Reported sexual contact between Jackson and boy

[Rilchiam]

Jackson, boy had sexual contact

SANTA MARIA, California (CNN) -- A former security guard and a maid at Michael Jackson's Neverland Ranch testified Thursday they witnessed sexual contact between him and a young boy who received a multimillion-dollar settlement from the pop star in 1994.

The testimony from the former guard, Ralph Chacon, was the most salacious so far in Jackson's child molestation trial.

Chacon said he saw Jackson performing oral sex on the boy, who was 9 or 10 at the time, while the two of them were naked in a room outside of a shower.

Well, that better be it. He went down; now he's going down.

[Rilchiam]

Oh, and I'm certainly not letting the guard off the hook for not intervening then and there.

[Claude Remains]

You never hear of Jackson getting head from anyone, and I think that this fact speaks loudly in his honor. Micheal Jackson is a careing and giving person.

[Eve]

. . . Funny, the headline on the article about this in the Times today was "Holy Christ," too . . .

[GingerOfTheNorth]

I don't know how that is allowable evidence in this trial. I don't know the law is what I'm saying, not that I don't think it should be allowed.

[Campion]

Jackson is definitely in trouble. Unless the guard and the maid had some reason to fabricate their testimony. But they don't. I mean, that whole $16 million lawsuit they filed, lost and were ordered to pay $1.4 million to Jackson for was, like, so last year.

[Kythereia]

Don't cross Jackson off as a sinking ship yet--his lawyers have managed to keep him afloat so far...

[Trunk]

Originally Posted by Campion

Jackson is definitely in trouble. Unless the guard and the maid had some reason to fabricate their testimony. But they don't. I mean, that whole $16 million lawsuit they filed, lost and were ordered to pay $1.4 million to Jackson for was, like, so last year.

Now, how we ever gonna get a good lynching going 'round here if you people keep showing up with your fancy thinkin'?

[lieu]

I'm curious... with regard to the law and what testimony can be used to convict him of the current charges, what weight does this testimony hold? It's in regard to a pattern of behavior but it doesn't make him guilty of the allegations he's facing, being a completely seperate incident.

You know and I know and anyone with half a brain knows he's a ped and probably guilty as hell but can't his defense team simply point out that this has no bearing on the charges and isn't enough to warrant a conviction?

[NurseCarmen]

The defense did a pretty good job showing that this guy had an axe to grind. I suspect the jury will dismiss his testimony.

Now if Tito were to testify to the same thing, then the ship would surely be sunk.

[lieu]

Point being this looks every bit as damning as the Simpson blood trail... and just as dismissable.

Legal opinion?

[Bricker]

This is a very tricky area of the law.

In general (and I'll point out that California has some very specific laws about prior bad acts in sexual assualt cases, with which I am not expertly familiar) prior bad acts are inadmissible to prove that the accused acted in conformity therewith.

In simpler terms, that means you cannot show evidence of former crimes in order to argue to the jury that since he did it then, he must have done it this time, too.

You can, however, show prior bad acts if they reveal a common plan, scheme, design, or motive.

In the old days, it was enough for the prosecution to say, "This shows a lustful disposition!" and that counted as a motive. In today's world, it's generally not enough to merely point to two acts and say that they must both have been motivated by a lustful disposition. You should be able to point to unique aspects in the commission of the crime, things that you can reasonably conclude show the accused's unique signature. For example, if the current accuser testified that Jackson dressed as a clown before the acts, or demanded that the boy call him Bubbles, and the previous acts also had these characteristics, then they'd probably be admissible. But the mere fact that two acts, sexual in nature, are alleged doesn't make them admissible.

That's the general rule. As I said, California has Evidence Code §1108, which permits evidence of the commission of prior sexual offenses to be used against the defendant - period. Even if those prior offenses were never the subject of a criminal trial. I have no idea how this has actually been put in play, or what the Confrontation Clause implications of this rule are.

- Rick

[SkipMagic]

Rilchiam, I edited your thread title to something more descriptive.

