14.04.05 - rozprawa
Posted: Thu, 14 Apr 2005, 18:41
Tutaj jest troche ale po angielsku
Day 31: Judge Allows Mother of the Accuser to Plead the Fifth on Shady Past
Created: Wednesday, 13 April 2005
Picking and choosing testimony…. Justice?
"You can't allow a witness to pick and choose what he or she is going to be subject to on cross-examination," defense attorney Robert Sanger said, addressing the court.
In the end, Superior Court Judge Rodney S. Melville ruled the woman could do just that. He designated her welfare status an off-limit topic.
On Day 31 the mother of the accuser took the witness stand after Judge Rodney S. Melville allowed her to testify despite her refusal to discuss her history of welfare fraud — an issue on which the defense had hoped to attack her credibility. With the jurors cleared from the courtroom, the woman short-circuited questions about her checkered welfare status. She invoked the Fifth Amendment in fending off that line of questioning and refused to discuss "everything to do with the welfare application."
The US Constitution allows witnesses to invoke the Fifth Amendment to avoid incriminating themselves during testimony, but the move is seen as a blow to the prosecution.
"It's a major set-back for the prosecution," said legal analyst Jim Moret.
"They need the accuser's mother for their conspiracy case," he said, adding that invoking the Fifth Amendment could raise serious questions about her credibility in the minds of jurors.
Judge Rodney Melville denied a defense request to prevent the woman -- who took the Fifth Amendment out of the jury's earshot -- from testifying altogether, as well as another request to declare a mistrial.
"Michael Jackson, who has been accused by this witness, has a right under counsel to vigorously cross examine this witness to show that she has committed acts of perjury and acts of fraud and that she is not credible," defense lawyer Robert Sanger argued.
But the judge ruled that the woman can testify, but that jurors will be informed that she has taken the Fifth over accusations that she accepted state benefit payouts that she was not entitled to.
"My understanding is that [the mother] will answer all questions put to her other than questions of her welfare application, questions that she answered in her welfare applications or in receipt of welfare benefits," prosecutor Ronald Zonen said.
The defense, predictably, wasn't pleased with the woman's plea.
Defense attorneys contend the family kept the bachelor apartment to make celebrities believe they were poor, but actually spent much of their time at the home of the boy's grandmother.
They also have raised questions about the woman's credibility by accusing her of bilking celebrities and committing welfare fraud. District Attorney Thomas Sneddon said in opening statements the woman would admit she took welfare payments to which she wasn't entitled.
While the prosecution likes to paint the woman as a long-suffering victim, it has long acknowledged that she is no saint.
In his opening argument, prosecutor Tom Sneddon warned jurors that the woman "obtained welfare funds when she wasn't entitled to them." He seemed to be excusing the woman from the act which is clearly a crime.
"She's going to tell you that, and she's going to admit that," Sneddon said in January.
With the mother unwilling to talk or admit to welfare troubles herself, the defense moved in on the woman's current husband.
In his second day on the stand Wednesday, the Army reservist was peppered with questions about the depositing of several of the woman's welfare checks into his bank account in 2003.
"I don't know any rules with regards to welfare," the man testified. "I wasn't concerned about that. She was my girlfriend, they were her children. If I gave them any money [outside of the amount in the welfare checks], it was because it was out of goodness of my heart."
In an unusual move, Mr. Jackson's lawyers raised few objections during the woman's emotional testimony.
However, they are likely on cross examination to focus on what they say is the woman's history of making false claims, including one of sexual harassment.
Defense Attorney, Tom Mesereau, who won't get a crack at the mother until at least Thursday, contented himself on this day by walking the stepfather through the family's repeated escapes and re-escapes from Neverland in February and March of 2003.
"[The mother] left Neverland, went to El Monte. All right, so that's leaving Neverland once," the man testified.
"Right," Mr. Mesereau agreed.
"She came to my apartment," the man continued.
"Right," Mr. Mesereau agreed again.
"Lots of phone calls [from Tyson], [then she] went back to Neverland, came back that night. Again, a bunch of phone calls and [then] she returned back to Neverland," the man recounted. "So, that would be three times."
