I personally don't care about MJ but I think that some people would like to know what happen... so here it is:
SANTA MARIA, Calif., May 27 - Both sides rested today in the child-molesting trial of Michael Jackson without the defense presenting any witnesses to blunt the effects of a belated prosecution showing of a 2003 videotape interview of his accuser.
Mr. Jackson, his lawyers and prosecutors left the courthouse here this afternoon without speaking to reporters, under limits on public statements the judge imposed on principals and witnesses early in the proceedings. After three months of testimony, the case is expected to go to the jury next week. Jurors, who are not being sequestered, will return on Wednesday, with closing arguments likely to begin either then or Thursday.
The jurors watched the tape in a darkened courtroom today for one hour four minutes. Afterward, some appeared uncomfortable, with a few holding tissues in their laps.
The prosecution had argued that the jury was entitled to see the tape of the July 6, 2003, interview at sheriff's headquarters because it would counter defense arguments that the accuser had been inconsistent in his accounts and testimony against Mr. Jackson. The defense had threatened to rebut the tape by recalling the boy and perhaps other witnesses to the stand. Jurors last saw the boy, on the witness stand, in early March.
On the tape, the boy, 13 at the time, appeared bashful and hesitant in telling two detectives about activities that he said Mr. Jackson had engaged him in, including several instances in which he said the singer had given him alcohol and sexually abused him.
"Boys have to masturbate because if you don't you could go crazy," the accuser said Mr. Jackson had told him. "He said he wanted to show me how to masturbate. And I said no. He said he'd do it for me." The boy said Mr. Jackson had done so on about five occasions.
At another point, the boy said Mr. Jackson had plied him with wine. "He kept on saying, 'Drink it drink it,'" the boy said. "My head started hurting and stuff." He added that he had also seen Mr. Jackson appear drunk himself.
On Wednesday, when the defense rested its case, Mr. Sanger argued that the prosecution's move to present the first public showing of the tape was part of an effort to end the trial with a grand, lasting gesture, a way to have the boy in front of the jury again without cross-examination. Hence the defense's threat to call the boy himself as a witness.
But that could have backfired, Craig A. Smith, a professor at the Santa Barbara College of Law, said at the time.
"There's a definite downside to calling the accuser back to the stand after the video," Professor Smith said. "He would be a more sympathetic figure. If he's one of the last witnesses to testify, that's the last impression the jury is going to have."
On Thursday, Judge Rodney S. Melville ruled that prosecutors could show the jury the videotape, made on July 6, 2003, when two officers interviewed the boy about his accusations that Mr. Jackson had sexually molested him.
In arguing whether the tape should be shown to jurors, defense lawyers had said in court that the showing of the video gave them the option of calling the boy back to the stand, as well as his mother, to try to rebut the contents of the interview.
In addition, the defense indicated that it might call back Larry Feldman, a lawyer who discussed the case with the boy and his family when the accusations against Mr. Jackson surfaced, and Stan J. Katz, the psychologist to whom Mr. Feldman sent the boy. All that testimony could have taken awhile and further prolonged the trial, and the defense team evidently decided not to pursue a rebuttal.
Judge Melville did not allow the prosecution to show jurors pictures of Mr. Jackson's penis that were taken in 1993, when the singer was accused of having sexually abused a boy in a separate case. That boy said Mr. Jackson's genitalia bore unique markings. The case was settled after Mr. Jackson paid the boy and his family more than $20 million.
With the pictures, which apparently corroborated the boy's claim about the markings, the prosecution team had hoped to undermine Mr. Jackson's claim that his habit of sharing his bed with boys is innocent. The singer said so on television in December 1993, and complained he had felt humiliated when police investigators forced him to reveal himself for the photo session.
One of his lawyers, Robert M. Sanger, protested on Thursday that the prosecution's attempt to introduce the pictures was an "unfair surprise." He said the prosecution had "not even hinted that they were going to try this tactic."
Mr. Sanger said it would be "tremendously prejudicial" for the jury to see the pictures. The judge agreed.
