Prosecutors Used 1993 Investigation to Get Search Warrants, Indictment in Current Case – MJEOL Bullet #196 Defense wants prosecutors to hand-over info from the 93 investigation and references exculpatory evidence found during that investigation The defense has asked the judge in the Michael Jackson “case” to make prosecutors hand over documents and exonerating evidence from the 1993-94 investigation. Prosecutors have been ignoring the defense and dragging their feet in turning over these materials, called “discovery”, since this “case” began.

It was learned through the defense’s Motion to Compel Discovery that prosecutors used information from the 1993 investigation to obtain search warrants in THIS “case”. Prosecutors also presented info of the 1993 investigation to the grand jury in THIS “case” as well.

The judge had initially ordered prosecutors to turn over info form the 93-94 ransacking of Neverland before now. Apparently prosecutors used old layouts from the 93 raid as well when raiding Jackson’s house in November 2003.

This is astonishing information because for months the public has been told by “sources close to the investigation,” through tabloid reporter Diane Dimond and others, that prosecutors had a “strong case” and that this “case” can “stand on its own.” Oh really? Obviously this is not true since they had to use info from the old 93 investigation to get search warrants and to convince grand jurors to hand down an indictment against Jackson in THIS “case”. In the defense’s Motion to Compel Discovery, Jackson’s lawyers confirm what prosecutors did with the information; information which is likely to yield exculpatory (exonerating) evidence:

The prosecution relies on information from the prior investigation in these proceedings, including the affidavit to justify searches in this case. That material also contains, or is likely to lead to, exculpatory evidence. (see Motion to Compel Discovery, pg2 || pg3 of the .pdf file)

The defense also says that the prosecution-promised results of “forensic testing” has yet to be turned over as well. All of this information was supposed to have long been given to the defense. Either prosecutors have been lying about what they have, or they are intentionally dragging their feet to keep exonerating evidence out of the hands of the defense for as long as possible For the record, the ’93 investigation occurred as a result of allegations reported by a psychologist (Dr. Abrams) working for a civil attorney (Barry Rothman). The two-pronged investigation—by the Santa Barbara DA (Sneddon) and the Los Angeles DA (Gil Garcetti)—lasted anywhere from 10-13 months reportedly. There were 2 grand juries empanelled; neither of which handed down an indictment against Jackson. In their Motion to Compel Discovery, the defense reveals the prosecution’s use of the 1993 investigation to gain search warrants in THIS “case”. In their memorandum of points, Jackson’s attorneys reiterate the point:

The prosecution has relied on information from the prior investigation in this case. Moreover, in view of the scope and result of the prior investigation, materials in the possession of law enforcement likely contain or will lead to exculpatory evidence. (see Motion to Compel Discovery)

What’s worse is that prosecutors have refused to turn over this info to the defense. They, according to Jackson’s attorneys, haven’t given the defense “reports, transcripts, witness statements and other materials from the prior investigation.” The 1993 information, selectively being used by prosecutors, will be part of this current “case” because prosecutors have already made it part of this “case”. Now the defense has the right to ALL of the information gathered by prosecutors then. If you’ll remember, one of the reasons Judge Rodney Melville gave as to why Jackson broke the gag order was because it hasn’t been decided whether or not the 1993 information will be part of the current “case” or not. However, it is quite clear that the ’93 investigation will most definitely be part of this “case” because it’s already been used to secure search warrants against Jackson presently. As a matter of fact, prosecutors probably used the ’93 allegation to get “dozens” of search warrants against Jackson beginning in November 2003. The defense says:

The affidavit that has been used in support of the dozens of searches in this case refers to information developed during the prior investigation. The affidavit quotes material used to search Mr. Jackson’s ranch in the prior investigation and summarizes the district attorney’s explanation about how that investigation became inactive without criminal charges. (see Motion to Compel Discovery, pg5 || pg6 of .pdf file)

The defense says that innuendo from the ‘93 settlement agreement has a also already been used in THIS “case” as well, as they continue to hammer home the point:

Materials from the investigation of 1993-94 are within the purview of discovery in this case. The prosecution has already utilized information developed during that investigation and innuendo from the settlement of civil proceedings initiated by the complaintant in that matter. The prosecution relies on so-called information from the prior investigation to justify the scope of the November 2003 search of Mr. Jackson’s ranch. (see Motion to Compel Discovery)

His attorneys say that the information from 1993 is “necessary to preserve Mr. Jackson’s right to a fair trial.” Now, remember, this is the defense talking. Thus, they either have information themselves or knowledge of the existence of material that something was discovered during the 1993 investigation that “will likely” be exculpatory to Jackson. What is also astonishing is the admission that law enforcement found information which indicates the 93 allegation was not true. From the defense’s motion:

