Partial Transcript: Norville Tonight
Air date: April 30 2004
Guests: Joe Tacopina, John Dolan, Diane Dimond
DEBRA NORVILLE: …I’m gonna ask you both to stand by for just a second because we’re gonna now bring in Joe Tacopina, criminal defense attorney, who is representing two of the people we may well have been alluding to earlier in our conversation. Mr. Tacopina as you know, there’s been wide speculation that those names that were blacked out on the public part of the indictment was released today may well be clients of yours. Can you verify that that’s the case?
JOE TACOPINA, DEFENSE ATTORNEY: I can’t. I wish I could. I can’t I can speculate with everyone else in this, and speculate that it may in fact be them based on the allegations, which I think are clearly baseless. But based on the allegations that I’ve heard bantered about regarding Frank and Vinnie, these acts that are listed in this indictment would sort of fit these allegations. So it would make sense according to the allegations anyway that their names would be in the redacted names.
NORVILLE: Your clients being Frank Tyson and Vincent Amen. They were, I understand, invited to appear before the grand jury. Is that correct?
TACOPINA: Yeah. They were invited to appear before the grand jury.
NORVILLE: And they declined?
TACOPINA: Right. We declined an invitation. Not, it’s not sort of like getting an invitation to a birthday party, Debra. It’s a little different. You know a grand jury is a one-sided proceeding. In my opinion the district attorney in this case sort of had his position set in stone. And I don’t think, quite frankly, my clients going in there giving them a sneak preview of what our defense will be, if in fact they’re charged, would really bode well for them down the road.
If we’re invited into this foray, if these two really terrific young kids who are very intelligent and sweet people, are dragged into this mix, I will do everything in my power to make sure the person who made that decision will regret it and regret it but good.
NORVILLE: Well that’s why you’re regarded as a very effective criminal defense attorney. It’s been reported that your clients may have been given a promise of immunity from prosecution if they did participate in the grand jury proceeding. Can you confirm that?
TACOPINA: Well they were given a promise of ‘use immunity’, not ‘transactional immunity’. Use immunity is very different than transactional. ‘Use’ simply means they can’t use that statement, that testimony in the grand jury against them in their direct case. It doesn’t give them immunity for anything they say. The immunity that really means something is transactional immunity, which means basically you testify truthfully and you’re immunized for all your conduct. That’s the immunity that comes with the bells and whistles. The use immunity is sort of a Hyundai compared to a BMW.
NORVILLE: I sit conceivable that a broader form of immunity would be attractive to you and your clients and encourage them to participate? Or can you see absolutely no way in which you would want to be a part of the prosecution’s going forward in this case against Michael Jackson?
TACOPINA: Well, here’s the thing. Certainly transactional immunity, if offered, is something I would speak to my clients about and consider. You know, we’re not looking to be cavalier here.
But on the other hand, they’re not gonna go in there because they’re offered a promise of–a clean slate of transactional immunity and make things up. And I just do not believe that the story that they would tell–the truth as they tell it to me and I believe it to be based on evidence I’ve seen–would jibe with what, you know, the other side, the prosecution thinks the truth is.
And therefore, you know, I don’t think it would work out where they would become embraced as witnesses. So if they give us transactional immunity, it’d be something we consider but there’s not gonna be any situation here where they come in and admit to wrongdoing. They committed no wrongdoing. And if someone alleges that they did so, we’ll meet it head on.
NORVILLE: What do you think the prosecution’s case is with respect to your clients? If indeed they are past of the conspiracy that’s being alleged by the prosecution, what role do you suspect they believe your clients might have played in that?
TACOPINA: Well I think what they believe and what they’ve said anyway is that they think Vincent Amen–24 year old Carnegie Mellon educated, terrific kid, and by the way he was about 5 foot 5 [inches] and hardly intimidating looking–was someone who held the family against or participated in holding the family against their will at Neverland. Which, aside from defying common sense, does not factually seem plausible for a host of reasons that I know. And they think Frank for the most part–who is really one of Michael’s closest friends and was his personal assistant. They claim through one of the doctors apparently, Stanley Katz, made a threats to one of the sibling of the alleged victim that if he revealed any information about alcohol being distributed, he will kill them. Another allegation that is just utterly baseless.
NORVILLE: Well, but this will all be presented in evidence presumably there will be testimony this happened. Diane you wanna follow up on that?
DIMOND: Well I agree with everything Joe has just said. But I will just add this. There was a secret grand jury impaneled here. 12 other people have agreed that there was enough evidence here to include some names in this indictment. And if what Joe thinks is true and I think is true–that it’s Vinnie and Frank–that there must be something to these allegations.
TACOPINA: Except this, Debra and Diane. Diane I respect what you say but here’s the thing about that. I didn’t get to ask any questions in that little proceeding over there in Santa Maria. When I get to ask some questions, we’ll see how the story sticks. I mean, if in fact I have a chance to ask questions. You know that’s why grand juries…
DIMOND: And I hear your clients have some documents to back up their side of the story right Joe?
TACOPINA: I’m sorry…I’m sort of losing my hearing here.
NORVILLE: That you clients may have…
TACOPINA: No, no Debra. I heard it. I was trying to be politically correct and police. We won’t–we will not be confirming or denying. We’ll wheel it out when there are 12 jurors in the box and we’ll see how that works.
……….
NORVILLE: John Dolan?
JOHN DOLAN: I think the people out there in Santa Maria have common sense and I don’t think its gonna make a big difference.
But may I mention something about this conspiracy count? If Joe is right, and I have every reason to believe that he is, if the source of this is the complaining witness, this may backfire on the district attorney because it undermines the credibility of that witness again. So it could be a real big problem.
