Want to become an instant millionaire and have a minor child? Let the child stay overnight with by Jackson. 
Posted on 11/20/2003 3:19:33 AM PST by kattracks
LOS ANGELES (AP) — Charges against Michael Jackson won't be derailed by a settlement, a prosecutor says, and the reason is a law passed in response to the last time the pop singer was accused of molestation, when the accuser refused to testify."It is an irony," Santa Barbara District Attorney Tom Sneddon said in an interview with The Associated Press. "The history of the law is that the L.A. district attorney's office carried the legislation as a direct result of the civil settlement in the first investigation."
Sneddon baffled legal experts when he seemed to imply in a nationally televised news conference Wednesday morning that state law had changed since the 1993 case so that prosecutors could force minors to testify. In that case, Jackson's alleged victim refused to testify against him after reportedly receiving a multimillion settlement from Jackson.
"The law in California at that time provided that a child victim could not be forced to testify in a child molest proceeding without their permission and consent and cooperation," Sneddon said. "As a result of the (first) Michael Jackson case, the Legislature changed that law and that is no longer the law in California."
But Sneddon later told the AP he was referring to a change that allow prosecutors to intervene in a civil action and stop it, removing the monetary incentive for someone to wait for the outcome of a civil case before they decide whether to testify in a criminal trial.
"The practical effect is that they cooperate" with prosecutors in the criminal case, he said.
Sneddon said he was aware that children cannot be forced to testify, and that reporters and other attorneys had misinterpreted his remarks at the news conference.
Loyola University Law Professor Laurie Levenson said she was fielding calls all day from members of the legal community and other professionals who deal with molestation victims who were baffled by the district attorney's comments.
"I think he misspoke and he was confusing," Levenson said. "In a case of this magnitude with this much media attention, there is a responsibility to be more precise."
"This could affect other potential victims who wonder if they come forward will they be forced to testify. It is a bad message and it's not a good first impression. ... Everyone interpreted him as saying he could now force witnesses to testify. It was a disservice in that what he said may be scaring off other victims."
Sneddon's mention of compelling testimony was especially puzzling, legal experts said, because he also stated that the child now making allegations against Jackson is willing to testify and has no plans to bring a civil suit.
If Sneddon's interpretation of the law is accurate, it could be a significant boon to prosecutors, said Donald Steier, an attorney who has represented several priests accused of molestation.
"It's an area of law that has really changed dramatically in the last few years through legislation that makes it a lot easier to prosecute molestation cases," he said. "This might be another example of the shift toward easing the burden of the prosecutor."
So someone who makes the charge they were abused should have to appear in the trial.
I know, that silly ole constatushathingy.
I'm no Jackson fan either but whoever the accused is, I think the accusor should show up for the trial. (Rather than the lawyer's office to pick up a 20 million dollar check....)
All the Michael Jackson stories will ocupy the media, which always seems to go for the easy stuff. It's easy to beat a known story to death rewording it ad nauseum than to actually get out and do some reporting.
Want to become an instant millionaire and have a minor child? Let the child stay overnight with by Jackson.
More than likely, Sneddon was using the press to speak directly to Jackson and his lawyers; telling them to not even try to contact the family.
I'm not sure I understand the "experts'" puzzlement. Couldn't anyone have asked Sneddon to clarify his statements, maybe even before deciding to print them?
Damn, we have a couple of joints in our possession and, "up against the wall", and "slam"...the door closes!
Could you imagine what a prosecutor in California would do to a parent who had a child accidentally killed by a gun in the house once, and then had the same thing happen again years later?
I mean, HELLO!!! The dude is creepy, weird and way too friendly with children. KEEP YOUR KIDS AWAY FROM HIM.
This "no charges against the parent" observation leads to another observation: Where were the authorities? I mean, you're watching the guy, you see kids going in and out. In their position, I would have warned the parents. It seems like this was NOT done.
Was the prosecutor Dom Sheldon (Tom Sheddon) hunting over a bait pile? I think this is personal payback for Whacko Jacko's beating the prior rap and his little "Dom Sheldon" song. That's an abuse of the system, though I agree with Bob & Tom.
Yeah, like the same thing wont happen here on FR with hundreds of Jacko(ff) threads. (sigh) /sarcasm
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.