Remember, all, to please use descriptive titles when creating your threads so we have an idea of what's going on.

- SkipMagic

[Nutty Bunny]

Originally Posted by Bricker

In simpler terms, that means you cannot show evidence of former crimes in order to argue to the jury that since he did it then, he must have done it this time, too.

I've been wondering how in the world the judge could allow witnesses that have nothing to do with this particular case to testify. It would be very easy for a jury to make the leap from "he had sex with a 13 year old over a decade ago" to "he had sex with a completely different 13 year old a couple of years ago", so I hope they follow the law (as you described) and not follow their emotions and the outrage they may feel.

Not that I'm defending Jackson. I was concerned about the legality of it.
Thanks for clearing that up.

[Campion]

What Bricker said, although I hadn't considered the Confrontation Clause. I suppose the theory is that he is being "confronted with the witnesses against him," because the people testifying are testifying only to their personal knowledge. I agree it's troublesome if Mrs. Mother comes in and testifies that Jackson molested her son ("no, I never saw it, but my son told me about it"), but that type of testimony would be excluded by the hearsay rule anyway.

Originally Posted by lieu

I'm curious... with regard to the law and what testimony can be used to convict him of the current charges, what weight does this testimony hold?

The jury is entitled to decide what weight to give the testimony. Once evidence is admitted, they have to consider it (i.e., think about it), but they can choose to disregard it entirely, or believe it entirely, or put it somewhere in between. The jury could decide that the guard has an axe to grind, so that he is generally not believable, but that he saw something and is exaggerating it for effect, but that nevertheless his testimony that he saw an "encounter" is credible.

[Guinastasia]

Anyone who has had experience in trials like this-what is the likely hood that PedoPan may take the stand?

[ioioio]

I'm pretty sure that I have more than half a brain, and I don't know that MJ is a ped. He may be or he may not be, but I'm not ready to convict him based on the testimony of people who very obviously have an axe to grind. Rilchiam, you were pretty selective in the news quotes you picked. Here's a quote from this link.

But McManus [the maid] also testified that when subpoenaed in the lawsuit that resulted in the 1994 settlement she did not tell attorneys that she had seen Jackson touching the boy.

"I didn't tell the truth. I said I didn't see anything," she said, asserting that she lied "the whole time" under oath.

Mesereau also pointed out that McManus and her husband were found in a lawsuit to have defrauded three children of more than $30,500 from their estate and that in the Jackson lawsuit she was assessed $30,000 for stealing a sketch of Elvis Presley that Jackson had drawn and selling it to a tabloid.

The former guard also acknowledged he was ordered to pay $25,000 for allegedly stealing Jackson's property, which he said was only a candy bar, and that at their lawyer's suggestion, the ex-employees sold a story to a tabloid for $17,000 to fund their lawsuit.

Bolding mine.

People lie. And they certainly are quite willing to lie when money is involved or when they're seeking revenge. I'd expect Dopers to be a little more skeptical about these witnesses.

[Diceman]

Originally Posted by laina_f

I'm pretty sure that I have more than half a brain, and I don't know that MJ is a ped. He may be or he may not be, but I'm not ready to convict him based on the testimony of people who very obviously have an axe to grind.

This is the problem. I think that Jackson's probably a ped, but the witnesses simply are not credible. The OJ Simpson trial had much better evidence than they have against Jackson.

[DiosaBellissima]

I'm inclined to agree with the majority: this testimony needs to be taken with a grain of salt.

One thing I can say: Mesereau is one hell of an attorney. Great attorney-hair, too .

[Lute Skywatcher]

Originally Posted by Rilchiam

Oh, and I'm certainly not letting the guard off the hook for not intervening then and there.

According to a former security chief, the standard Neverland contract places all employees under a gag order for up to five years after leaving employment.

[pinkfreud]

Originally Posted by Lute Skywatcher

According to a former security chief, the standard Neverland contract places all employees under a gag order for up to five years after leaving employment.

