MJEOL

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 judge’s 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.

[b]#239 Preview: [/b]More whining came yesterday (Jan 21 2005) from TV lawyer Dan Abrams and Anderson Cooper as they talked

Leaks Force a Jackson Reply, Media Hypocritical About Response – MJEOL Bullet #238 UPDATE Ridiculous comments from ABC’s Jim Avila spark questions from some observers about the hypocrisy of his statements concerning grand jury leaks JAN 20 2005 — More fallout from the illegally leaked grand jury transcripts as the judge in the Michael Jackson “case” allows Jackson to make a public statement about the leaks. Sources say prosecutors are upset at the judge’s decision. Some observers are surprised that prosecutors would have the audacity to be upset after the way their side leaked the grand jury transcripts and other sealed court documents to two different sources: Court TV-backed thesmokinggun and ABC news. In an attempt to poison the jury pool with their one-sided version of events, someone on the prosecution’s side or sympathetic to the prosecution, leaked the grand jury transcripts to the media along with other reports. However, as mentioned in MJEOL Bullet #237, some observers who were squarely behind prosecutors have now started to question the logic and validity of the story once they got some of the specific details about the allegations through these leaks. To some, trying to stack the deck against Jackson may have totally backfired. It seems ridiculous to have a gag order in place if prosecutors are allowed to break it in such an obvious way and not be held responsible or sanctioned in some way. And letting Jackson make a public statement not directly refuting the actual testimony can hardly be seen as an adequate enough remedy, say some.