Mr. Jackson’s right to receive exculpatory information from the prosecution also requires production of materials from the prior investigation. Law enforcement unquestionably developed information rebutting allegations of misconduct from the many people who testified before the grand juries or submitted to informal interview. (see Motion to Compel Discovery, pg6)

Some of the people who testified in front of the grand juries back during the 1993 investigation including the private investigator, Anthony Pellicano and Jackson security guard Miko Brando. Sources say that Pellicano came upon a boatload of evidence and other information concerning the extortion plot from 1993. This evidence didn’t see the light of day (not yet, anyway) because prosecutors had no corroborating evidence other than the ’93 accuser’s accusation, and therefore couldn’t bring a criminal “case” against Jackson. There were no other “victims” either. This was compounded by the fact that the description the accuser gave of Jackson’s body didn’t match the photos taken of Jackson. Prosecutors also tried to justify their overly-broad searches by citing the prior raid at Jackson’s ranch. And this is why the info is relevant to the current “case”. In the defense Exhibit A, Jackson’s lawyers cite an interview with the Santa Barbara News-Press dated December 3 2003 where Sneddon is quoted as saying there are 5 boxes of material gathered during the 93 investigation. This is the passage from the News-Press article which they cite:

“Mr. Sneddon, who has been elected county district attorney six times, added that his decision to try the case himself came in part because he is so familiar with the five boxes of transcripts and evidence gathered in that first criminal investigation. The evidence includes photographs, statements from employees and items recovered by detectives in search of Mr. Jackson’s Neverland Valley Ranch and a home in Encino.” (see Motion to Compel, pg 12 of pdf file)

The defense also reveals that info from the 1993 investigation was presented “at length” to the grand jury in this current “case” as well. Jackson attorney Tom Mesereau writes in a letter to Sneddon dated August 11 2004:

The 1993 case was also referenced and presented to the grand jury in this case at length. Request is hearby made that your office produce all documents relating to the 1993 case, including but not limited to, all documents and items of evidence contained in the reference five boxes, the entire grand jury transcripts, and any and all documents referencing, directly or indirectly [redacted information]. (see Motion to Compel, pg 12 of pdf file)

Jackson’s defense also sent a 4-page request for this information to the DA as early as January 30 2004. And as of their Motion to Compel, filed in Sept 2004, they still haven’t received the information from prosecutors. So now we have ole Sneddon bragging that he has all this information. Well, by relying so heavily on the 93 investigation to further THIS “case,” he may have given Jackson’s defense the right to exonerate Jackson from the ’93 allegation as well. This could also be the catalyst of the recent furious and desperate media attack against Jackson about the 1993 investigation based on unfounded accusations (or outright lies) from the likes of Ray Chandler (Charmatz), Ernie Rizzo and Victor Gutierrez. Someone obviously is deathly afraid of what the defense will be able to get their hands on. That fear could be the reason why the defense was previously ignored by prosecutors until they filed this motion, and why prosecutors claimed in court that this information was “irrelevant”:

Defense counsel have informally requested the materials from the prior investigation…The prosecution has not responded in writing to this request. The prosecution has stated in court, however, that discovery from the prior investigation is irrelevant. (see Motion to Compel Discovery, pg5)

They were obviously being disingenuous, if not outright lying to the judge, when they claimed it was “irrelevant”. As mentioned earlier, also at issue are the results of forensic tests prosecutors have commissioned on things such as “computer data, DNA and fingerprints.” None of the results have been turned over to the defense. The results were asked for long ago, yet Sneddon & co. are STILL dragging their feet in giving the results to the defense. Afraid they’d have to tell the defense they found nothing, perhaps? The defamatory Dateline NBC report aired the night of Sept 3 2004. This is the same date the defense filed their Motion to Compel prosecutors to turn over their material from the ‘93 investigation. What a coincidence, huh? Maybe not. Some observers of the case have commented that they want to convict Jackson in the court of public opinion. Hence, the pushing of some mysterious alleged $2M settlement from 1990 to an ex-maid, who recanted her allegations of “abuse” under oath during a deposition around the 1993 investigation. Time will tell what the defense will do with this information. It’s already a part of this current “case”, whether prosecutors like it or not. What they tried to do was use the 1993 allegation to further this current “case”. Then when the defense asks for the results of their ‘93 investigation to prepare for a possible trial, they claim ’93 is “irrelevant”. Yeah, right. Stay tuned. -MJEOL

Leave a Reply

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