Mesereau told the judge:
I don’t believe that the Court’s gag order precludes Mr. Jackson from commenting on an 11 year old civil settlement. He has been involved in other civil cases as well, and I do not believe your gag order, and please correct me if I’m wrong. As I read it, it does not preclude him from talking about other cases he’s been in in his lifetime.
As a matter of fact, the defense says they’ve repeatedly asked the prosecution if they plan to introduce anything from the 93 “case” into this current “case”, under the “alleged similar facts” law, and prosecutors have not notified them of this. So that would mean Jackson can or should be free to openly speak about the 93 “case”.
If prosecutors haven’t made plans and informed the defense that they’re going to bring in information from the 93 “case”, then Jackson couldn’t possible have broken the gag order right? Not according to Melville’s reasoning.
He claimed that Jackson, by addressing the community, broke the gag order. This may be yet another ridiculous ruling, just like his initial ruling about the $3M bail. On the bail issue, Mesereau took it to the Appeals Court and they ruled that the judge has to show why he hasn’t lowered Jackson’s bail. In their ruling, the Appeals Court even cited case law to Melville. He’s expected to make a ruling about the bail on July 27 2004. But I digress.
Melville, as of this writing, still insists that Jackson broke the gag order without stating specifically how he did so if the 93 “case” has yet to be introduced into this current “case”. Some say prosecutors either aren’t being forthcoming about what they plan to do with the 93 case or are lying through their teeth to the judge.
Mesereau says that the leaking of the 93 settlement agreement to Dimond was an obvious attempt to prejudice the potential jurors in this “case”. In the following statement from the transcript, Mesereau speaks about Auchincloss, a prosecutor, claiming that Jackson’s statement is related to this current “case”:
And Mr. Auchincloss has attempted to suggest that these statements all related to this case, and that is untrue. I can go through them one by one and show the Court how they relate to that 93 case where he also denied any wrongdoing with respect to any alleged act of child sexual assault or molestation.
The Court hasn’t even ruled on whether or not anything from the 93 “case” will be admitted into this current “case” yet, but Melville claims Jackson’s attorney is missing the point.
Melville says that if information from the 93 “case” is asked to be admitted by prosecutors, he will rule on it at that time; and it could come in if he decides to let it in. Interesting. But some observers say it’s Melville who has missed the point.
Let me look into my crystal ball…I see other cases I can’t talk about…
As of the release of Jackson’s statement, the 93 “case” is NOT a part of this “case”, and Jackson shouldn’t be bashed for breaking the gag order by responding to jury-tainting lies by a tabloid reporter doing her best to help railroad him into prison. It seems that’s the point Jackson’s attorneys were trying to make.
You can’t warn someone about breaking the gag order in regards to something that isn’t even a part of the current “case”. That would be like asking Jackson and his attorneys to be psychic; mystically divining what prosecutors will and won’t bring in while changing how they respond in kind. That’s ridiculous. And it’s especially difficult when prosecutors have been asked repeatedly—before Jackson released that statement—if they were going to introduce information about the 93 “case”.
Either it’s in or it’s not. Either prosecutors asked for it or they did not. If this is the standard, Jackson wouldn’t be able to talk about any other case he’s been involved in for fear that the judge will claim he’s breaking the gag order.
He wouldn’t be able to respond to, for example, the case against Victor Gutierrez that he won. Gutierrez was one of Diane Dimond’s “sources” from 10 years ago, and the creator of a horrendously false story propagated throughout the media by Dimond. He was ordered to pay Jackson $2M. Instead, he filed for bankruptcy, then fled the country.
There was another case involving an alleged wrongful termination of security guards who claimed they “knew too much” allegedly about Jackson and the 93 accuser. They sued Jackson and the case was later thrown out of court.
There was yet another case where the 93 accuser’s father, Evan Chandler, sued Jackson, again, claiming that he broke the confidentiality agreement. He wanted Jackson to pay him more money and even wanted Jackson to produce a CD for him called “EVANstory”. Ridiculous. The portion against other defendants dragged into that lawsuit was thrown out of court AND the arbitrator used to decide the portion against Jackson sided with Jackson and against Chandler (see Jackson Scores Court Win - E!Online).
All this to say that maybe the judge in this case shouldn’t expect Jackson to just know what prosecutors plan to do and censor himself accordingly.
And given the fact that the media has shown that they can’t be trusted to report an accurate story even when they get their hands on the information—as with the 93 settlement papers—it would seem that if gag order reprimands are to be given, they should be given all-around.
As for the 93 “case” information coming in, should a judge try to protect the prosecutor’s options, when they themselves haven’t so much as informed the defense as to what they’re going to bring in or not? Is Melville trying to do the right thing? Or is he trying to protect the prosecutors in this case? Time will tell.
