if i was a juror on MJ’s trial, with the amnt of info provided by Prosecutors, INCLUDING, alllegations towards MJ (previous child sex abuse), I’d say “confict the fucker now!” So what could possibly compel Jay to come to his defense??? Mabe the ONE FACT that Jay Leno is not, never has been, maybe never WANTS to be, a FATHER, that he cannot see the high probability of these allegations, REGARDLESS of the mother’s credibility–it’s the child’s pov and recollections of events that should matter, not HERS!
There’s a pretty good reason. Leno contacted the authorities a few years ago when the kid’s parents were ocntacting different celebrities Make-a-Wish style, hitting them up for money and free stuff 'cause the kid was sick. He told the cops he thought they were con artists.
But from what I’ve seen, the joking aside, it seems pretty clear that he thinks MJ is a molester.
In California, as in many states, there is a form of legal process known as a “subpoena.” When a court issues a subpoena to a person within that court’s jurisdiction, the person to whom the subpoena is issued (the “target”) must comply with the subpoena or risk being found in contempt of court. If the target is within the state of California, he or she is theoretically within the court’s power. Thus, Jay Leno, as a state resident and person whose job requires him to be in California, is within the court’s subpoena power.
The defense may issue subpoenas, pursuant to the power of the court, to require people to attend and testify at trial. The prosecution may do the same.
Consequently, Mr. Leno may have decided that, since they had the right and ability to require him to testify, he may as well cooperate with them by showing up voluntarily and telling the truth. If you are taking issue with Mr. Leno for obeying the law, we are in disagreement. If you are taking issue with the right of a criminal defendant to mount a defense at trial, again, we are in disagreement.
If your view of things is correct, the jury will issue a verdict in accord with your sentiments. I am a bit surprised, however, as I did not know that many spectators were issued seats in the courthouse. But good for you for getting a seat and seeing every piece of evidence presented before reaching your decision about a man’s guilt or innocence. Too many people these days rely for their opinions solely on “entertainment” television, or the highly expurgated newspaper accounts of a trial reported by those whose knowledge of criminal procedure is scant. I congratulate you for not falling into that trap.
I wonder if the OP is also pissed at Maccully Culkin(sp?), who testified under oath that he was never molested by Michael Jackson, directly contradicting the testimony of one of Jackson’s ex-employees who insisted he saw Mike groping Mac.
(“Innocent until proven guilty” is apparently such a quaint notion these days)
Actually, Leno testified that the accuser never hit him up for money, and contrary to what Jackson’s lawyer said in opening arguments, Leno never had to contact the police.
