Date: Sunday, July 18, 2004 Excerpts From the Transcript of the July 9, 2004 Hearing Page 43 MR. MESEREAU: 5 “… (the settlement) agreement was a settlement of a negligence claim in 6 which he admitted doing nothing wrong. 7 As the Court knows better than I do, civil 8 settlements of this nature are often done where the 9 negligence claim is settled so that insurance 10 companies can fund the settlement. There was never 11 any admission by Mr. Jackson that he ever did 12 anything negligent or anything wrong at all. 13 There was public comment in the media, 14 again, about this 11-year-old case to the effect 15 that somehow he admitted negligence, which was 16 completely false. It was a technical legal way of 17 settling a case so insurance companies could fund a 18 settlement and he could get on with his personal 19 life and his business life. 20 I don’t believe that the Court’s gag order 21 precludes Mr. Jackson from commenting on an 22 11-year-old civil settlement. He has been involved 23 in other civil cases as well, and I do not believe 24 your gag order — and please correct me if I’m 25 wrong. As I read it, it does not preclude him from 26 talking about other cases he’s been in in his 27 lifetime. 28 Now, I would remind the Court that we have Page 44 1 asked repeatedly for the prosecution to inform us if 2 they intend to introduce any evidence of alleged 3 similar facts under 1101, and they have stated on 4 the record they have not so notified us. 5 The question is, if somebody leaks this 6 document from an 11-year-old case in an obvious 7 attempt to prejudice this case, given the gag order, 8 is Mr. Jackson precluded from saying anything about 9 that 11-year-old case? 10 And Mr. Auchincloss has attempted to suggest 11 that these statements all relate to this case, and 12 that is untrue. I can go through them one by one 13 and show the Court how they relate to that ’93 case 14 where he also denied any wrongdoing with respect to 15 any alleged act of child sexual assault or 16 molestation. 17 THE COURT: I don’t think you need to do 18 that. 19 Let me cut you short here, because you’re — 20 you’re really missing the whole point. 21 The — you were not the lead attorney at 22 the time that a lot of work was done on the gag 23 order with counsel contributing suggestions. And 24 the one that was finally adopted was, I think, 25 pretty agreeable to everybody, considering that 26 there was going to be a gag order, you know, given 27 that fact, and we got to an order that was accepted. 28 And the order prohibits a witness, and Mr. Page 45 1 Jackson certainly comes within that potential, from 2 discussing evidentiary matters, and he in fact was 3 discussing a matter which you have just acknowledged 4 may or may not be evidence in this case, which is 5 exactly the problem, because the Court has yet to 6 rule on whether or not, if that evidence is 7 proffered, it will be admissible. So he’s 8 discussing potential evidence. 9 Not only that, he addressed the jury venire 10 directly. He addressed the community. And so he 11 violated, in a sense, the gag order. 12 There is a thin line here, you know. The 13 Court certainly does not want to prohibit any 14 individual from stating their innocence, being 15 allowed to say, “I’m innocent,” you know.” Source: http://www.mjjsource.com/index.php/news/excerpts-from-the-transcript-from-the-july-9-2004-hearing

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *