This is a matter that has to be examined in an objective fashion by a neutral trial judge. Unfortunately from a neutral vantage point there is no question that the District Attorney crossed the line so many times during the course of this case that more than the required “reasonable possibility” exits. So be it. If Mr. Jackson ought to be prosecuted, the Attorney General will step in and do so but the Santa Barbara District Attorney should step down. (see Defense's Reply to DA's Opposition to Motion for Recusal pg 2)

The Court, of course, should not be asked by the prosecution to be an apologist for the prosecutors actions, nor should they ask the Court to turn a blind eye to the obvious. The Court has the duty to “call balls and strikes” without regard to the consequences to who is at bat. (see Defense's Reply to DA's Opposition to Motion for Recusal pg 2)

The facts, obvious to the most casual observer, demonstrate more than a reasonable possibility of bias. This is not a close case. There is more than sufficient evidence to suspect that the District Attorney has a personal bias against Mr. Jackson. (see Defense's Reply to DA's Opposition to Motion for Recusal pg 2)

Mr. Sneddon’s active participation in the investigation of Mr. Jackson, without the presence of an investigator, has made him a witness in the case. (Motion for Recusal, pages 6-7) He will be required to testify at trial since ____________ credibility, or lack thereof, is central to both the prosecution’s and defense’s case. (see Defense's Reply to DA's Opposition to Motion for Recusal pg 3)

In fact, the press conference was such a debacle and raised so many questions about the District Attorney’s bias that, in an unprecedented move, the Santa Barbara District Attorney’s office hired a public relations firm to repair the damage done by the press conference. Despite the District Attorney’s efforts to suppress its obvious bias against Mr. Jackson, it remains apparent that the prosecution’s blind zeal to convict Mr. Jackson creates the reasonable possibility that it is unable to exercise its discretion in an even-handed fashion. (see Defense's Reply to DA's Opposition to Motion for Recusal pg 4-5)

The prosecution’s argument amounts to a pro hoc rationalization for the prosecution’s failure to obtain an indictment from these grand juries. These grand juries were convened in earnest. Recent discovery shows that the prosecutors presented numerous witnesses to each body. With the resources of two countries at his disposal, and without defense counsel for Mr. Jackson present, the District Attorney was unable to convince either grand jury that probable cause existed to indict Mr. Jackson. (see Defense's Reply to DA's Opposition to Motion for Recusal pg 3)

The fact that neither grand jury was asked “to indict anyone” suggests that even the prosecutors were aware of the weak nature of their case. A grand jury does not become “investigative” when the District Attorney realizes that it would be futile to ask for an indictment. (see Defense's Reply to DA's Opposition to Motion for Recusal pg 3-4)

Determined not to fail to obtain an indictment with a third grand jury, the District Attorney presented the grand jury with a mountain of inadmissible evidence and displayed an unprecedented lack of courtroom decorum. Attorney __________ and __________ were called in the early stages of the proceedings and were invited to prejudice the jurors with inflammatory and irrelevant testimony about matters that poisoned the well and eliminated any chance that the grand jury proceeding would be fair (Motion for Recusal, pages 8-11.) (see Defense's Reply to DA's Opposition to Motion for Recusal pg 4)

Mesereau said that Sneddon was so personally invested in pursuing Jackson's case that he misrepresented to grand jurors the potential motivation of a boy's family in accusing Jackson. Mesereau said that Sneddon brought an attorney, Larry Feldman, before the grand jury and had him tell the panelists that a criminal prosecution of Jackson would diminish the chances for the boy's family to win compensation in a civil suit against the pop singer. (see Judge refuses to remove Michael Jackson prosecutor from case (Nov 4 2004) - AP)

In truth, Mesereau said, a criminal conviction would mean that the family would be more likely to win a financial claim against Jackson. "It goes without saying that if you obtain a criminal conviction, that will establish liability," Mesereau said. "Every lawyer here knows that if Mr. Jackson was convicted of these allegations, the alleged victims could walk into civil court and get a judgment." (see Judge refuses to remove Michael Jackson prosecutor from case (Nov 4 2004) - AP)

Witnesses who contradicted the prosecution’s incredible theory of a conspiracy to cover up a child molestation, following by the child molestation itself, were subjected to bullying by Mr. Sneddon. (Motion for Recusal, pages 11-21.) The claim that Mr. Sneddon’s conduct with _________ and __________ amounted to “apparent impatience” with “two distinctly” hostile witnesses (Opposition, page 7) is simply not supported by the grand jury transcripts. (see Defense's Reply to DA's Opposition to Motion for Recusal pg 4)

The District Attorney’s claim that their investigation was vindicated by the fact that Mr. Jackson was indicted (Opposition, pages 4-5) ignored the fact that this indictment was obtained after a grand jury presentation in which the District Attorneys failed to present evidence fairly and behaved in a fashion that would not have been permitted in open court. (see Defense's Reply to DA's Opposition to Motion for Recusal pg 4)

Comments (0)

Subscribe to this comment's feed

Write comment

Name

Email

Website

Title

Comment

smaller | bigger

Subscribe via email (Registered users only)

I have read and agree to the Terms of Usage.

Write the displayed characters

Add Comment