Official March 18 Motions thread


New member
Before we rush to conclusions about whether the '93 case should come in, I said, let's wait and see what happens first before we started panic. You never know what's going to happen or who will be called.
Jackson Judge Rejects Motion for Mistrial

By LINDA DEUTSCH, Associated Press Writer

SANTA MARIA, Calif. - The judge in Michael Jackson (news)'s child molestation trial rejected a defense request for a mistrial Friday after a witness mentioned the name of a youngster who leveled sex allegations against the pop star a decade ago.

On Thursday, a former housekeeper at Jackson's Neverland ranch mentioned the boy who received a multimillion-dollar civil settlement after claiming in 1993 that Jackson molested him.

The defense argued the testimony violated Superior Court Judge Rodney Melville's ruling that no evidence of past sexual crimes could be admitted unless the judge said so.

In denying the request for a mistrial, Melville said prosecutors elicited the testimony to establish how much contact Jackson had with boys who visited Neverland, not to suggest any impropriety by the singer.

The judge also set a March 28 date for a hearing on the prosecution request to allow evidence of alleged prior offenses into Jackson's trial.

Jackson has never been convicted of a sexual offense, but prosecutors want to present witnesses they believe will show that the current case is part of a pattern.

Jackson, 46, is charged with molesting a 13-year-old cancer patient at Neverland in 2003. No testimony was heart Friday; it will resume on Monday.

The judge also set a March 28 date for a hearing on the prosecution request to allow evidence of alleged prior offenses into Jackson's trial.

Why does Melville continue to delay the ruling of the prosecutions motion to request introduction of prior investigation's?

I'm not sure wether Melville is awaiting the prosecution to deliver a mojority of their case so he could establish wether or not it is completely relevant to introduce this evidience. Or he is deliberately trying to interfere with the consistency of the prosecutions case. If he feels that the overall impact of the Prosecutions arguement was weak, then he could rule in favour of their motion in attempt to stregthen their case (Probably not though as I'm only speculating)

I'm just suspicious of his behavious because he's now delayed his ruling on this motion several times


Staff member
Satyagrahi @ Mar 18 2005
The judge rejected the motion for mistrial, but the defense actually wanted him to. Sanger argued quite pervasively that they were NOT looking for a mistrial at this point, but that according to the court regulations, they had to file for a mistrial first, so that after the judge had denied it, the defense could then move and file a request for other sanctions to be taken against the prosecution for blatently disobeying the 1108.

Unfortunately, after denying the mistrial, the judge also decided to deny any request for further sanctions against the prosecution. Go figure. rolleyes.gif

The most interesting thing today was the talk about G. putting his fingerprints on the magazine during the GJ proceedings... the defense at first got a ruling from the judge saying they would be allowed to contact the grand jurors to ask them about this incident. They would be given contact information to reach the jurors about this. However, this decision was later on changed, into a provisional decision... I didn't quite catch what had to happen first, but we will certainly hear a lot more about this. Wonder what the press will make of it.
Jackson judge mulls past abuse allegations

SANTA MARIA, California (Reuters) - The judge in the Michael Jackson trial has set a March 28 hearing to decide whether jurors can hear about past sex offence allegations against the singer in what could be a turning point in an already sensational case.

Santa Barbara Superior Court Judge Rodney Melville also dismissed a motion for a mistrial brought by the defence as the trial ended its third week of testimony.

With jurors having a day off, lawyers for both sides conferred with the judge on several other key issues -- the admissibility of the pop superstar's finances and how the fingerprints of Jackson's teen accuser got onto pornographic magazines.

Melville ruled that the prosecution, which has alleged Jackson is on the brink of bankruptcy, could subpoena the entertainer's financial records. But he said they would not be opened in the trial unless he heard testimony that made the details relevant.

Jackson, 46, is charged with molesting a then 13-year-old boy at his Neverland ranch in February or March of 2003, and with plying him with alcohol in order to abuse him. He is also charged with conspiring to commit extortion, false imprisonment and child abduction.

The pop star, who was not in court on Friday, has pleaded innocent. He faces more than 20 years in prison if he is convicted on all 10 counts.

Looming in the background are the well-publicized 1993 accusations of molestation made against Jackson by another 13-year-old, which were settled out of court for a reported $23 million.


Jackson was never criminally charged in the 1993 case but the prosecution has battled for months to be allowed to call the youth involved as a witness in the current case.

