a lot of things having been in the unique position of being his wife, being around him when he's around her children and other children? She has an obligation to sit on that stand, tell the truth, and to help the prosecution, if she knows evidence that's helpful to them. There's nothing more than that and nothing wrong with that.
NGUYEN: Quickly before we move onto the robe case with the judge in Alabama, there have been over 100 search warrants in this Michael Jackson case. Is it simply because Michael Jackson is a celebrity? Are folks being unfair because he is a celebrity, Lida?
RODRIGUEZ-TASSEF: Absolutely. Not just because he's a celebrity, but you have a prosecutor who has a vendetta, who is out to get Michael Jackson, because he didn't get him before.
Yes, he's using his power as a prosecutor and using California tax money to prosecute this case.
BLAIR: Not so. They're in the limelight, the spotlight, being viewed under a microscope by all the nation. And therefore, they're very careful. I think they're doing a very good job.
Source: http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/041.../18/smn.02.html
Legal Briefs with Nelda Blair, Lida Rodriguez-Taseff
Aired December 18, 2004 - 08:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
NGUYEN: The attorney for Michael Jackson asked to have the child molestation charges against him dismissed. He claims prosecutors spend more time on the singer than on capital murder cases. So far more than 100 search warrants have been served.
Former Texas prosecutor Nelda Blair joins us from San Antonio today. And civil liberties attorney Lida Rodriguez-Taseff is at her usual post in our Miami bureau.
Good morning, ladies.
NELDA BLAIR, FMR. TEXAS PROSECUTOR: Good morning.
LIDA RODRIGUEZ-TASEFF: Good morning.
NGUYEN: Nelda, let start with you. Prosecutors want to introduce evidence in this Michael Jackson case that say that he committed sexual crimes over the years. Now this evidence, how can they admit it this -- first of all what evidence are we talking about and how can they admit it if he was never charged in these cases?
BLAIR: What we're talking about is evidence he's been accused of sexually molesting other young boys. We call it propensity evidence. In California it's sometimes admissible.
It shows a jury that if a person could have done these things in the past has a tendency to do it over and over and over that perhaps he's also guilty of what he's charged with currently, which is molestation of a young boy.
Whether the judge is going to let this in, we don't know. But in California, it is good evidence and the prosecutors, if they can use it, I think it could help their case tremendously.
NGUYEN: Lida, should the judge let it in?
RODRIGUEZ-TASSEF: Absolutely not. For three centuries, we have kept propensity evidence out of the courtroom.
In California in 1995, the California legislature passed this kooky law following a federal law that was passed in 1994, allowing propensity evidence to be admitted in sexual abuse cases.
The interesting thing here, though, is what you pointed out, Betty, is he's never been charged with these crimes. When the prosecution wants to put on evidence in the Jackson case that says he did it before, he did it again. How can they prove that he did it before? You're going to end up with a trial within a trial where the prosecution is going to have to put on evidence that he did it before. This is going to become an absolute circus. I very much doubt the judge will admit it. Even in kooky California, this would be unacceptable.
NGUYEN: OK, but what if the judge does let it in? Does this destroy the defense's case, Nelda.
BLAIR: Absolutely. It harms it greatly. Remember, the reason Jackson has never been charged is because he paid millions, millions of dollars to these at least two families, not to pursue the charges against him. The fact that he hasn't been charged does not mean that he's innocent. If the prosecution can use that at all, it will definitely hurt the defense's case, no question about it. Right now all they have is the word of a little boy. If they can get more evidence, it will help them.
NGUYEN: Let's move on quickly. Debbie Rowe, Jackson's ex-wife, she has been subpoenaed to testify. She's the mother of two of Jackson's children. What is she going to say in this case, Lida?
RODRIGUEZ-TASSEF: She wants to kick up the dirt. This is a woman, let's not forget, that is trying to get custody of her children by arguing Jackson is an unfit father. The prosecution is taking full advantage of the fact this woman is looking for money and looking for her kids back.
They're looking for an opportunity to use her to provide them with al sorts of nasty, sordid evidence about Jackson and about his habits with children.
BLAIR: Now, Lida, isn't is it just possible that she knows a lot of things having been in the unique position of being his wife, being around him when he's around her children and other children? She has an obligation to sit on that stand, tell the truth, and to help the prosecution, if she knows evidence that's helpful to them. There's nothing more than that and nothing wrong with that.
NGUYEN: Quickly before we move onto the robe case with the judge in Alabama, there have been over 100 search warrants in this Michael Jackson case. Is it simply because Michael Jackson is a celebrity? Are folks being unfair because he is a celebrity, Lida?
RODRIGUEZ-TASSEF: Absolutely. Not just because he's a celebrity, but you have a prosecutor who has a vendetta, who is out to get Michael Jackson, because he didn't get him before.
Yes, he's using his power as a prosecutor and using California tax money to prosecute this case.
BLAIR: Not so. They're in the limelight, the spotlight, being viewed under a microscope by all the nation. And therefore, they're very careful. I think they're doing a very good job.
Source: http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/041.../18/smn.02.html