November 4th Hearing Thread
- Thread starter dangerous
- Start date
Tiger Lilly
New member
Why not skip ahead to the Appeal's court right now, save us all alot of time. :careless
A.Beautiful.Mind
New member
I hope everything turns out okay today.. I supposse that asking for too much though. I'm not feeling that optimistic about this hearing today, I fear that the request from the state's office will influence the Judges decision too much and it may result in denying the motions which have been put foward towards him. *Fingers Crossed*
~Jamie~
~Jamie~
Tiger Lilly
New member
Tiger Lilly
New member
Ashely (or anyone), can you explain to me about this tape. I don't really get it. :smackingOriginally posted by dangerous
ohohh they want that tape BAD. I like it
Michael Jackson's Kougra
New member
yeah!!! ***what Gem said***
There are 2 tapes the BM tape and this tape (tape2). The prosecution wants both, they were given a PARTIAL COPY of the BM tape, they want the whole thing, the defense said no, wait until 30days before trial. The defense showed the prosecution that they only have a piece of the tape at the trial when they played parts of it the prosecution never heard before. (I hope im correct, my memory is kinda hazy) The prosecution keeps brining up the “Sanchez” motion because that motion is what compels the defense to hand over inculpatory evidence (evidence that proves MJ commit the crime) Melville denied there motion and said he believes Mez knows the law. Mez says he isn’t hiding anything and that there is no inculpatory evidence but the prosecution thinks those tapes are.
The defense came in possession of tape2 which apparently:
So the defense, for their own reasons, (they weren’t compelled to or anything) gave them a copy of the tape2 and now the prosecution wants to know where it came from, saying that it could possibly be the omission of one of the UNINDICTED coconspirators admitting to false imprison, extort, bla bla blah
i hope that made sense, i was kinda rushin and ive read so many motions ive confused myself
The defense came in possession of tape2 which apparently:
So the defense, for their own reasons, (they weren’t compelled to or anything) gave them a copy of the tape2 and now the prosecution wants to know where it came from, saying that it could possibly be the omission of one of the UNINDICTED coconspirators admitting to false imprison, extort, bla bla blah
i hope that made sense, i was kinda rushin and ive read so many motions ive confused myself
You can tape someone who is talking about committing a crime without their knowlege. So Franklin's full of $hit with that motion.
I suspect this mother was secretly recorded making threats against Michael or talking about committing fraud, lying, threats and/or extortion. And prosecutors are just trying to turn the issue around. No way the defense would worry about anyone giving them any tape if that tape isn't very very telling about these people.
I suspect this mother was secretly recorded making threats against Michael or talking about committing fraud, lying, threats and/or extortion. And prosecutors are just trying to turn the issue around. No way the defense would worry about anyone giving them any tape if that tape isn't very very telling about these people.
mjlovergurl
New member
is this tape good or bad for micheal's sake? im confused! lol
HeavenSent
New member
Oh I'm slipping. I totally forgot about today.
I'm slipping. I totally forgot about today.Exactly.
A
Anonymous
Guest
Why not read the thread and find out?
This whole thing is getting me mad. How can the AG take over when he filed a motion opposing to do so? It won't happen.
Fuc.king hypocrites, this whole thing. This is how innocent people get in jail.
A
Anonymous
Guest
So many damn delays. Michael will be 80 by the time he is tried.
How many motions for the defense has that fu.ck of a judge actually granted? I am so irritated right now..I've just ruined my day.
How many motions for the defense has that fu.ck of a judge actually granted? I am so irritated right now..I've just ruined my day.
A
Anonymous
Guest
Well then MJ's only hope is the appeals court I assume.
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?...1356EST0052.DTL
Judge refuses to remove Michael Jackson prosecutor from case
LINDA DEUTSCH, AP Special Correspondent
Thursday, November 4, 2004
A judge on Thursday rejected a defense effort to remove the Santa Barbara County district attorney prosecuting Michael Jackson on child molestation charges.
"I believe he has not been excessively zealous and has not threatened the integrity of the case to this point," said Superior Court Judge Rodney Melville, who heard arguments from Jackson's lawyer, the prosecutor's office and the state attorney general's office.
Melville said the law was clear that the only way he could remove District Attorney Tom Sneddon and his office, is "if a conflict existed where the defendant could not receive a fair trial."
If a conflict existed, the judge said, he would have to find that it was "disabling" to the case.
"I find no disabling conflict. I also find there will be controls in this trial while the jury is present. If he (Sneddon) appears excessively zealous during the trial, I will see that it is taken care of."
Jackson's lawyer, Thomas Mesereau Jr., had presented a final exhortation in favor of removing Sneddon, saying that the district attorney and his office had spent more money pursuing Jackson than they had on the cases of serial killers, showing that they had lost perspective.
Mesereau said that Sneddon was so personally invested in pursuing Jackson's case that he misrepresented to grand jurors the potential motivation of a boy's family in accusing Jackson.
Mesereau said that Sneddon brought an attorney, Larry Feldman, before the grand jury and had him tell the panelists that a criminal prosecution of Jackson would diminish the chances for the boy's family to win compensation in a civil suit against the pop singer.