Melville said he would hold a March 28 hearing on the issue with both defence and prosecution lawyers, but without the jury, to determine what is seen as one of the most important rulings in the current case.

The boy was mentioned in court on Thursday by a former Neverland housekeeper, who named him as one of a number of children who had "close friendships" with Jackson and who were allowed to run wild at the singer's ranch.

Jackson's defence lawyer on Friday asked for a mistrial because of that testimony. Melville denied the motion, saying; "This isn't the first time the jury has heard that name ... 1993 has been mentioned by other witnesses."

The jury has already been shown stacks of pornographic magazines seized from Jackson's bedroom. His young accuser, a recovering cancer patient, has testified that Jackson showed him porn both in magazines and on the Internet.

The fingerprints of the boy have been found on some of the magazines but the defence maintains they got there during secret grand jury hearings last year.

Both sides agreed on Friday to settle the dispute by calling as a witness one of the prosecutors in the closed-door grand jury hearings for testimony and cross examination.

The trial, which has already heard from Jackson's accuser, his younger brother and older sister, resumes on Monday. Other key testimony in what is expected to be a five-month trial is awaited from the boy's mother and the child psychologist who was the first to hear the boy say he had been groped and masturbated by the entertainer.



New member
OMG, why the hell does he keep delaying this shit? Either allow it or don't allow it, it's that ****ing simple! Now we gotta wait another damn week to see if this shit is allowed or not. What the **** is he waiting for? For the prosecution to stregthen there case? Shit!


Jackson judge denies mistrial request
Prosecutors drop demand for grand jury testimony
Friday, March 18, 2005 Posted: 4:29 PM EST (2129 GMT)

SANTA MARIA, California (CNN) -- The judge in the Michael Jackson child molestation trial on Friday denied a defense request to call a mistrial.

The pop star's defense had demanded one, saying jurors should not have been allowed to hear testimony Thursday that the pop star developed special relationships with a dozen young boys who visited his Neverland Ranch.

Defense attorney Robert Sanger accused the prosecution of "deliberately" asking leading questions of Jackson's former housekeeper, Kiki Fournier, in order to get her to list the names of a dozen boys between the age of 10 and 15 whom she says were singled out for special attention. He said a mistrial was the only remedy.

"You can't un-ring the bell," Sanger said.

But Santa Barbara County Superior Court Judge Rodney Melville denied the motion, saying he didn't believe a mistrial was warranted because the testimony was not "harmful" to the defense.

Jackson and the jurors hearing his child molestation trial were not in court Friday. They had the day off while defense attorneys and prosecutors hashed out motions before Melville.

Among the issues decided Friday:

One of the three prosecutors handling the Jackson case, Gordon Auchincloss, agreed to be called as a witness to rebut the defense's contention that key fingerprint evidence in the case was tainted when Jackson's accuser handled material in front of the grand jury. The prosecution had originally wanted the forewoman of the grand jury to testify, but dropped that demand after it opened up the possibility that the entire 20-member panel would be subject to interviews by the defense.

Jackson will have to turn over to Melville a statement of his general financial condition, which could be used by the prosecution during the trial. But prosecutors won't get to pore though an extensive array of financial documents in the years leading up to 2003, when he is accused of molesting a 13-year-old boy at Neverland.

Melville set March 28 as the date for a hearing on whether evidence of previous molestation allegations against Jackson -- including a 1993 case that resulted in a multimillion civil settlement -- can be introduced into the case. The judge said he will hear arguments from each side before deciding if he wants to hear testimony from witnesses about the earlier incidents.

The defense will be allowed to call comedian George Lopez to the stand to talk about a falling out he had with the accuser's family, which the defense says was triggered by the boy and his father claiming $300 went missing from the boy's wallet

In its mistrial motion, the defense contended Thursday's testimony by Fournier, providing the names of the boys she says were singled out by Jackson, was improper because Melville has yet to rule whether testimony about other child molestation allegations will be allowed in the trial.

Among the boys mentioned were child movie star Macauley Culkin; the accuser in the current criminal case against Jackson; the accuser's younger brother; and a boy whose family reached a multimillion dollar financial settlement with Jackson in 1993 after alleging molestation.

The defense repeatedly objected to the testimony Thursday. Melville overruled most of the objections, although he did order the name of the 1993 accuser stricken from the record.

Sanger argued that the prosecution's questions about the boys' ages and their relationship with Jackson were designed so jurors would "infer" that the relationships were improper.

