Opposition to DA’s Motion in Limine Re: Evidence Code Section 402 Issues

Opposition to DA’s Motion in Limine Re: Evidence Code Section 402 Issues Excerpts: (pg 8) It is entirely proper for defense counsel to take issue with the motivations of the prosecution, in light of the facts of the case. The fact is that Mr. Sneddon did get personally involved in this case. He went to a defense investigator’s office and took pictures. He personally interviewed _________ and showed her key photographs. He took possession of evidence. He arranged for Mrs. ________ to obtain money. He interviewed her without an officer present. This was in addition to him personally going to Mr. Jackson’s residence on at least four occasions to conduct searches, to traveling to Australia to try to get a witness to testify against Mr. Jackson, to holding press conferences and making inappropriate remarks, to having a standing request on his website for people to testify against Mr. Jackson Mr. Sneddon made himself a witness — particularly as to what ________ said and did at the interview with her. It was a key interview because [redacted]. He is subject to being impeached for bias, just like anyone else. (pg6-7) Regarding the claim that defense counsel have to present all evidence of a lack of credibility of the complaining witnesses to the court before impeaching them turns the process on its head. First, defense counsel are allowed to cross-examine by way of anything for which there is a good faith belief. Second, defense counsel do not have to give the government a preview [of] all of our impeachment evidence before the prosecution puts on witnesses who may lie. Third, defense counsel are well aware of the rules of evidence and know what is likely to be admitted. Defense counsel have substantial, admissible and sold evidence to establish that [redacted]. Regrettably, the prosecution does not subject its own evidence to the same scrutiny they seek to subject ours. If they did they would not be prosecuting Michael Jackson. We can only conclude that it is the fact that Michael Jackson is a celebrity — or some other extraneous factor– that would cause them to proceed to trial with the kind of impeachable witnesses they have here. One example will suffice. Mr. Auchincloss, in an effort to gloss over the failures of his witnesses says that [redacted]. This court should remember that disingenuous gloss the next time Mr. Auchincloss or one of his fellow Deputy District Attorneys comes to court prosecuting someone for one tenth of what Mrs. _______ perpetrated. But, it is not just the [redacted] it is the fact that it occurred during the very times she claims that she was being kidnapped by Michael Jackson. (pg 8, footnote 5) Mr. Auchincloss has repeatedly made ad hominem attacks to belittle Mr. Jackson and defense counsel in open court an din his pleadings. For example, Mr. Auchincloss compared the arguments of defense counsel to the cry of an anxious goat or sheep, in open court on December 20 2004, when he described the words of defense counsel as “frantic bleating”. That is an ad hominem attack. (p8-9) In this case, law enforcement has recorded virtually every interview whether it was significant or not. They have hundreds of interviews recorded on audiotape, CD and DVD. They are extremely careful to claim to have preserved statements of every witness. For instance, they recorded interviews with people like ____________ _____________, and __________. These people were not material witnesses in any sense, but they wanted to portray the image of being thorough and above board. It is inconceivable that any proper law Enforcement officer in this case, following these procedures, would think that it is appropriate to interview the key complaining witness, at a key stage in the development of her testimony, without: (a) having an investigator present; (b) writing a report as to what she said; and © tape recording or videotaping the meeting. Mr. Sneddon did none of these things. (pg 9-10) Most remarkably, however, Mr. Auchincloss threatens the defense in the second full paragraph of page 6. He says, in essence, that, if we attempt to impeach Mr. Sneddon or it we even comment on the prosecution’s motivation, he will release “everything [Mr. Sneddon] knows about the defendant.” There are three answering to this: First, we will be renewing our motion to recuse the District Attorney. Clearly, the personal bias has extended from Mr. Sneddon to his deputy, Mr. Auchincloss. Mr. Auchincloss’ response to legitimate concerns of the defense — is Mr. Sneddon biased and, whether or not he is biased, how can a prosecution overlook so much evidence — is to attempt to extort the defense into withdrawing such legitimate evidence form the jury. Mr. Auchincloss’ litany of things he will do so that “[t]he defense does not want to go there”‘ are clearly inadmissible and bullying. The undersigned is aware that the defense made a motion to recuse which was denied, however, it would be malpractice to not renew the motion based on this clear evidence of vindictive behavior by one of Mr. Sneddon’s deputies. :nav Opposition to DA’s Motion in Limine Re: Evidence Code Section 402 Issues