Opposition to DA’s Request to Admit Seized Evid. Of “Erotic Material”

Opposition to DA’s Request to Admit Seized Evid. Of “Erotic Material” Excerpts: (pg2-3) The problem with the prosecution’s argument is that the prosecution has failed to establish a foundation that these materials are relevant to material issues in this case. Instead they are seeking to introduce anything that might sway the jury, whether relevant or not. The District Attorney has a “belief” that the seized materials are evidence of a scheme or intent to molest. (Motion, page 8). A ‘belief’ is not enough. He has to adequately establish a foundation to introduce these or any other materials to the jury. The District Attorney’s beliefs are so far ranging that he believes that if anyone has anything {redacted} it can be introduced to bolster a weak, conflicting and dishonest witness. (pg3) Furthermore, the District Attorney believes that he can argue that these items would be considered for the opposite of what they, in fact, are. According to the District Attorney, {redacted lines} The description of the seized evidence tell us more about the minds of the prosecutors than about the mind of Mr. Jackson. {redacted lines} The prosecution puts all of these lawful materials together and argues that they are admissible because they provide useful fodder for the prosecution’s bolstering “experts.” This argument is not the legal equivalent of a foundation to put these materials in front of a jury. (pg 4) There is no probative value to these materials. They are to be introduced simply to distract [from] the underlying case the prosecution built on the allegations of a family of opportunists. Instead of acknowledging the obvious and dismissing the case, the prosecution seeks to bring in “experts” and distraction with the hope that the jury will “believe” Mr. Jackson to be guilty in the absence of actual proof.