Prosecutors Wanted Defense to Help Convict Jackson? – MJEOL Bullet #213 Did you know that prosecutors in the Michael Jackson “case” actually asked the defense to give them any incriminating evidence they thought the defense had against Jackson? No, that’s not a typo or a misunderstanding. It’s called a Sanchez motion and it was filed almost a year after police ransacked Jackson’s Neverland Ranch. The motion was denied, of course, but it brought up another issue about whether prosecutors are desperate enough to even claim the defense has an obligation to give them “inculpatory evidence.” For the record, inculpatory evidence (incriminating) is the opposite of exculpatory evidence (showing innocence). But the real problem is that there looks to be no incriminating evidence and prosecutors can’t find any. Not even after their over 100 search warrants. Yeah, there have been over 100 search warrants issued in this “case”. So they actually asked Judge Melville to make the defense give them some imagined incriminating evidence. Prosecutor Gerald Franklin—who is currently being sued, along with Sneddon and others, in federal court for $10M by attorney Gary Dunlap—writes that he is “certain the defense has possession of relevant and potentially inculpatory evidence which they have not tendered to the court.” Yes, he’s actually serious. The logic is that they claim Jackson is guilty and they “know” there is incriminating evidence. But since they can’t find any, they think the defense must have it. This seems nothing more than an ass-backwards guess on the prosecution’s part. Normally, you have all of your evidence long before a few months before trial. And certainly there should be more than just the accuser’s word almost a year after someone’s home has been raided. But, as mentioned earlier, there has been 100+ search warrants issued; a ridiculous amount to be sure. But the question is what don’t prosecutors have at this late date that they think the defense could give them? Evidence, perhaps? Some observers of the “case” say that this was a “hail mary” motion to begin with. While other observers have flat-out said it’s “pathetic” that prosecutors are asking the defense to help them convict Jackson. It wouldn’t have been more laughable if prosecutors had actually said ‘could you cut us some slack’ in the motion. Still other observers who have read the prosecution’s motion are skeptical as to whether or not they have a case. From media reports through sources, it was learned that there was no physical evidence whatsoever against Jackson. As reported, prosecutors took Jackson’s mattress to DNA testing and there was no DNA from the accuser on the mattress. There are many signs here that are very telling concerning what prosecutors want versus what they may have, if anything, against Jackson. They are just now asking the defense for information. However, the defense has recently filed motions to get info from prosecutors. Last time we checked in the court filings, the defense was still waiting on prosecutors to hand over all the full and complete search warrants they have taken out concerning this “case”. Thus, the problem is how in the world does the defense know what they are going to use at trial, and what they should turn over to prosecutors, if the prosecution still has not given them complete information. For all the prosecution’s posturing concerning the 1993 investigation alone, it would seem prosecutors don’t want the defense to crack open that “case” and shake out the people that profited from it. In response to the prosecution’s Sanchez Motion, the defense says:

The prosecution is attempting to circumvent Mr. Jackson’s rights under the Fifth, Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution and California’s law by asserting that Sanchez requires a defendant and his counsel to assist the prosecution in their efforts to convict him. (see Defense’s Opposition to the Prosecution’s Sanchez Motionpg 4| pg 5 of .pdf)

They further state that under California’s reciprocal law, the defense is not required to give prosecutors anything that they do not plan to use at trial. Pointing out what most observers have caught onto after reading the prosecution’s motion, the defense say prosecutors—who have the burden to provide proof—have asked for a “wish list” of information which they hope they can use as evidence against Jackson. From the motion:

Instead, the District Attorney has submitted a wish list of materials and requests for production of documents that it hopes would be helpful to its case. The prosecution invites the Court to expand the holding of Sanchez to cover these items without a showing that they even exist, let alone that they are in the possession of Mr. Jackson’s counsel. There is no case law to support such an interpretation of Sanchez (see pg 5| pg 6 of .pdf)

One point of contention was the tape, Item 818, of the family exonerating Jackson. Prosecutors say their copy of the tape was shorter than the copy the defense obtained. The defense has agreed to give prosecutors a copy of their copy of Item 818. From the defense’s Opposition motion:

Sheriff’s Item 818, a copy of the interviews of February 16 2003, with Jane Doe and her three children, was one of the items seized from Bradley Miller’s office. Prior counsel, Mark Geragos, attempted to have the tape suppressed and returned on the basis of attorney-client privilege as to the contents of the tape itself… However, the defendant, by successor counsel, argued that the seizure of the item was unlawful on several additional grounds, including invasion of the defense camp, and moved to suppress it and all of the evidence seized at the November 18 2003 search of Mr. Miller’s office. (see pg 3| pg 4 of .pdf)

