Month: April 2005

MJEOL Bullet Preview — Witness Testimony turns into a Pile of Garbage on Cross-examination What other way to give a

Spotty Memory of Prosecution Witness Undermines Credibility? – MJEOL Bullet #256 Pundit-touted Jason Francia turns from alleged “powerful witness” to the king of forgetfulness under cross-examination APRIL 6 2005 — It’s always nice to be able to read the court transcripts instead of only relying on reports from cable news shows about what happens in court. The testimony of Jason Francia is a perfect example of how pundits can create “powerful” testimony and ignore serious problems revealed under cross-examination. Tuesday (April 5 2005), you could have cast the role of “Chicken Little” with Dan Abrams over at MSNBC. His repeated cries of “powerful testimony” and wide-eyed claims of the witness “holding up under cross examination” was enough to make some observers watching to comment: “He should calm down a little. This is a trial, not a football game”. The ridiculousness going on over at Court TV goes without saying. No surprise there. The heralding of his testimony is made all the more questionable once one actually reads the transcript of what ‘Mr. I Don’t Know’ had to say when being questioned by the defense. And later, under cross-examination of his mother, the defense brought out that Jackson was on a World tour from 1987-1989 – frequently out of the country — during the time when J. Francia has claimed some of his alleged “molestation” occurred in Los Angeles. Oops! But regardless of what one wants to say concerning the testimony of Jason Francia, it was fraught with a number of stunning things that the defense delved into under cross-examination. And what came off as evasiveness didn’t help the prosecution. Indeed, every witness has two faces. Yesterday (April 5), the media was abuzz with this so-called “credible” testimony from this 24 year old witness, who claimed Jackson fondled him in 1987, 1988 and 1990; with some pundits wondering how Mesereau was going to challenge his story. One of the first things to be hit upon by Mesereau was the fact that J. Francia denied any molestation occurred. Some observers didn’t realize that until it was brought out in open court.

Even Francia Testimony Problematic for the Prosecution – MiniBullet #17
Reported previous admission by Jason Francia throws into doubt his entire allegation

APRIL 5 2005  — You could have cast the role of "Chicken Little" with Dan Abrams over at MSNBC today. His repeated cries of "powerful testimony" and claims of the witness "holding up under cross examination" was enough to make some observers watching to comment: "He should calm down a little. This is a trial, not a football game".

The ridiculousness going on over at Court TV goes without saying. No surprise there. But regardless of what one wants to say about the testimony of Jason Francia, it was fraught with a number of stunning things that the defense delved into under cross-examination.

Indeed, every witness has two faces.  Yesterday, the media was abuzz with this so-called “credible” testimony from this 24 year old witness, with some prosecutors wondering how Mesereau was going to challenge his story. J. Francia admitted that he at first denied any molestation, which some people didn’t realize until it was brought out in court.

Well, Mesereau, under the scope of cross-examination – the full details may come out during the defense’s case – really got some interesting admissions from both Jason Francia and his mother, Blanca Francia. As soon as we get the transcripts, we’ll know more about what was brought out.

It is tantamount to pulling teeth to get a full breakdown from the media about what was said under cross-examination of Francia’s mother, Blanca Francia.  But a few details, by way of MSNBC’s Mike Taibbi made it’s way out of the courtroom and onto the air.

Anyway, also appearing on that Abrams show today was MSNBC Analyst Ron Richards to put some of this alleged "powerful testimony" into context.

The first point made by Ron Richards was that people, like Abrams — in his "big trouble for the defense" declarations — act as if Jackson’s attorneys was suppose to decimate the accuser on the stand and force him into a Perry Mason-moment where he admits he lied.