I don’t believe that the Court’s gag order precludes Mr. Jackson from commenting on an 11 year old civil settlement. He has been involved in other civil cases as well, and I do not believe your gag order, and please correct me if I’m wrong. As I read it, it does not preclude him from talking about other cases he’s been in in his lifetime.
As a matter of fact, the defense says they’ve repeatedly asked the prosecution if they plan to introduce anything from the 93 “case” into this current “case”, under the “alleged similar facts” law, and prosecutors have not notified them of this. So that would mean Jackson can or should be free to openly speak about the 93 “case”.
If prosecutors haven’t made plans and informed the defense that they’re going to bring in information from the 93 “case”, then Jackson couldn’t possible have broken the gag order right? Not according to Melville’s reasoning.
He claimed that Jackson, by addressing the community, broke the gag order. This may be yet another ridiculous ruling, just like his initial ruling about the $3M bail. On the bail issue, Mesereau took it to the Appeals Court and they ruled that the judge has to show why he hasn’t lowered Jackson’s bail. In their ruling, the Appeals Court even cited case law to Melville. He’s expected to make a ruling about the bail on July 27 2004. But I digress.
Melville, as of this writing, still insists that Jackson broke the gag order without stating specifically how he did so if the 93 “case” has yet to be introduced into this current “case”. Some say prosecutors either aren’t being forthcoming about what they plan to do with the 93 case or are lying through their teeth to the judge.
Mesereau says that the leaking of the 93 settlement agreement to Dimond was an obvious attempt to prejudice the potential jurors in this “case”. In the following statement from the transcript, Mesereau speaks about Auchincloss, a prosecutor, claiming that Jackson’s statement is related to this current “case”:
And Mr. Auchincloss has attempted to suggest that these statements all related to this case, and that is untrue. I can go through them one by one and show the Court how they relate to that 93 case where he also denied any wrongdoing with respect to any alleged act of child sexual assault or molestation.
The Court hasn’t even ruled on whether or not anything from the 93 “case” will be admitted into this current “case” yet, but Melville claims Jackson’s attorney is missing the point.
Melville says that if information from the 93 “case” is asked to be admitted by prosecutors, he will rule on it at that time; and it could come in if he decides to let it in. Interesting. But some observers say it’s Melville who has missed the point.
Let me look into my crystal ball…I see other cases I can’t talk about…
As of the release of Jackson’s statement, the 93 “case” is NOT a part of this “case”, and Jackson shouldn’t be bashed for breaking the gag order by responding to jury-tainting lies by a tabloid reporter doing her best to help railroad him into prison. It seems that’s the point Jackson’s attorneys were trying to make.
You can’t warn someone about breaking the gag order in regards to something that isn’t even a part of the current “case”. That would be like asking Jackson and his attorneys to be psychic; mystically divining what prosecutors will and won’t bring in while changing how they respond in kind. That’s ridiculous. And it’s especially difficult when prosecutors have been asked repeatedly—before Jackson released that statement—if they were going to introduce information about the 93 “case”.
Either it’s in or it’s not. Either prosecutors asked for it or they did not. If this is the standard, Jackson wouldn’t be able to talk about any other case he’s been involved in for fear that the judge will claim he’s breaking the gag order.
He wouldn’t be able to respond to, for example, the case against Victor Gutierrez that he won. Gutierrez was one of Diane Dimond’s “sources” from 10 years ago, and the creator of a horrendously false story propagated throughout the media by Dimond. He was ordered to pay Jackson $2M. Instead, he filed for bankruptcy, then fled the country.
There was another case involving an alleged wrongful termination of security guards who claimed they “knew too much” allegedly about Jackson and the 93 accuser. They sued Jackson and the case was later thrown out of court.
There was yet another case where the 93 accuser’s father, Evan Chandler, sued Jackson, again, claiming that he broke the confidentiality agreement. He wanted Jackson to pay him more money and even wanted Jackson to produce a CD for him called “EVANstory”. Ridiculous. The portion against other defendants dragged into that lawsuit was thrown out of court AND the arbitrator used to decide the portion against Jackson sided with Jackson and against Chandler (see Jackson Scores Court Win - E!Online).
All this to say that maybe the judge in this case shouldn’t expect Jackson to just know what prosecutors plan to do and censor himself accordingly.
And given the fact that the media has shown that they can’t be trusted to report an accurate story even when they get their hands on the information—as with the 93 settlement papers—it would seem that if gag order reprimands are to be given, they should be given all-around.
As for the 93 “case” information coming in, should a judge try to protect the prosecutor’s options, when they themselves haven’t so much as informed the defense as to what they’re going to bring in or not? Is Melville trying to do the right thing? Or is he trying to protect the prosecutors in this case? Time will tell.
Vastaukset
Vanhimmat
Ei vielä vastauksia
Aloittaja odottaa vastauksia. Kerro oma näkemyksesi ensimmäisenä.