Source: http://www.nytimes.com/2005/05/27/n...3426ab602290f3&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss
SANTA MARIA, Calif., May 27 - Both sides rested today in the child-molesting trial of Michael Jackson without the defense presenting any witnesses to blunt the effects of a belated prosecution showing of a 2003 videotape interview of his accuser.
Mr. Jackson, his lawyers and prosecutors left the courthouse here this afternoon without speaking to reporters, under limits on public statements the judge imposed on principals and witnesses early in the proceedings. After three months of testimony, the case is expected to go to the jury next week. Jurors, who are not being sequestered, will return on Wednesday, with closing arguments likely to begin either then or Thursday.
The jurors watched the tape in a darkened courtroom today for one hour four minutes. Afterward, some appeared uncomfortable, with a few holding tissues in their laps.
The prosecution had argued that the jury was entitled to see the tape of the July 6, 2003, interview at sheriff's headquarters because it would counter defense arguments that the accuser had been inconsistent in his accounts and testimony against Mr. Jackson. The defense had threatened to rebut the tape by recalling the boy and perhaps other witnesses to the stand. Jurors last saw the boy, on the witness stand, in early March.
On the tape, the boy, 13 at the time, appeared bashful and hesitant in telling two detectives about activities that he said Mr. Jackson had engaged him in, including several instances in which he said the singer had given him alcohol and sexually abused him.
"Boys have to masturbate because if you don't you could go crazy," the accuser said Mr. Jackson had told him. "He said he wanted to show me how to masturbate. And I said no. He said he'd do it for me." The boy said Mr. Jackson had done so on about five occasions.
At another point, the boy said Mr. Jackson had plied him with wine. "He kept on saying, 'Drink it drink it,'" the boy said. "My head started hurting and stuff." He added that he had also seen Mr. Jackson appear drunk himself.
On Wednesday, when the defense rested its case, Mr. Sanger argued that the prosecution's move to present the first public showing of the tape was part of an effort to end the trial with a grand, lasting gesture, a way to have the boy in front of the jury again without cross-examination. Hence the defense's threat to call the boy himself as a witness.
But that could have backfired, Craig A. Smith, a professor at the Santa Barbara College of Law, said at the time.
"There's a definite downside to calling the accuser back to the stand after the video," Professor Smith said. "He would be a more sympathetic figure. If he's one of the last witnesses to testify, that's the last impression the jury is going to have."
On Thursday, Judge Rodney S. Melville ruled that prosecutors could show the jury the videotape, made on July 6, 2003, when two officers interviewed the boy about his accusations that Mr. Jackson had sexually molested him.
In arguing whether the tape should be shown to jurors, defense lawyers had said in court that the showing of the video gave them the option of calling the boy back to the stand, as well as his mother, to try to rebut the contents of the interview.
In addition, the defense indicated that it might call back Larry Feldman, a lawyer who discussed the case with the boy and his family when the accusations against Mr. Jackson surfaced, and Stan J. Katz, the psychologist to whom Mr. Feldman sent the boy. All that testimony could have taken awhile and further prolonged the trial, and the defense team evidently decided not to pursue a rebuttal.
Judge Melville did not allow the prosecution to show jurors pictures of Mr. Jackson's penis that were taken in 1993, when the singer was accused of having sexually abused a boy in a separate case. That boy said Mr. Jackson's genitalia bore unique markings. The case was settled after Mr. Jackson paid the boy and his family more than $20 million.
With the pictures, which apparently corroborated the boy's claim about the markings, the prosecution team had hoped to undermine Mr. Jackson's claim that his habit of sharing his bed with boys is innocent. The singer said so on television in December 1993, and complained he had felt humiliated when police investigators forced him to reveal himself for the photo session.
One of his lawyers, Robert M. Sanger, protested on Thursday that the prosecution's attempt to introduce the pictures was an "unfair surprise." He said the prosecution had "not even hinted that they were going to try this tactic."
Mr. Sanger said it would be "tremendously prejudicial" for the jury to see the pictures. The judge agreed.
Source: http://www.nytimes.com/2005/05/27/n...3426ab602290f3&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss
