MJEOL

Personal Vendetta Will Get Sneddon Tossed from Prosecuting Jackson? – MJEOL Bullet #208 In the defense’s Motion for Recusal of the Santa Barbara District Attorney’s Office, Michael Jackson’s lawyers say that the DA’s office has a conflict of interest which will make it “unlikely that Mr. Jackson will receive a fair trial.” Many observers of the “case” do agree that district attorney Tom Sneddon is too personally involved in this case; so much so that he may be blinded by a personal vendetta to fully understand the difference between ‘justice’ and what is his own vindictiveness. Jackson’s lawyers say that the current DA is so “blinded by his zeal” to prosecute Jackson that he has been involved in some of the most ridiculous behavior ever executed by a district attorney. They say that faced with retirement and a complete failure to prosecute Jackson in ’93, Sneddon “renewed his campaign against Mr. Jackson” after the Bashir documentary. The law on recusing a DA is as follows:

(1) a conflict of interest must exist and (2) the conflict must be “so grave as to render it unlikely that [the] defendant will receive fair treatment during all portions of the criminal proceedings” People v Griffin 33 Cal. App. 4th 536, 569 (2003) (citation omitted). (see Defense Motion to Recuse Santa Barbara District Atty pg 25 | pg 29 of .pdf file)

Astonishingly, the defense reveals that the original officer assigned to the case determined that there wasn’t any misconduct on Jackson’s part in their first, two-month investigation into this very allegation in 2003. If you remember, the sheriff’s notes, along with the accuser’s accusations, were leaked to NBC’s Mike Taibbi earlier this year.

Defense wants SBDA Tossed from Prosecuting Jackson – MJEOL Bullet #207 Reuters and the AP are reporting information about the defense’s motion to have the Santa Barbara District Attorneys office tossed from prosecuting Michael Jackson.  These reports are complete with comments from people like Laurie Levinson, Stan Goldman, and Steve Cron.

Fox News analyst Stan Goldman is quoted in the Reuter’s article as saying of the defense’s motion: “Forcibly recusing a District Attorney is a rarely granted motion.  There may be some animosity in this case but the defense is going to have to go pretty far to show enough to actually remove him”.

Cron is quoted as saying in the AP article: “The odds of being successful are very slim.  It would be highly unusual for a judge to take the whole district attorney’s office off a case”.

What these legal analysts fail to realize is that this isn’t a normal “case” that they’ve tried and/or taught about in a classroom.  What they also neglected to see is that this same district attorney’s office has already been very recently removed from prosecuting at least one other case: the Judge Diana Hall case.

As reported by the Santa Maria Times in a report dated September 30 2004, we lean that Sneddon and his office have been tossed from prosecuting Hall because of a huge conflict of interest not to mention what some say is vindictiveness and selective prosecution.  The State of California’s Attorney General’s office will prosecute the case instead.

Defense Rebukes Unlawful Raid on Personal Asst – MJEOL Bullet #206 In newly released court documents stamped September 29 2004, Michael Jackson’s attorneys state that the search of Jackson’s personal assistant was overbroad, an invasion of the defense camp and blatant trampling on Jackson’s rights.  They say that the information seized—including three folders labeled “Mesereau” and a fax to Tom Mesereau—is protected by attorney-client privilege.  Not to mention many items that were taken which fall outside the scope of the search warrant.

This motion came just days before Jackson’s attorneys filed a motion yesterday (Oct 4 2004) to have the Santa Barbara District Attorney’s Office thrown off this “case”.  That motion was filed under seal by attorney Robert Sanger.  More on that in upcoming news.

The defense’s Motion to Suppress Materials Seized Pursuant to Search Warrant Number 5135 show that prosecutors and police just can’t seem to keep their grubby little hands (and eyes) off of the defense’s work product.

The raid on Jackson’s personal assistant, whose name is redacted from the motion, occurred at her home where she “administers the business and personal affairs for Mr.  Jackson out of the office at her residence”.

She has been Jackson’s personal assistant for nearly 14 years.  The office is a part of her home but everything related to MJJ Productions is maintained in the office area.