NORVILLE: We’re gonna let that be the last word then…
Transcribed by MJEOL (excuse any typos)
Air date: April 30 2004
Guests: Joe Tacopina, John Dolan, Diane Dimond
DEBRA NORVILLE: …I’m gonna ask you both to stand by for just a second because we’re gonna now bring in Joe Tacopina, criminal defense attorney, who is representing two of the people we may well have been alluding to earlier in our conversation. Mr. Tacopina as you know, there’s been wide speculation that those names that were blacked out on the public part of the indictment was released today may well be clients of yours. Can you verify that that’s the case?
JOE TACOPINA, DEFENSE ATTORNEY: I can’t. I wish I could. I can’t I can speculate with everyone else in this, and speculate that it may in fact be them based on the allegations, which I think are clearly baseless. But based on the allegations that I’ve heard bantered about regarding Frank and Vinnie, these acts that are listed in this indictment would sort of fit these allegations. So it would make sense according to the allegations anyway that their names would be in the redacted names.
NORVILLE: Your clients being Frank Tyson and Vincent Amen. They were, I understand, invited to appear before the grand jury. Is that correct?
TACOPINA: Yeah. They were invited to appear before the grand jury.
NORVILLE: And they declined?
TACOPINA: Right. We declined an invitation. Not, it’s not sort of like getting an invitation to a birthday party, Debra. It’s a little different. You know a grand jury is a one-sided proceeding. In my opinion the district attorney in this case sort of had his position set in stone. And I don’t think, quite frankly, my clients going in there giving them a sneak preview of what our defense will be, if in fact they’re charged, would really bode well for them down the road.
If we’re invited into this foray, if these two really terrific young kids who are very intelligent and sweet people, are dragged into this mix, I will do everything in my power to make sure the person who made that decision will regret it and regret it but good.
NORVILLE: Well that’s why you’re regarded as a very effective criminal defense attorney. It’s been reported that your clients may have been given a promise of immunity from prosecution if they did participate in the grand jury proceeding. Can you confirm that?
TACOPINA: Well they were given a promise of ‘use immunity’, not ‘transactional immunity’. Use immunity is very different than transactional. ‘Use’ simply means they can’t use that statement, that testimony in the grand jury against them in their direct case. It doesn’t give them immunity for anything they say. The immunity that really means something is transactional immunity, which means basically you testify truthfully and you’re immunized for all your conduct. That’s the immunity that comes with the bells and whistles. The use immunity is sort of a Hyundai compared to a BMW.
NORVILLE: I sit conceivable that a broader form of immunity would be attractive to you and your clients and encourage them to participate? Or can you see absolutely no way in which you would want to be a part of the prosecution’s going forward in this case against Michael Jackson?
TACOPINA: Well, here’s the thing. Certainly transactional immunity, if offered, is something I would speak to my clients about and consider. You know, we’re not looking to be cavalier here.
But on the other hand, they’re not gonna go in there because they’re offered a promise of–a clean slate of transactional immunity and make things up. And I just do not believe that the story that they would tell–the truth as they tell it to me and I believe it to be based on evidence I’ve seen–would jibe with what, you know, the other side, the prosecution thinks the truth is.
And therefore, you know, I don’t think it would work out where they would become embraced as witnesses. So if they give us transactional immunity, it’d be something we consider but there’s not gonna be any situation here where they come in and admit to wrongdoing. They committed no wrongdoing. And if someone alleges that they did so, we’ll meet it head on.
NORVILLE: What do you think the prosecution’s case is with respect to your clients? If indeed they are past of the conspiracy that’s being alleged by the prosecution, what role do you suspect they believe your clients might have played in that?
TACOPINA: Well I think what they believe and what they’ve said anyway is that they think Vincent Amen–24 year old Carnegie Mellon educated, terrific kid, and by the way he was about 5 foot 5 [inches] and hardly intimidating looking–was someone who held the family against or participated in holding the family against their will at Neverland. Which, aside from defying common sense, does not factually seem plausible for a host of reasons that I know. And they think Frank for the most part–who is really one of Michael’s closest friends and was his personal assistant. They claim through one of the doctors apparently, Stanley Katz, made a threats to one of the sibling of the alleged victim that if he revealed any information about alcohol being distributed, he will kill them. Another allegation that is just utterly baseless.
NORVILLE: Well, but this will all be presented in evidence presumably there will be testimony this happened. Diane you wanna follow up on that?
DIMOND: Well I agree with everything Joe has just said. But I will just add this. There was a secret grand jury impaneled here. 12 other people have agreed that there was enough evidence here to include some names in this indictment. And if what Joe thinks is true and I think is true–that it’s Vinnie and Frank–that there must be something to these allegations.
TACOPINA: Except this, Debra and Diane. Diane I respect what you say but here’s the thing about that. I didn’t get to ask any questions in that little proceeding over there in Santa Maria. When I get to ask some questions, we’ll see how the story sticks. I mean, if in fact I have a chance to ask questions. You know that’s why grand juries…
DIMOND: And I hear your clients have some documents to back up their side of the story right Joe?
TACOPINA: I’m sorry…I’m sort of losing my hearing here.
NORVILLE: That you clients may have…
TACOPINA: No, no Debra. I heard it. I was trying to be politically correct and police. We won’t–we will not be confirming or denying. We’ll wheel it out when there are 12 jurors in the box and we’ll see how that works.
……….
NORVILLE: John Dolan?
JOHN DOLAN: I think the people out there in Santa Maria have common sense and I don’t think its gonna make a big difference.
But may I mention something about this conspiracy count? If Joe is right, and I have every reason to believe that he is, if the source of this is the complaining witness, this may backfire on the district attorney because it undermines the credibility of that witness again. So it could be a real big problem.
NORVILLE: We’re gonna let that be the last word then…
Transcribed by MJEOL (excuse any typos)