Day: November 24, 2004

Defense: DA Attempting to Shield Witnesses from Cross-Examination – MB#226 Prosecutors complained to the judge that Jackson’s attorneys wanted too much information about the accusing family. Now the defense has responded to the prosecution’s claims. They say the DA is attempting to “shield” the accusing family from scrutiny, and also want the defense to reveal their strategy in newly released documents dated Nov 23 2004. In the defense’s Opposition to District Attorney’s Request that Court Modify It’s Teal Order, they say that in accordance with the law they are not required to reveal defense strategy to prosecutors. They also make the argument that DA Tom Sneddon had an opportunity to question the Teal motion’s scope. Now these prosecutors want to change the game to handicap the defense. The defense also says the very notion of a Teal motion—which allows defense attorneys to “develop and investigate their cases” without notifying prosecutors of their intentions—would be meaningless if they had to clear their subpoenas with prosecutors. From the motion:

Defense counsel is not required to disclose potential defense strategies or work product to the prosecutor as a condition of receiving documents produced pursuant to a subpoena duces tecum. (See Teal v Superior Court (Barrett) (2000) 80 Cal. App. 4th 1305, 1320.) (see Defense’s Reply to DA’s Request to Modify Teal Motion 11-24-04 pg 2)