But Santa Barbara County District Attorney Tom Sneddon said there was no intention to "elicit" or "infer" that the boys had been molested by Jackson, noting that Fournier did not go into details about the relationships. He said it was a "pretty hard stretch" for the defense to allege deliberate misconduct by the prosecution.

Melville agreed, noting that the 1993 case had been mentioned previously in the trial.

"It's not like this is the first or last time this will be heard," he said.

Debate over fingerprints
Friday's court debate over fingerprint evidence was prompted by testimony earlier in the week by investigators from the Santa Barbara County Sheriff's Department, who conceded on cross-examination that they had not fingerprinted sexually explicit magazines found at Jackson's Neverland Ranch until after the grand jury indicted him in April 2004.

Later analysis found fingerprints from Jackson, his accuser and the accuser's brother on the material, which was seized during a search in November 2003.

The grand jury transcript shows that the boys were asked to review and identify the materials -- and Sanger said Friday that nothing in the record indicates any precautions were taken to prevent contaminating the evidence.

Prosecutor Ron Zonen insisted that "the children never touched the magazines," and he wanted to call the forewoman of the grand jury to testify that they did not. But Sanger argued that the prosecution should not be allowed to go back and try to correct the record.

"If it's not in the transcript, that's too bad," he said. "They know how to take a record."

Sanger also said letting trial jurors hear testimony from grand jurors, who have already decided that there was enough evidence to indict Jackson, would be "very prejudicial." But he told Melville that if the prosecution was allowed to call in the forewoman, the defense should be allowed to call other grand jurors to the stand who might have a different recollection.

After Melville indicated he might let the defense interview the rest of the grand jurors, prosecutors dropped their request for the forewoman to testify, saying Auchincloss, who was at the grand jury, could testify about how the evidence was handled.

Judge will keep custody of Jackson records
Also Friday, Melville refused a defense request to quash a prosecution subpoena for Jackson's financial records, but he limited the information Jackson has to disclose and said he, not prosecutors, would keep custody of it.

The prosecution wanted an extensive array of Jackson's financial records for the years leading up to 2003, when he is charged with molesting his then-13-year-old accuser at Neverland.

In a court filing, Sneddon argued the material is needed to prove Jackson was motivated by his financial problems "to do whatever was necessary to preserve his public image" after the airing of a damaging television documentary in 2003, in which he held hands with his accuser.

The indictment against Jackson alleges that he and five associates were involved in a conspiracy to intimidate and control the accuser and his family, including keeping them against their will at Neverland. The five co-conspirators named in the indictment were not charged.

Melville, calling the prosecution's subpoena too broad, said he would only require Jackson to turn over a general statement of his financial condition. He also said the court would keep the information, and prosecutors would get access only if they introduce it at trial.

The judge indicated he was skeptical of the need to introduce the financial evidence. While the information could be evidence of motive, Melville said the time it would take to plow through the records in front of the jury "outweighs the probative value."

Jackson, 46, was indicted on 10 felony counts for incidents that allegedly occurred in February and March 2003.

The charges include four counts of committing a lewd act on a child; one count of conspiracy to commit child abduction, false imprisonment and extortion; one count of attempting to commit a lewd act on a child; and four counts of administering an intoxicating agent to assist in the commission of a felony.

Jackson has pleaded not guilty to the charges.

CNN's Dree De Clamecy contributed to this report.


New member
Honestly, if 93 was let in, all Mez has to do is grill those people on the stand & discredit them! My gut instinct just tells me that Jordy won't testify. Hell, he won't want to. He lied & he got his money. If these people testify, they'll have to explain filing a civil suit & not going ahead with the charges.


New member

Originally posted by Cristine87

Honestly, if 93 was let in, all Mez has to do is grill those people on the stand & discredit them! My gut instinct just tells me that Jordy won't testify. Hell, he won't want to. He lied & he got his money. If these people testify, they'll have to explain filing a civil suit & not going ahead with the charges.

I heard Jordy's uncle last year on some T.V. interview. He came across as slightly sleazy, shifty-eyed, a little greedy. A man with a bad conscience. Oh, and he wasn't telling the truth. Ugh. If the kid is like him, the jury'll hate him.

On the other hand, who knows, maybe Jordy will retract everything!!! Rumor is that he's NOT cooperating with the prosecution, correct?

Wasn't his father to blame for hatching the whole scheme, and the kid drugged to repeat lies?

Jordy on Michael's side?? Wouldn't THAT be a Perry Mason moment!!