In truth, Mesereau said, a criminal conviction would mean that the family would be more likely to win a financial claim against Jackson.
"It goes without saying that if you obtain a criminal conviction, that will establish liability," Mesereau said. "Every lawyer here knows that if Mr. Jackson was convicted of these allegations, the alleged victims could walk into civil court and get a judgment."
He also cited Sneddon's personal role in investigating the Jackson case as well as his performance at a press conference announcing the singer's arrest.
But he said the entire district attorney's office was too zealous in the grand jury proceedings.
"They are too emotionally invested in getting a case against the celebrity.... They are blinded by zeal, blinded by emotion in deciding how to decide this case."
The judge expressed interest in one point raised by Mesereau that Sneddon might have to be a witness in the trial because of his personal role in investigating Jackson.
Deputy District Attorney Ron Zonen, as well as a representative of the state attorney general's office, suggested that Sneddon would not have to testify and that Mesereau's motion was not supported by law.
They said that Sneddon was merely fulfilling his role as a dedicated prosecutor and that he had no particular personal agenda in pursuing the case.
Jackson has pleaded not guilty to child molestation, conspiracy and administering an intoxicating agent, alcohol, to a boy. He is set to stand trial Jan. 31.
-----------
ok i read that 3 times and asides from saying "no" did Melville even raise his reasoning?
Judge refuses to remove Michael Jackson prosecutor from case
LINDA DEUTSCH, AP Special Correspondent
Thursday, November 4, 2004
A judge on Thursday rejected a defense effort to remove the Santa Barbara County district attorney prosecuting Michael Jackson on child molestation charges.
"I believe he has not been excessively zealous and has not threatened the integrity of the case to this point," said Superior Court Judge Rodney Melville, who heard arguments from Jackson's lawyer, the prosecutor's office and the state attorney general's office.
Melville said the law was clear that the only way he could remove District Attorney Tom Sneddon and his office, is "if a conflict existed where the defendant could not receive a fair trial."
If a conflict existed, the judge said, he would have to find that it was "disabling" to the case.
"I find no disabling conflict. I also find there will be controls in this trial while the jury is present. If he (Sneddon) appears excessively zealous during the trial, I will see that it is taken care of."
Jackson's lawyer, Thomas Mesereau Jr., had presented a final exhortation in favor of removing Sneddon, saying that the district attorney and his office had spent more money pursuing Jackson than they had on the cases of serial killers, showing that they had lost perspective.
Mesereau said that Sneddon was so personally invested in pursuing Jackson's case that he misrepresented to grand jurors the potential motivation of a boy's family in accusing Jackson.
Mesereau said that Sneddon brought an attorney, Larry Feldman, before the grand jury and had him tell the panelists that a criminal prosecution of Jackson would diminish the chances for the boy's family to win compensation in a civil suit against the pop singer.
In truth, Mesereau said, a criminal conviction would mean that the family would be more likely to win a financial claim against Jackson.
"It goes without saying that if you obtain a criminal conviction, that will establish liability," Mesereau said. "Every lawyer here knows that if Mr. Jackson was convicted of these allegations, the alleged victims could walk into civil court and get a judgment."
He also cited Sneddon's personal role in investigating the Jackson case as well as his performance at a press conference announcing the singer's arrest.
But he said the entire district attorney's office was too zealous in the grand jury proceedings.
"They are too emotionally invested in getting a case against the celebrity.... They are blinded by zeal, blinded by emotion in deciding how to decide this case."
The judge expressed interest in one point raised by Mesereau that Sneddon might have to be a witness in the trial because of his personal role in investigating Jackson.
Deputy District Attorney Ron Zonen, as well as a representative of the state attorney general's office, suggested that Sneddon would not have to testify and that Mesereau's motion was not supported by law.
They said that Sneddon was merely fulfilling his role as a dedicated prosecutor and that he had no particular personal agenda in pursuing the case.
Jackson has pleaded not guilty to child molestation, conspiracy and administering an intoxicating agent, alcohol, to a boy. He is set to stand trial Jan. 31.
-----------
ok i read that 3 times and asides from saying "no" did Melville even raise his reasoning?
kinkykate Posted: Nov 4 2004, 01:44 PM
paul fingst was just on msnbc saying that the judge ruled the way he did b/c tom is the head da in the county. he said that if he gets pulled off the case, it'll show that he might have done something inappropriate and the judge wants to be cautious b/c ts is an elected official and this and that....
then he said that ts has a spotless record and this is the only time he's been accused of this. he's just a talking head w/ no connection to ts so maybe he's just ASSuming.
i still can't find a link.
================================================
This was expected. We all knew Melville wouldn't remove Sneddon.
paul fingst was just on msnbc saying that the judge ruled the way he did b/c tom is the head da in the county. he said that if he gets pulled off the case, it'll show that he might have done something inappropriate and the judge wants to be cautious b/c ts is an elected official and this and that....
then he said that ts has a spotless record and this is the only time he's been accused of this. he's just a talking head w/ no connection to ts so maybe he's just ASSuming.
i still can't find a link.
================================================
This was expected. We all knew Melville wouldn't remove Sneddon.