Upcoming Court Events - 3/11/05

Friday 03/11/2005

8:30 AM In Camera Hearing re Motion to Compel Compliance with Teal Subpoena
Objections by William Dickerman to Subpoena Duces Tecum

Motion to Quash Subpoena Duces Tecum Served on February 3, 2005 by District Attorney on Bernstein, Fox, Whitman & Co. [Filed on behalf of Subpoenaed Party]

Motion to Quash Subpoena Duces Tecum Served on February 3, 2005 by District Attorney on Bernstein, Fox, Whitman & Co. [Filed on behalf of Defendant Michael Jackson]

Motion to Quash Subpoena Duces Tecum Served on February 23, 2005 by District Attorney on Bernstein, Fox, Whitman & Co. [Filed on behalf of Subpoenaed Party]

Motion to Quash Subpoena Duces Tecum Served on February 23, 2005 by District Attorney on Bernstein, Fox, Whitman & Co. [Filed on behalf of Defendant Michael Jackson]

Motion to Quash Subpoena Duces Tecum Served on February 3, 2005 by District Attorney on Holthouse Carlin & Van Trigt LLP. [Filed on behalf of Subpoenaed Party]

Motion to Quash Subpoena Duces Tecum Served on February 3, 2005 by District Attorney on Holthouse Carlin & Van Trigt LLP. [Filed on behalf of Defendant Michael Jackson]

Motion to Quash Subpoena Duces Tecum Served on February 23, 2005 by District Attorney on Holthouse Carlin & Van Trigt LLP. [Filed on behalf of Subpoenaed Party]

Motion to Quash Subpoena Duces Tecum Served on February 23, 2005 by District Attorney on Holthouse Carlin & Van Trigt LLP. [Filed on behalf of Defendant Michael Jackson]

Motion to Quash Subpoena Served To Bank of America Dated November 3, 2005 [Filed on behalf of Defendant Michael Jackson]

Motion to Quash Subpoena Served on Bank of America on January 19, 2005 [Filed on behalf of Defendant Michael Jackson]

Motion to Quash Subpoena Served on Bank of America Served on February 23, 2005 [Filed on behalf of Defendant Michael Jackson]

Motion to Dismiss and Motion to Permit Broadcast Response

Motion for Clarification that “Gag Order” Does Not Apply to Jay Leno

Motion Requesting Timely Access to Copies of All Videotapes That Have Been and Will be Played in Open Court and For Public Release of Such Videotapes and Other Exhibits Introduced as Evidence Throughout the Trial

Motion for Jury View

Motion in Limine to Restrict Mention of Certain Issues re Jane Doe and Major Jackson

Motion to Seal Motion in Limine to Restrict Mention of Certain Issues re Jane Doe and Major Jackson and Opposition Thereto

March 11, 2005 CRIMINAL CALENDAR
 
Melville better elminate all of those subpoenas directed from the prosecution!

If I'm undestanding the majority of the content which is to be be discussed and ruled by the judge, the prosecutions motivation is to obtain financial documents which relate to Michael. I'll be very interested in the way that Melville decides to rule regarding these motions. I'm quessing that he'll probably ask them to limit their subpoena to the time period in question, and not to introduce Michael's past financial details which date back to times where they have no relevence to the posecutions arguement.
 
Top