That evidence, by the way, includes things like the family being caught on tape saying that Jackson did nothing wrong. The transcript of the family exonerating Jackson was used by the defense when they cross-examined the accuser’s mother on September 17 2004 in a pre-trial hearing. In a breaking news report here at MJEOL, and thanks to courtroom observers who provided the information to MJJForum, the transcript and tape showed that Brad Miller told the mother that he worked for Mark Geragos…twice; once at the beginning of the conversation and once at the end. The tape was possibly going to be used to impeach the credibility of these people. Prosecutors got the tape and used it as a part of some conspiracy by claiming the accusing family was forced to vindicate Jackson. ‘Forced’….while at the stepfather’s house…not at Neverland…and around the time when the mother and stepfather were brokering deals with reporters trying to get $15,000 for an interview (see Stepfather Asked for Money from Jackson & 2 Reporters). ‘Forced’, yeah right. That, of course, wasn’t the only time they vindicated Jackson of abuse allegations. They also told the Los Angeles Department of Family Services that Jackson did nothing wrong. The mother told DCFS workers, repeatedly, that her children were never left “alone” with Jackson. This fact was confirmed by Mark Geragos, Jackson’s then-attorney, during the CBS 60 Minutes interview. During the CBS show, a transcript of which was posted on their website December 28 2003, Geragos said:

MARK GERAGOS: They were, at all times during that February 7 to March 10 period of time, whenever Michael was there, there was always a third party around. Always. (see Jackson 60 Minutest Interview Transcript)

The mother also told DCFS that her son has slept in Jackson’s “bedroom”; more like a “personal living quarters” which is 2 stories high, has 3 bathrooms, an 80 inch TV, grand piano, etc according to Mac Culkin, Bryan Stoller and a number of people that have seen it and spoken about it in the press. The fact that Jackson never slept in the same bed with the accuser was confirmed by the accuser himself in the Martin Bashir “documentary”. Even he says Jackson slept on the floor, went on to described what Jackson lay on while on the floor, and even corrected Jackson about what he (Jackson) slept on while on the floor. When presented with a chance to tell the truth, neither of these newly-minted “victims” of abduction and kidnapping said Jackson, nor anyone else, was guilty of anything. From the summary memo concerning the February 2003 investigation:

The child [the accuser] was interviewed by the CSW as to the allegations and he denied any form of sexual abuse. He denied that he never slept in the same bed as the entertainer. The child [the accuser’s brother] also denied sexual abuse. Both children expressed a fondness for the entertainer and stated they enjoyed visiting his home, where they would often ride in the park, play video games, and watch movies. The oldest sibling…(age 16) was also interviewed by the CSW. She stated that she had accompanied her brothers on sleepovers at the entertainers home and had never seen anything sexually inappropriate between her brothers and the entertainer. (see DCFS Memo Clearing Jackson of Abuse Allegation)

For the record, Child Services workers take each child, separate them from one another and from the parent(s), and talk to them about the allegations. DCFS found the allegations, sparked by a complaint from a teacher with zero evidence, to be completely “unfounded”. Getting back to that tape of them exonerating Jackson, the defense says they don’t know why their copy of the tape—a copy of which the police snatched from Miller’s office–is purportedly different than the one prosecutors have. They don’t know “whether the prosecution miscopied the tape or if the copy found in Mr. Miller’s office (Item 818) was shorter then the version of the same interview” (pg 3 | pg 4 of .pdf). As a matter of fact, the defense says they have no information that bears any resemblance to anything even remotely related to incriminating evidence. Prosecutors also wanted the defense to hand-over other materials. To that, they say that Jackson “objects to being asked to turn over items protected by the attorney-client privilege,” (Opposition to Prosecution’s Sanchez Motion pg 5 | pg6 of pdf). If you remember, prosecutors and police already took attorney-client privileged information from Miller’s office and from Jackson’s person assistant. The personal assistant’s office was raided recently and caused the defense to file an Emergency Application regarding the matter (see Prosecutors Break Atty-Client Privilege…Again). Now the prosecution wanted defense attorneys to hand-over more privileged information. They say the burden is on prosecutors to show that the info they seek 1) actually exists and 2) isn’t protected by the attorney-client privilege (A/C). For example, a crime by an attorney would knock down the A/C privilege. “This is not a case where crime or fraud by an attorney has been alleged,” writes the defense team. Although, Sneddon and his team have gotten into major trouble for accusing attorneys of misconduct, which later turns out to be completely false. Just ask Gary Dunlap…and possibly Art Montandon. The defense also blasts prosecutors for making off-handed and serious allegations against someone (or people) whose name(s) is blacked out in the motion:

The District Attorney in an almost offhanded fashion includes [redacted info] as a “named or unnamed co-conspirator” in its list of items to be compelled. (Sanchez Motion, pages 8-9) There is no mention of [redacted] in the argument portion of the prosecution’s declaration to support such a reference. This is a serious allegation [redacted] made in a careless and offhanded manner which must be characterized as another instance of overreaching by the prosecution. …Here, the invasion of the defense camp and the intrusion of the attorney-client privilege are already being litigated regarding the search of Bradley Miller’s offices. The careless and offhanded reference to [redacted] only exacerbates the prosecution’s actions. (see pg 6| pg7 of pdf)

What’s more, the defense says that prosecutors were trying to “impermissibly lessen the burden of proof” the prosecutors have to meet in order to bring a “case”. Both the Sanchez motion and the response to the defense’s motion to have Sneddon tossed from prosecuting the case—soon to be talked about as well—either show a prosecution team in a total panic for lack of evidence or trying to cover up the fact they have no evidence by smart-ass remarks. Stay tuned. -MJEOL

Leave a Reply

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