It's just what clown Sneddon has coming to him, the SOB!!! :screaming



New member
:sneddoncr Sneddon

The more I think about it, the better I like this scenario!

I'll bet Jordy will jump at the opportunity to back away from being thought of as the "boy who was buggered by a superstar." He's probably dying to confess that it never happened!

What I wouldn't do for a photo of Sneddon's ugly mug THEN! :crackingu

:crackingu :crackingu


New member
Originally posted by NevaehDreamz
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.

I think is bad, too . But I know Mesereau is an expert at cross-examinations.

Probably Sneddon thinks that repeating the same things over and over again even if they are absolute illogical and absurd, this will finally end in convince those jurors that something happened... He will try to manipulate the jurors by repeating stuff over and over again and he will relay also on the fact that their minds have been impregnated with the media false image of Michael, "wacko jacko". Those two are his only weapons.

But Mesereau is not stupid. He may develop sophisticated strategies for now complety unknown for prosecution and for the media. He could disclose medical files, he could call his experts, his psihologists. One method of attack is to discredit the witnesses, this method is something that we already know. But he could also concentrate on Michael image, also, trying to evaporate
this " wacko jacko" image replacing that with a image more real.

-Demontrating that his not freak, but unique...

-Demonstrating that some his so called "odd behaviour" is due to his medical condition and because of the media ignorance.

-That Michael has relashionships with old people, not only with children. Think about his numerous old friends, some of them died not long ago.

-He could bring witnesses who could tell about his interest in women, who could give astonishing details about this matter.

-He could call his two ex-wifes and also some of his ex-girlfriends... and if Michael got a girlfriend exactly on the period those kids were running wild at Neverland.... Big trouble for prosecution.

Etc, etc...

You know what I like? I like the defense in being more secretive about the methods they will use. The prosecution has got no surprises instead. We know their " powerful weapons". They manace with 93, so bring that case in!
All this mess will fall apart once for all!!!!!!!!!!!!! :sneddoncrybaby


New member
:nonono: folks...

Mesereau won't find Jordy's testimony a problem (A easy prediction to make, based on recent past history, because even sheriffs' detectives have wound up being defense witnesses under Mez's and Sanger's crosses... ).

Word is that Jordy is not "cooperating" with the D.A. and Mez will drive a Mack truck right between the two of them. Even the slightest relunctance on Jordy's part to condemn Michael will be immediately seized upon by an alert media, who have been waiting 10+ years to hear this.

When Jordy takes the stand, you will be able to hear a pin drop, trust me.

I predict Jordy will turn out to be a defense witness. He will not be eager to reaffirm his "molestation" took place, because it didn't, as we all know. Mesereau will exploit every nuance of Jordy's testimony, and if Jordy doesn't outright confess that the whole thing was scripted by his dad, he'll come very close to that (Remember where you heard this first, folks!).

Sneddon has no "case." Everyone informed about the case has figured that out excepting the diehard haters.

Such as it now even exists, Sneddon's "case" is this:

I'm the law 'round these 'em parts, and you'd do well just to listen to ME
This hasn't - and won't - cut it with the court or the media, not to mention the Beyond-A-Reasonable-Doubt impaneled jury!

Sneddon's has already lost this case, can't y'all see that?! *

* Many studies have shown that juries tend to make up their minds early in a trial.

** If I were Jordy I'd confess...

But short of that, I'd claim I couldn't remember a thing, but MY DAD must remember it perfectly because MY DAD was always harping on it!

Jordy'd be completely off the hook himself by saying this!

:sneddoncr Sneddon


New member
Originally posted by truthtotell

Sneddon has no "case" - everyone informed about the case has figured that out except the diehard haters.
Ain't it the truth! Even though, I'd like it if 93 wasn't let in, I don't think it would be a huge blow to the defense. Even though the media will jump on it & swear up & down that it's just terrible for the defense, think about it, this family is really shady. Hell, they could even get Geraldine Hughes to testify to what she saw first hand. These people filed a $20 million dollar civil lawsuit, took there money, dropped the charges & left it alone. WTF? I've asked many parents if there child was molested, would they file a multimillion dollar civil suit or go to trial & put there child's abuser in jail? Every one of them said they'd want them in jail! How are the Chandler's gonna explain that to a jury, some of which have children of there own? I think it would be in there best interest that they leave it alone!


Staff member
and if Jordy doesn't outright confess that the whole thing was scripted by his dad, he'll come very close to that (Remember where you heard this first, folks!).*
You are not the first to say this. :bleh: