Return to Transcripts main page

Nancy Grace

Defense Rest in Michael Jackson`s Child Molestation Trial

Aired May 25, 2005 - 20:00   ET

THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.

THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.


NANCY GRACE, HOST: Tonight, after weeks of bitter courtroom battle over evidence of repeated child molestation, the defense of music icon Michael Jackson has rested its case.
And tonight, many court-watchers are stunned that a Georgia district attorney announces a grand jury has handed down a felony indictment against the so-called runaway bride, Jennifer Wilbanks.

Good evening, everybody. I`m Nancy Grace. Thank you for being with us tonight.

A grand jury hands down a felony indictment against runaway bride Jennifer Wilbanks. That could land Wilbanks six years behind bars. I guess the jail will simply have to kick out all the dope dealers, the armed robbers, and the murderers to make room behind bars -- let`s give a cot to Jennifer Wilbanks.

But first, the Michael Jackson defense comes to an abrupt end, without putting Jackson on the stand. An intense battle over the state`s rebuttal case raging in court today. Closing arguments expected as soon as next week.

Tonight, in L.A., Jackson parents` attorney, Debra Opri; in Santa Maria, California, defense attorney Daniel Horowitz; in New York, psychotherapist Lauren Howard.

But first, let`s go straight to "Celebrity Justice correspondent" Jane Velez-Mitchell. Jane, bring me up-to-date, friend.

JANE VELEZ-MITCHELL, "CELEBRITY JUSTICE": Well, Nancy, a very dramatic, momentous day here at the Michael Jackson trial. It began when Chris Tucker got back on the stand and said he thought the boy accusing Jackson was unusually cunning, that his mother was possessed and mentally unstable. He said he warned Michael Jackson about it

Now, he was the 50th and final witness for the defense. After his testimony, the defense rested. But there was no rest for the weary, because the prosecution immediately began its rebuttal case, calling a number of witnesses, including the former Neverland house manager, Jesus Salas.

Now, Jesus delivered some very explosive testimony saying that he saw Michael Jackson frequently intoxicated during the very same time period that the accuser and his kid brother -- he said he saw them sleeping in Michael Jackson`s bedroom. So that`s a very serious connection there.

Finally, at the end of the day, the prosecutors dropped a real bombshell. They said that they want to play a one-hour videotape of this boy`s very first interview with police back in July of 2003. The defense vigorously objecting to that, saying, if they do that, they`re going to bring this accuser back to the stand to try to cross-examine him again during the rebuttal. And of course, it was a cliffhanger, because the judge hasn`t decided if he will allow that videotape in.

GRACE: Well, obviously, Daniel Horowitz, the reason that the prosecution believes they can play this videotape of the police interrogation with the boy, because the defense has told the jury that there are so many inconsistencies in the boy`s statement. So naturally, they have a right to play that video to the jury.

And why, Daniel, why would the defense struggle so vigorously to keep this boy`s taped interview from the jury?

DANIEL HOROWITZ, DEFENSE ATTORNEY: Because it`s not fair, Nancy. They want -- meaning the prosecution -- to play this tape un-rebutted. It`s like the Bashir documentary all over again, a hit piece prepared by the police in cooperation with this kid with no response from the defense.

Sure, Sneddon would like that. But he didn`t have the guts to put it in during his case in chief. Now he wants to sneak it in the back door. That`s what this is about.

GRACE: No, no, no, no. Daniel, no. Daniel, what this is about, is that they called the boy to the stand. He survived a rigorous cross- examination by the defense. The defense went on to portray the boy as having given inconsistent statements during the defense case in chief. This rebuts that. It`s very simple. They don`t he a right to re-cross- examine.

HOROWITZ: It`s packaged, Nancy.

GRACE: What?

HOROWITZ: Nancy, this is packaged. This is not the kid coming up and explaining the inconsistencies. It`s a tape that the police made with the kid. It`s like a movie production. And in our courts, you have cross- examination of witnesses.

GRACE: A movie production? OK, hold on.

HOROWITZ: Yes, it is, when police...

GRACE: Hold on. Debra Opri, let`s get real just a moment. Neither defense nor prosecution -- do I ask you to wear -- the police, a movie? Are you kidding?

DEBRA OPRI, JACKSON FAMILY LAWYER: It`s not a movie. It is literally a videotape, audiotape of the interview with the young boy. Why is it a problem for the defense? Because it`s right about the time of alleged incident. They`re interviewing him. And he`s speaking.

And I know Mesereau knew that this might come in. So why did Mesereau hold such credence with the paralegal, Holzer? Because he knew it was coming, and he was getting the jury ready and saying, "Hey, listen, just in case you`re going to see something of sincerity in a police interview with the young accuser, we want to remind you, he was given acting lessons."

So if I were Mesereau, I would have been concerned about that videotape tape. I don`t think he`s surprised. But I do think on surrebuttal, that if they put that accuser`s videotape on, they have a right to bring the accuser back to explain the environment when he was given that interview.

GRACE: OK, you know what? I think that`s a fair shot, Debra Opri. And I think that there is no way. Of course, you know, how Mesereau is going to rule may not have a thing to do with the California code of criminal procedure.

Back to Jane Velez-Mitchell with "Celebrity Justice." Jane, what was the end -- who was the last testimony at the end of the day today?

VELEZ-MITCHELL: Well, the last argument today were the motions over this dramatic video. And I have to say that Debra Opri has said over and over again, Jackson got to testify without having to be cross-examined because they played the video of Michael Jackson. So I think it`s only fair that we allow the video of this boy to be played. It`s kind of tit- for-tat.

I think the judge may decide, hey, what`s good for the goose is good for the gander.

OPRI: She`s right. She`s right. You vigorously oppose it, but you can`t really challenge it. I mean, they got in Michael`s two shots of Neverland in his own interview. So...

GRACE: To Lauren Howard -- Lauren Howard is a psychotherapist -- we all agree that the mother of this accuser has been portrayed to be a vulture, a grifter, although yesterday, Jay Leno took the stand and he completely reversed...

LAUREN HOWARD, PSYCHOTHERAPIST: Right.

GRACE: ... as to what Mesereau, the defense, said he would say. He said the family never asked for money at all.

HOWARD: No money was offered. Right.

GRACE: But what do you think about the jury? How will they take the boy? Will they take him in a package with the mother or will they consider him independently?

HOWARD: That is the only question that matters right now, because the truth is that the mother, and her character, does not speak for whether or not the molestation occurred. And if the prosecution drives that home to the jury, that this is not about the behavior of the mother, this is about what occurred, the behavior of Michael Jackson, what occurred with this boy, that`s really the only thing anyone has to assert in order to find him guilty.

GRACE: And you know, Jane Velez-Mitchell, I thought it was very telling today. A witness was on the stand talking about having seen Michael Jackson inebriated, drunk in front of his kids, was a little worried about kids. And then the witness said, "Yes, I`ve been intoxicated in my own home." Several people started laughing. A friend of mine look at the jury. Not one of them were laughing. They do not think any of this is a laughing matter, Jane Velez.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: Yes, in fact, the only time I ever saw them laughing was when a very, very top professional, Jay Leno, was cracking jokes. They are stone faced. They`re poker players. And we were out here in the parking lot debating this case, because everybody is kind of trying to figure out, "Well, what`s going to happen? How is the jury going to go?"

And you should see the fierce debates right here between lawyers, all of whom have a lot of experience and have handled many cases. And you hear one witness, Chris Tucker, for example, on direct describing the bizarre behavior of this family. And you think, "Oy."

And then you here this Jesus Salas talking about seeing Michael Jackson intoxicated in front of his own children to the point that Jesus said he was worried about the children. And you go, "Hmm." That puts Michael Jackson, and alcohol, and this accuser in the same bedroom during the time of this alleged conspiracy. That doesn`t sound good.

So it`s a seesaw. It`s a roller coaster. And every witness and every piece of evidence turns you and spins you around. Who know what the jury is going to do? It can either decide...

GRACE: Hey, Jane?

VELEZ-MITCHELL: Yes?

GRACE: Take a look at Jackson coming into court right now. This is from today. And I didn`t think this was possible, but he looks -- no, no, what we were just showing, Liz. If you could show Jackson walking into court today. He looks even paler and more frail than ever.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: Does he have an armband on?

GRACE: I can`t see that. I`m talking about his complexion. He looks even paler and more gaunt than he has in the past. How is he holding up in front of the jury, Jane?

VELEZ-MITCHELL: Well, there was a gasp when he walked into court today, because he wasn`t wearing an armband. And we all -- our jaws dropped. This was the first time I`ve seen him arrive in court without an armband. And we all starting asking ourselves, "What`s the significance of that?"

And then someone else said, "Well, he looks paler than usual," as you mentioned. So we all began reading into it. But honestly, it`s hard to speculate.