I bet some of 'em are ready to gag a lot sooner than that.

[Imasquare]

Originally Posted by lieu

...but can't his defense team simply point out that this has no bearing on the charges and isn't enough to warrant a conviction?

I don't think that would work. If they did convince the judge that the testimony should be disallowed would the judge just tell the jury to forget they had seen it? He might, but in reality they have seen it and it will help form their opinion of his innocence or guilt.

[Imasquare]

Originally Posted by Lute Skywatcher

According to a former security chief, the standard Neverland contract places all employees under a gag order for up to five years after leaving employment.

Even if they have witnessed criminal activity? Would the guard have kept quiet if he had witnessed a murder?

I believe that the guard (and the maid) who witnessed these criminal actions and kept quiet are just as guilty as Michael Jackson is (assuming they aren't telling Porkies).

[Campion]

Originally Posted by Imasquare

If they did convince the judge that the testimony should be disallowed would the judge just tell the jury to forget they had seen it? He might, but in reality they have seen it and it will help form their opinion of his innocence or guilt.

In legal parlance, "you can't unring a bell."

Originally Posted by Imasquare

I believe that the guard (and the maid) who witnessed these criminal actions and kept quiet are just as guilty as Michael Jackson is (assuming they aren't telling Porkies).

It's called misprision of felony -- witnessing a felony and not reporting it. I don't know if California recognizes it as a crime.

[Lute Skywatcher]

Originally Posted by Imasquare

Even if they have witnessed criminal activity? Would the guard have kept quiet if he had witnessed a murder?

Just a guess but gag orders probably don't have any bearing on being called to testify. It could deter reporting the crime, though - they could open themselves up to breach of contract proceedings. A case of damned if you do and damned if you don't.

[Mehitabel]

One of the lawyers on Court TV--I know, I know, grain of salt--said that being subpoened to witness in a criminal (not civil) case invalidates and trumps all such hush-up contracts.

CEMJ also apparently had actual thuglike guards who would intimidate the staff as well. One guy in particular was so fearsome the other guards didn't want to cross him.

[Guinastasia]

Originally Posted by Mehitabel

One of the lawyers on Court TV--I know, I know, grain of salt--said that being subpoened to witness in a criminal (not civil) case invalidates and trumps all such hush-up contracts.

CEMJ also apparently had actual thuglike guards who would intimidate the staff as well. One guy in particular was so fearsome the other guards didn't want to cross him.

Maybe they were talking about Anthony Pellicano? Damn, I am glad that guy's in prison-he was one freaky SOB.

[twelvericepaddies]

It seems passing strange that these people were allowed to testify at all - in every published (in the media) case involving women who claimed sexual something or other, their previous bad behaviour is never allowed to be mentioned. It is difficult to be sympathetic for such a donkey as MJ. I think all the hysteria by parents, peers & weirdos like tabloid bitch CNN Nancy Grace makes "touching" into something traumatic that should probably have just been ignored. But then how could they get $20 M. in a settlement?

[Marley23]

[quote=Rilchiam]Jackson, boy had sexual contact
It's gross, but not surprising. If you've got the stomach for it, you can read the boy's testimony over at The Smoking Gun. Jackson allegedly paid the kid $20 million to drop that suit.

[Tuckerfan]

Originally Posted by Guinastasia

Anyone who has had experience in trials like this-what is the likely hood that PedoPan may take the stand?

Generally, in a lot of cases, the defense doesn't like to put their guy on the stand, and it seems to work fairly well for them, since they keep doing it.

You know, I realize that it's possible MJ didn't do this, and there's evidence out there that some of his accusers might not be the most reliable witnesses, and that he's got a good attorney, but my mind keeps going back to that documentary where he and the kid who is now accussing him were sitting there holding hands. I can't shake that image from my mind. You know, that whole thing is just wrong. I have to say that based on that alone, if I were on the jury, it'd take a helluvalot of work on the defense's part to get me to vote not guilty.