What do Michael Jacksons defense attorneys want to know regarding what Tom Sneddon told Diane Dimond, Gloria Allred, Larry Feldman,
Day: October 6, 2004
Defendant’s Motion to Compel – Stamped Oct 6 2004
Order for release of redacted Documents Defendant’s Motion to Compel This is really interesting. On page 9 of the .pdf
Defense wants SBDA Tossed from Prosecuting Jackson MJEOL Bullet #207
Defense wants SBDA Tossed from Prosecuting Jackson MJEOL Bullet #207 Reuters and the AP are reporting information about the defenses motion to have the Santa Barbara District Attorneys office tossed from prosecuting Michael Jackson. These reports are complete with comments from people like Laurie Levinson, Stan Goldman, and Steve Cron.
Fox News analyst Stan Goldman is quoted in the Reuters article as saying of the defenses motion: Forcibly recusing a District Attorney is a rarely granted motion. There may be some animosity in this case but the defense is going to have to go pretty far to show enough to actually remove him.
Cron is quoted as saying in the AP article: The odds of being successful are very slim. It would be highly unusual for a judge to take the whole district attorneys office off a case.
What these legal analysts fail to realize is that this isnt a normal case that theyve tried and/or taught about in a classroom. What they also neglected to see is that this same district attorneys office has already been very recently removed from prosecuting at least one other case: the Judge Diana Hall case.
As reported by the Santa Maria Times in a report dated September 30 2004, we lean that Sneddon and his office have been tossed from prosecuting Hall because of a huge conflict of interest not to mention what some say is vindictiveness and selective prosecution. The State of Californias Attorney Generals office will prosecute the case instead.