Official March 18 Motions thread

A

A.Beautiful.Mind

New member
No court today.. Melville will rule on several motions submitted by both the posecution and defense. Michael will not be present during this hearing

The issue's which will be addressed during todays poceedings are:

Scheduling of Motion for Admission of Evidence of Defendant’s Alleged Prior Sexual Offenses (Ev. C. § 1108)

Objection to Calling Grand Jurors as Witnesses

Motions to Quash Subpoena Duces Tecum Served on Bernstein, Fox, Whitman & Co., Holthouse Carlin & Van Trigt LLP and Bank of America (Continued from March 11, 2005)

Defendant’s Motion re: Admissibility of Evidence Related to George Lopez

CRIMINAL CALENDAR: MARCH 18, 2005
 
A

A.Beautiful.Mind

New member
God, all this 'will Melville allow 93, will he not' is getting on my nerves.
Click to expand...

Well today will determine wether or not he will allow the prosecution to introduce evidence from 1993. Personally, I don't think that the proseuction has much credibilty concerning this prior investigation. There is to many inconsitencies and suspicious behaviour which surface when discussing the 1993 case. All of which will be adressed by the defense if melville allows the case to be introduced.

The only question I have is, will Jordy be willing to cooperate and validate what he declared over 10 years ago?
 
N

noithasnot

New member
Alot of pundits seem to think 93 being introduced would be very bad for the defence, as if it would be a surprise for them and they would be unprepared- but SURELY they will have built a case, knowing that Sneddon will try to introduce them, as the current allegations have basically no merit whatsoever on their own and his only hope is to demonstrate a 'pattern of abuse'.
In fact i think the complete opposite is true- 93 being introduced would be a godsend for michael, because then he can clear his name entirely for both sets of allegations, something i bet he now wishes he had done in 93.

I mean come on, all you have to do is read that GQ article 'Was Michael Framed' or Geraldine Hughes' 'Redemption' to know that 1993 being introduced is really NOT a blow for the defence.

Thats my thoughts anyway :)
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
If Chandler testifys for the prosecution, no matter what...it will be bad for Michael.
 
W

whisperAdmin

Administrator
Staff member
Originally posted by NevaehDreamz
If Chandler testifys for the prosecution, no matter what...it will be bad for Michael.
Click to expand...
That's what you think. There's this pesky little thing called cross-examination.
 
D

danaluvsmj

New member
I highly doubt '93 will come in. First of all, there is so little evidence and so little witnesses, and Jordy Chandler was said to not be cooperating with the prosecution. Even if it would be brought in, it would still be a very weak case.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Originally posted by whisper
That's what you think. There's this pesky little thing called cross-examination.
Click to expand...


Either way, unless he somehow breaks down..I think it's bad. Even if his testimony is just like that of the Arvizo's, Then if Francia testifys as well. It just adds weight.

If Chandler gets up there and pulls the 'I don't remember' card, it's not going to be as bad because it's been many years since it all came about.

Not that I believe any of these people, but the jury may begin to wonder.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Originally posted by danaluvsmj
I highly doubt '93 will come in. First of all, there is so little evidence and so little witnesses, and Jordy Chandler was said to not be cooperating with the prosecution. Even if it would be brought in, it would still be a very weak case.
Click to expand...


The thing is, we have Rodney Melville for the judge.
 
T

truthtotell

New member
Originally posted by noithasnot


Alot of pundits seem to think 93 being introduced would be very bad for the defence, as if it would be a surprise for them and they would be unprepared- but SURELY they will have built a case, knowing that Sneddon will try to introduce them, as the current allegations have basically no merit whatsoever on their own and his only hope is to demonstrate a 'pattern of abuse'.
In fact i think the complete opposite is true- 93 being introduced would be a godsend for michael, because then he can clear his name entirely for both sets of allegations, something i bet he now wishes he had done in 93.

I mean come on, all you have to do is read that GQ article 'Was Michael Framed' or Geraldine Hughes' 'Redemption' to know that 1993 being introduced is really NOT a blow for the defence.

Thats my thoughts anyway :)
Click to expand...
A good post - and I agree with it!
 
M

MJ_FAN_FOR_LIFE733

New member
Originally posted by Cristine87
Has he ruled yet? I wanna know if the 93 shit is gonna be let in already! The shit is dragging!
Click to expand...
Me too. come on, Meliville get it in gear!!!!!!! Shithead! *Grinies teeth*
~Kelly Mary Abbott~
 
A

A.Beautiful.Mind

New member
I assume that the defense have already prepared their arguement regading the 1993 case. Although they never knew which way the judge would rule, either in favour or against the prosecutions motion requesting approval of introducing prior investigations.. I'm sure that it was almost mandatory for the defense to come fully prepared as it was more than likely that sneddon would try to portray, Michael as this person that had been tried before on similar accusations

To a certain extent I believe that it will considered to be damaging from it's first impression if melville allows the prosecution to introduce the 1993 case .. but once Mesereau proceeds into his cross-exaination he will plant doubt in the jurors mind by exploring the intentions of those previous accusations, which again was a device to extort money from, Michael. They can also support their arguement with the famous tape as that clearly represents the fathers motives. I also belive that it will be a good comparison for the defense team because they will be able to address the similaraities between both the present and past case, because we all know that this was the initial inspiration for the Arvizo family
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top