Mesereau begins on pg 3748 of the transcripts
Excerpt:
3760
2 And what happened back in those days? In
3 summary, this is what happened: Chandler's parents
4 had been divorced in 1986. The father had given up
5 custody of the child. When these alleged events
6 happened, the father jumped on the bandwagon and
7 wanted to become a multimillionaire, and he fueled
8 litigation. And all of a sudden, you had the
9 parents suing Mr. Jackson, you had -- the mother's
10 new husband then decided to sue Mr. Jackson for
11 allegedly interfering with his business. He had an
12 auto company, and he claimed that the publicity had
13 interfered with his business. He wanted millions.
14 After the settlement, the father then filed a new
15 lawsuit against Mr. Jackson wanting 30 million more
16 dollars. That was litigated and he lost. You have
17 all sorts of collateral litigation, and eventually
18 Mr. Chandler filed papers in Superior Court seeking
19 legal emancipation from his parents.
________________________________________
Excerpt:
3772
14 MR. MESEREAU: Your Honor, I just have a few
15 more points to make, and I will sit down.
16 On the issue of undue consumption of time,
17 I'd like to give the Court an example of what I'm
18 talking about.
19 One of the plaintiffs in that civil case
20 against Mr. Jackson where the plaintiffs lost and
21 were awarded -- Mr. Jackson was awarded over a
22 million dollars in legal fees and costs. But
23 someone named Adrienne McManus, her deposition, I am
24 informed, was taken eight times in that case.
25 That's just one witness. And apparently in her
26 trial transcripts, which we have, she is changing
27 her testimony so often that she gets back and forth,
28 the testimony is prolonged, and the point I'm making
3773
1 is that's just one witness. Eight depositions plus
2 six months of trial testimony.
3 In the Jordie Chandler civil case, you had
4 approximately five months of litigation before the
5 case settled. You had numerous depositions and
6 numerous pleadings in civil discovery that would be
7 relevant and usable.
8 Now, I want to emphasize something we said
9 in our papers. The testimony that the prosecutor
10 wants to introduce concerns seven alleged victims
11 with only one scheduled to testify. This testimony
12 has been presented to two criminal grand juries in
13 Los Angeles and Santa Barbara, neither of which ever
14 returned an Indictment, and it's been rejected by
15 one civil jury in the longest civil trial in the
16 history of this courthouse.
17 Now, I know the prosecutor likes to say,
18 "Well, those grand juries were purely investigative
19 only." But obviously the purpose, from Mr.
20 Sneddon's point of view, to the degree he controlled
21 anything, was to see if they could bring criminal
22 charges. And neither grand jury brought a criminal
23 charge. And many of the witnesses who -- not
24 "many," some of the witnesses who sued Mr. Jackson
25 in the civil case also testified in these grand
26 juries where no criminal charges were ever brought.
27 Now, there is evidence -- excuse me, there
28 is case law to the effect that if one is acquitted
3774
1 of a prior sexual offense, the evidence of the
2 acquittal is admissible. I haven't seen anything
3 about whether or not you can bring in the fact that
4 a grand jury refused to indict, but certainly the
5 fact that they went to two grand juries, there was
6 no Indictment, they went to a civil jury, they lost,
7 and the fact that they don't have alleged victims
8 with the exception of one, plus you're talking about
9 lengthy civil litigation, numerous depositions,
10 numerous pleadings, numerous witnesses, plus the
11 fact that the defendant has a right to defense as if
12 it were a separately charged crime, and that means
13 every type of defense imaginable, including
14 rebutting the character nature of the evidence,
15 which would mean opinion evidence, reputation
16 evidence, and maybe specific instances of conduct,
17 will unduly prolong the trial.
opcorn
Excerpt:
3760
2 And what happened back in those days? In
3 summary, this is what happened: Chandler's parents
4 had been divorced in 1986. The father had given up
5 custody of the child. When these alleged events
6 happened, the father jumped on the bandwagon and
7 wanted to become a multimillionaire, and he fueled
8 litigation. And all of a sudden, you had the
9 parents suing Mr. Jackson, you had -- the mother's
10 new husband then decided to sue Mr. Jackson for
11 allegedly interfering with his business. He had an
12 auto company, and he claimed that the publicity had
13 interfered with his business. He wanted millions.
14 After the settlement, the father then filed a new
15 lawsuit against Mr. Jackson wanting 30 million more
16 dollars. That was litigated and he lost. You have
17 all sorts of collateral litigation, and eventually
18 Mr. Chandler filed papers in Superior Court seeking
19 legal emancipation from his parents.
________________________________________
Excerpt:
3772
14 MR. MESEREAU: Your Honor, I just have a few
15 more points to make, and I will sit down.
16 On the issue of undue consumption of time,
17 I'd like to give the Court an example of what I'm
18 talking about.
19 One of the plaintiffs in that civil case
20 against Mr. Jackson where the plaintiffs lost and
21 were awarded -- Mr. Jackson was awarded over a
22 million dollars in legal fees and costs. But
23 someone named Adrienne McManus, her deposition, I am
24 informed, was taken eight times in that case.
25 That's just one witness. And apparently in her
26 trial transcripts, which we have, she is changing
27 her testimony so often that she gets back and forth,
28 the testimony is prolonged, and the point I'm making
3773
1 is that's just one witness. Eight depositions plus
2 six months of trial testimony.
3 In the Jordie Chandler civil case, you had
4 approximately five months of litigation before the
5 case settled. You had numerous depositions and
6 numerous pleadings in civil discovery that would be
7 relevant and usable.
8 Now, I want to emphasize something we said
9 in our papers. The testimony that the prosecutor
10 wants to introduce concerns seven alleged victims
11 with only one scheduled to testify. This testimony
12 has been presented to two criminal grand juries in
13 Los Angeles and Santa Barbara, neither of which ever
14 returned an Indictment, and it's been rejected by
15 one civil jury in the longest civil trial in the
16 history of this courthouse.
17 Now, I know the prosecutor likes to say,
18 "Well, those grand juries were purely investigative
19 only." But obviously the purpose, from Mr.
20 Sneddon's point of view, to the degree he controlled
21 anything, was to see if they could bring criminal
22 charges. And neither grand jury brought a criminal
23 charge. And many of the witnesses who -- not
24 "many," some of the witnesses who sued Mr. Jackson
25 in the civil case also testified in these grand
26 juries where no criminal charges were ever brought.
27 Now, there is evidence -- excuse me, there
28 is case law to the effect that if one is acquitted
3774
1 of a prior sexual offense, the evidence of the
2 acquittal is admissible. I haven't seen anything
3 about whether or not you can bring in the fact that
4 a grand jury refused to indict, but certainly the
5 fact that they went to two grand juries, there was
6 no Indictment, they went to a civil jury, they lost,
7 and the fact that they don't have alleged victims
8 with the exception of one, plus you're talking about
9 lengthy civil litigation, numerous depositions,
10 numerous pleadings, numerous witnesses, plus the
11 fact that the defendant has a right to defense as if
12 it were a separately charged crime, and that means
13 every type of defense imaginable, including
14 rebutting the character nature of the evidence,
15 which would mean opinion evidence, reputation
16 evidence, and maybe specific instances of conduct,
17 will unduly prolong the trial.
opcorn