Prosecution Expert May be Blind-Alley, No Blow to Defense? The judge allows prosecutors to get their expert in, his/her testimony could prove to be a blind alley for prosecutors. Despite media exaggerations, the judges decision may not be a blow to the defense at all JAN 23 2005 — More whining came Jan 21 2005 from TV lawyer Dan Abrams and Anderson Cooper as they talked about what they considered to be a major “blow” for the defense. What amounted to a standard issue in the Michael Jackson “case” was elevated to a significant enough level to warrant about a two-segment discussion on Abrams and an overly-dramatic statement of events from Cooper. The defense did not want the prosecution to try to introduce “expert” testimony to attempt to explain away why the accuser gave numerous inconsistent statements and why the accuser didn’t act as if he were threatened or molested. This testimony, some analysts say, could turn into a blind alley for prosecutions and backfire under cross-examination. It seems prosecutors and defense attorneys will get to call their own experts and it is in the defense’s best interest to fight any attempts by prosecutors to stack the deck in this “case”. Of course, this isn’t what Abrams and the like see when they process this information. There does seem to be a disconnect with the way print journalists–who provide more detail–reported this latest development, and the way ratings-conscious broadcast media reported it. What is reported by print journalists as just one more of many rulings handed by down the judge since its inception, suddenly transformed into a “Setback for Jackson headline or a major blow to the defense once it hopped onto certain cable news shows.