The only person more stone-faced than the jurors is Michael Jackson himself sometimes. Because he sits there absolutely motionless, almost like a mannequin, during the testimony. And then every time he puts a Kleenex up to his nose to blow his nose, everybody reports that he has been crying and weeping in court.

It`s really hard to tell. You`re seeing his back. And all I could say was the biggest clue he has given us is no armband today, and I want to know why.

GRACE: Well, Jane Velez-Mitchell, I`ve tried a lot of cases. And I have got to say, I thought I had seen it all and heard it all. But now I realize I haven`t, because if a big shocker, if the gasp comes out in the courtroom because Jackson isn`t wearing an armband, hello? We`re talking about child molestation, and everybody is gasping because Jackson didn`t wear an armband? Reality check.

Quick break, everybody. I want to inform you that today is National Missing Children`s Day. As we go to break, take a look at some of the children who have gone missing.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

GRACE: It was all star power for the defense in the Michael Jackson case. And the state only had a little boy as their star witness. Well, hold on now. Let`s see. Make that one little boy, two little boys, stories of three, four, five little boys.

Welcome back, everybody. As you know by now, the defense in the Michael Jackson case has rested. They forgot a witness, Michael Jackson. He never took he stand. Take a listen to this.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

RAYMONE BAIN, MICHAEL JACKSON`S SPOKESPERSON: Michael listened to his defense team, and he was not going to say, "Well, I just demand on testifying." It was a group decision. And at the end of the day, it was decided that it was not necessary for him to. But I thought that he would have been a good witness, had the decision been made for him to testify. And I`ve maintained that throughout the trial.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

GRACE: Yes, you certainly have. From the get-go, Raymone Bain, the Jackson family spokesperson, made it abundantly clear, as did Mesereau in his opening statement, that Jackson would testify, would take the stand and explain to the jury his side.

What happened, Lauren Howard? I think we need a shrink.

HOWARD: What happened is that Mesereau was never going to put Michael Jackson on the stand because that would have been the absolute nail in the coffin. You can`t put Michael Jackson on that stand. What is he going to say exactly? He`s going to try to sort of explain why it`s OK to sleep with young boys, that it`s really about world peace? I don`t think so.

GRACE: Well, here is the thing, Debra Opri. And just go with me for a moment, all right? Debra is the Jackson family lawyer. She`s a veteran defense attorney, as well.

I know that a lot of attacks have been made on the boy and the family as being grifters. Given. I give you that. But if this jury believed the other accuser, the -- now he is a youth minister, a newlywed, survived cross very well, made a good impression on the jury, said Jackson molested him, fondled him.

If the jury believes that accuser, the `91 accuser, and they don`t know what to think about the current accuser, I believe there`s a likelihood they will convict because they believe is Jackson is a pedophile. And you simply have a hard time explaining 365 nights in bed with Jackson.

OPRI: All right. Response?

GRACE: Go ahead.

OPRI: First, I don`t often agree with Diane Dimond, but I do agree with what she said about the jurors. She has been out in Santa Maria over the years as a journalist. I have tried cases over the years out there. As an attorney, I will tell you they are very down to earth, reasonable people.

I do not believe a jury is going to take the testimony of someone from 13 years ago and say, "Well, we think it happened to him, and we`re more inclined or not to think it happened, or should have happened, this time, so we`re going to convict."

That`s not what it takes, Nancy. You were a prosecution attorney. You know. What it takes is, you have to believe the credibility of the accuser. And what the prosecution is doing in rebuttal, which they should have done way back in their direct case, they should have separated the mother from the son and just put the son up there and let the mother out, you know, to laundry.

But will the jury convict just on what the 1991 accuser said? No, because we have the dancer. We have the boy from Australia. We have Macaulay Culkin. I mean, you know, when push comes to shove, all the evidence is going to be waived, Nancy. So...

GRACE: OK. I have got to ask you something, Daniel Horowitz; 365 nights, a boy in bed with Michael Jackson. Give me one, just one -- don`t go crazy -- one innocent explanation.

HOROWITZ: Nancy, Michael Jackson is a person who needs a lot of people around him, animals around him, children around him, to create his fantasy world. I mean, we have heard that his chimpanzees slept with him. And you`re not accusing him of anything there, are you?

Some people just need touch and love. And he does it in a childish way. I believe that, in this case, it`s all made up against him. I think he really is innocent. These kids took a script from 1993, `94 and repeated it for money. That`s what I believe.

