Day: November 5, 2004

Sneddon Stays for Now as Defense Outlines his Misconduct – MJEOL Bullet #215 In court documents released November 2 2004, the defense replies to the prosecution’s opposition for recusal of the Santa Barbara District Attorney’s office. The defense rips into the arguments made by prosecutors in their Reply to the District Attorney’s Opposition to Motion for Recusal of Santa Barbara County District Attorney’s Office Pursuant to Penal Code 1424. The current judge in the “case”, not surprisingly, didn’t kick Sneddon off the “case” with his latest ruling. But this judge has made some questionable decisions already, so most saw him siding with prosecutors again as no surprise. But why did the defense want these prosecutors off the “case”? Their own actions are enough to get them tossed, many observers say. The defense says prosecutors don’t have a “personal” right to prosecute Jackson. They emphasize the fact that as a result of the 1993 investigation, two grand juries didn’t had down an indictment against Jackson. They also talk about the “more than sufficient” evidence which shows the prosecution’s bias. Defense attorneys say a prosecutor has an obligation to pursue cases in a fair manner, and that any deviation from this obligation should result in the removal of the prosecutor(s). They also talk about neutrality (or lack thereof) and the DA’s obvious bias:

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)