The accuser’s mother’s testimony under direct examination by the prosecution, which followed the stepfather, was punctuated by weeping, flailing arms and finger stabbing toward Mr. Jackson, the mother's incredibly theatrical testimony was as dramatic as an earlier hearing on Wednesday when it was doubtful whether she would ever take the stand at all.
Looking directly at the jury during a convoluted and sometime seemingly, incoherent, account, the woman once punctuated her words by snapping her fingers and later affected the German accent of a Mr. Jackson associate. She addressed news reporters directly at one point, and at other times glanced at and spoke directly to Mr. Jackson, who sat motionless at the defense table. The judge quickly admonished her not to address the defendant directly.
The accuser's mother said Mr. Jackson had convinced her that her children were in danger, that there were "killers" after them, and that he was the only one who could protect them.
"I thought, 'What a nice guy,'" she said. "I was just like a sponge, believing him, trusting him." In a spiteful recounting, she sarcastically called Mr. Jackson's "lovey dovey speech" at a Florida hotel room, in which Mr. Jackson told the family "in a very male voice" that he would be their father figure and protector.
She said Mr. Jackson told the family "that he loves us, that he cares about us, we're family. ... That we were in the back of the line, now we're in the front of the line, that he's going to protect us from those killers."
Later she added, in full theatrics: "And you know what? They ended up being the killers."
Asked by Senior Deputy District Attorney Ron Zonen about her memory of the events, she pointed dramatically to her head and exclaimed: "Some things are just burned in here."
She then offered an account, in conflict with testimony of other witnesses, in which she described seeing Mr. Jackson lick her son's head during a February 2003 flight from Miami to California on a private jet.
"Everyone was asleep. I had not slept for so long," she said. "I got up. I figured this was my chance to figure out what was going on back there. And that's when I saw Michael licking (the boy's) head."
She sobbed, pounded her chest and said, "I thought I was seeing things. I thought it was me."
During the first few hours of the woman's testimony, defense attorneys did not make a single objection.
Source: MJJsource / AP / AFP / Reuters
Day 31: Judge Allows Mother of the Accuser to Plead the Fifth on Shady Past
Created: Wednesday, 13 April 2005
Picking and choosing testimony…. Justice?
"You can't allow a witness to pick and choose what he or she is going to be subject to on cross-examination," defense attorney Robert Sanger said, addressing the court.
In the end, Superior Court Judge Rodney S. Melville ruled the woman could do just that. He designated her welfare status an off-limit topic.
On Day 31 the mother of the accuser took the witness stand after Judge Rodney S. Melville allowed her to testify despite her refusal to discuss her history of welfare fraud — an issue on which the defense had hoped to attack her credibility. With the jurors cleared from the courtroom, the woman short-circuited questions about her checkered welfare status. She invoked the Fifth Amendment in fending off that line of questioning and refused to discuss "everything to do with the welfare application."
The US Constitution allows witnesses to invoke the Fifth Amendment to avoid incriminating themselves during testimony, but the move is seen as a blow to the prosecution.
"It's a major set-back for the prosecution," said legal analyst Jim Moret.
"They need the accuser's mother for their conspiracy case," he said, adding that invoking the Fifth Amendment could raise serious questions about her credibility in the minds of jurors.
Judge Rodney Melville denied a defense request to prevent the woman -- who took the Fifth Amendment out of the jury's earshot -- from testifying altogether, as well as another request to declare a mistrial.
"Michael Jackson, who has been accused by this witness, has a right under counsel to vigorously cross examine this witness to show that she has committed acts of perjury and acts of fraud and that she is not credible," defense lawyer Robert Sanger argued.
But the judge ruled that the woman can testify, but that jurors will be informed that she has taken the Fifth over accusations that she accepted state benefit payouts that she was not entitled to.
"My understanding is that [the mother] will answer all questions put to her other than questions of her welfare application, questions that she answered in her welfare applications or in receipt of welfare benefits," prosecutor Ronald Zonen said.
The defense, predictably, wasn't pleased with the woman's plea.
Defense attorneys contend the family kept the bachelor apartment to make celebrities believe they were poor, but actually spent much of their time at the home of the boy's grandmother.