GRACE: Lauren Howard?

HOWARD: Oh, I`m sorry. You know, I think it`s a sad state of affairs when mature adults are going to justify a grown man sleeping with young boys. I`m sorry. At the end of the day, I don`t -- it is an absolutely reckless abandonment of boundaries, appropriate boundaries, and an abuse of power between an adult and a child.

If Michael Jackson needs physical attention, he should find someone his own age, a mature, consenting adult to get physical attention from, not underage children.

GRACE: Take a listen to this.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

JAY LENO, HOST, "THE TONIGHT SHOW": Michael`s fans are out front. They wait for you when you come out. They were very nice to me. I was so touched by what they did when I left the courthouse. Show the footage of me leaving the courthouse today.

I`m coming out. I get in the car. Now, I`m just ready to go. I thought this was a lovely gesture.

(LAUGHTER)

Lovely. Real nice.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

GRACE: That`s Jay Leno, "Tonight Show" host. He was a witness for the defense. And on cross-examination, he fulfilled all the dreams of the prosecution by telling the jury under oath this family of the accuser never once asked him for money, not once, not one time.

Elizabeth, if you could rack up that other sound from Jay Leno.

Back to Jane Velez-Mitchell with "Celebrity Justice." Do you really think that nobody on this jury is watching Leno? They started laughing -- when the judge came in and said, "Hey, where is my gavel?" Because last night -- I think it was last night -- I watched Leno come in for his monologue. He had some guy with an umbrella over him when he came out, just like Jackson. Then he pretended that he had swiped the judge`s gavel.

Some of the jurors started laughing when the judge said, "Hey, has anybody seen my gavel?" Don`t tell me not one of them has seen Leno.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: We`ve been talking about this. How can you avoid the Jackson case? It`s everywhere. You walk down the street here, you see it on posters. You turn on the TV, you see it. How could these jurors avoid it?

And especially when it`s entertainment like Jay Leno. Sure, they can avoid news. But you`re watching an entertainment show. So obviously, it`s like osmosis. It`s going to seep in. But what impact it`s going to have, I don`t know.

I think what Daniel Horowitz said is a very interesting point. We were sitting next to each other in court this morning, and we were discussing the criteria for finding guilt or innocence on these particular acts, for example, lewd act with a child. And he was saying that he thought it was touching with a sexual intent.

To me, I think it`s all going to boil down to what exactly do these charges mean? What do you have to find in order to find him guilty or innocent?

GRACE: We were just talking about Jay Leno and whether any of the jurors had watched Leno during his monologues. Take a listen to this.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

LENO: Well, there was a lot of talk about Michael Jackson. If he`s acquitted, he wants to leave the country as soon as the trial is over. That`s what they said. One report says he wants to go to Africa and disappear. He wants to disappear in Africa.

(LAUGHTER)

Africa? I think he has a better chance of disappearing in Sweden.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

GRACE: Jay Leno, "Tonight Show" host, witness for the defense, and basically, witness for the prosecution on cross.

Lauren Howard, Jane Velez brought up a really interesting point. What does happen if some of this seeps into the juror`s consciousness? I mean, it`s all joking. It`s all kidding.

HOWARD: It`s not funny.

GRACE: Yes, well, to me, Leno is hilarious. But the point is...

HOWARD: Yes, he is, but not in this context.

GRACE: ... what he is saying, when he is joking, it`s almost as if everything Jackson is accused of is a given.

HOWARD: Well, I will say that Leno`s demeanor does not speak to a defense demeanor.

GRACE: No.

HOWARD: As a juror, if I watched the Jay Leno show last night, I would not get an implication from him that he felt that -- he`s making fun of the process and about him testifying. He is not belittling the accusations or...

(CROSSTALK)

GRACE: No, not at all. And none of his jokes go towards the victim...

(CROSSTALK)

HOWARD: And I thought he was very responsible in that way. Absolutely not. Absolutely not.

GRACE: ... or go toward the process. They all go toward Jackson`s antics

HOWARD: Absolutely right. That`s right. He is making fun of Jackson`s antics, which is what he does. He makes fun of antics.

But in terms of what the jury thinks, what the impact on the jury is, it comes down to -- and Jane had said, in looking at the faces of these jurors, they are stone-faced, they are serious, they are taking this seriously. They do not think this is a light, airy matter.