They also have raised questions about the woman's credibility by accusing her of bilking celebrities and committing welfare fraud. District Attorney Thomas Sneddon said in opening statements the woman would admit she took welfare payments to which she wasn't entitled.
While the prosecution likes to paint the woman as a long-suffering victim, it has long acknowledged that she is no saint.
In his opening argument, prosecutor Tom Sneddon warned jurors that the woman "obtained welfare funds when she wasn't entitled to them." He seemed to be excusing the woman from the act which is clearly a crime.
"She's going to tell you that, and she's going to admit that," Sneddon said in January.
With the mother unwilling to talk or admit to welfare troubles herself, the defense moved in on the woman's current husband.
In his second day on the stand Wednesday, the Army reservist was peppered with questions about the depositing of several of the woman's welfare checks into his bank account in 2003.
"I don't know any rules with regards to welfare," the man testified. "I wasn't concerned about that. She was my girlfriend, they were her children. If I gave them any money [outside of the amount in the welfare checks], it was because it was out of goodness of my heart."
In an unusual move, Mr. Jackson's lawyers raised few objections during the woman's emotional testimony.
However, they are likely on cross examination to focus on what they say is the woman's history of making false claims, including one of sexual harassment.
Defense Attorney, Tom Mesereau, who won't get a crack at the mother until at least Thursday, contented himself on this day by walking the stepfather through the family's repeated escapes and re-escapes from Neverland in February and March of 2003.
"[The mother] left Neverland, went to El Monte. All right, so that's leaving Neverland once," the man testified.
"Right," Mr. Mesereau agreed.
"She came to my apartment," the man continued.
"Right," Mr. Mesereau agreed again.
"Lots of phone calls [from Tyson], [then she] went back to Neverland, came back that night. Again, a bunch of phone calls and [then] she returned back to Neverland," the man recounted. "So, that would be three times."
The accuser’s mother’s testimony under direct examination by the prosecution, which followed the stepfather, was punctuated by weeping, flailing arms and finger stabbing toward Mr. Jackson, the mother's incredibly theatrical testimony was as dramatic as an earlier hearing on Wednesday when it was doubtful whether she would ever take the stand at all.
Looking directly at the jury during a convoluted and sometime seemingly, incoherent, account, the woman once punctuated her words by snapping her fingers and later affected the German accent of a Mr. Jackson associate. She addressed news reporters directly at one point, and at other times glanced at and spoke directly to Mr. Jackson, who sat motionless at the defense table. The judge quickly admonished her not to address the defendant directly.
The accuser's mother said Mr. Jackson had convinced her that her children were in danger, that there were "killers" after them, and that he was the only one who could protect them.
"I thought, 'What a nice guy,'" she said. "I was just like a sponge, believing him, trusting him." In a spiteful recounting, she sarcastically called Mr. Jackson's "lovey dovey speech" at a Florida hotel room, in which Mr. Jackson told the family "in a very male voice" that he would be their father figure and protector.
She said Mr. Jackson told the family "that he loves us, that he cares about us, we're family. ... That we were in the back of the line, now we're in the front of the line, that he's going to protect us from those killers."
Later she added, in full theatrics: "And you know what? They ended up being the killers."
Asked by Senior Deputy District Attorney Ron Zonen about her memory of the events, she pointed dramatically to her head and exclaimed: "Some things are just burned in here."
She then offered an account, in conflict with testimony of other witnesses, in which she described seeing Mr. Jackson lick her son's head during a February 2003 flight from Miami to California on a private jet.
"Everyone was asleep. I had not slept for so long," she said. "I got up. I figured this was my chance to figure out what was going on back there. And that's when I saw Michael licking (the boy's) head."
She sobbed, pounded her chest and said, "I thought I was seeing things. I thought it was me."
During the first few hours of the woman's testimony, defense attorneys did not make a single objection.
Source: MJJsource / AP / AFP / Reuters
bo jak napisali na Foxie 
będzie dobrze - sprawa zakończy się uniewinnieniem MJ i... za to chce nowy album 
ino szybo :D