And the fact that he`s a celebrity is not going to make them find him guilty or not guilty. That`s the impression you get from this jury. It`s certainly what you want from this jury.

GRACE: Quick break, everybody.

To "Trial Tracking": As you know, today is National Missing Children`s Day. As you know, we at NANCY GRACE want very much to help find missing children. As of May 1st, there are nearly 67,000 missing children in the U.S. Over 2,000 times a day, a parent or caregiver calls police to report a child is missing.

Tonight, Shasta and Dylan Groene still gone, day 10. If you have any information on these two children, please call the Kootenai County Sheriff`s Office, 208-446-2292.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

GRACE: Michael Jackson in happier days, when he wasn`t in a courtroom charged with felony child molestation. This is what some of the jurors may remember about Michael Jackson.

Welcome back, everybody. The defense has rested.

To Jane Velez-Mitchell. Jane, when the defense first started, how many witnesses did they say they were going to present?

VELEZ-MITCHELL: More than 300, by some estimates. We were all writing down as fast as we could.

GRACE: OK. And how many did they put up?

VELEZ-MITCHELL: Fifty.

GRACE: Fifty. Do you think that`s common, Jane? We`ve only got a few seconds left in this block. The defense never puts up what they promise.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: Well, yes. And the judge ruled that a lot of those people were irrelevant, Elizabeth Taylor. What`s she going to say except he`s a nice guy? And that wasn`t germane to the case.

GRACE: Hold on. Got to go. Three hundred down to fifty. Stay with us.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(NEWS BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP, "THE TONIGHT SHOW WITH JAY LENO")

JAY LENO, HOST: You know, it`s interesting. I had my little cell phone camcorder with me while I was in the witness holding area.

KEVIN EUBANKS, BAND LEADER: Oh, yes?

LENO: And I got pictures of all the other witnesses. Show that picture we got of the other witnesses. There they are there. There`s...

(LAUGHTER)

LENO: I will tell you, I was surprised how many children there were in the courtroom.

EUBANKS: Oh, yes?

LENO: Even the sketch artist was -- couldn`t been more than 11. Show the sketch he did of me. You see what I`m saying?

(LAUGHTER)

(END VIDEO CLIP)

GRACE: You know, you said it wasn`t funny. I just observed you laughing.

HOWARD: It`s funny. No, it`s funny.

GRACE: She was.

OK. That was Jay Leno, obviously, "Tonight Show" host. He was on the list, a defense witness. But, in my mind, he turned out to be a state`s witness in the Michael Jackson trial.

Daniel Horowitz, 300 witnesses Mesereau said they were going to call, including Elizabeth Taylor. You name it. They only called 50. What happened, Daniel?

HOROWITZ: Nancy, that`s a lot of witnesses. You know, most defense attorneys rely just on cross-examination.

GRACE: No, they don`t.

HOROWITZ: Mesereau did wonderful job.

GRACE: No, they don`t.

HOROWITZ: Putting on 50 relevant -- well, Nancy, we don`t have budget and we often don`t have witnesses. In this case, there were a lot of witnesses who had a lot of say.

(CROSSTALK)

GRACE: You finally confessed. The defense rarely has witnesses. Thank you. I`m going to get a tape of that.

HOROWITZ: Nancy, well, fine. But the other point is that Jay Leno actually helped Michael Jackson.

(CROSSTALK)

GRACE: No, but that`s not what I asked you.

HOROWITZ: He got suspicious. I know.

GRACE: I asked you, what happened to the other 250 witnesses Mesereau promised?

HOROWITZ: He only needed 50. But, you know, he didn`t promise that many. He gave the prosecution all that they asked for, a witness list, all possible witnesses. And then he tortured them by giving them a lot more than they really needed or that he ever intended to call. And he knew that. And everybody knew that. He called the 50 best.

(CROSSTALK)

GRACE: OK, Daniel Horowitz, that was a good try, good try.

HOROWITZ: Thank you.

GRACE: Jane Velez-Mitchell, were you surprised that the defense lasted such a short time?

VELEZ-MITCHELL: No, not as the defense case wore on, because I think it became abundantly clear at the start of the defense case that less was more. And a lot of people said the defense should have rested at the end of the prosecution case.

Then, when the defense case started, a lot of their witnesses kind of backfired, especially the first two young men, who got on the stand and were supposed to be the bombshell witnesses, who said nothing happened. But, in the process of saying nothing happened, it was revealed that he slept with one of them, according to the boy`s sister, 365 times in the same bed.

(CROSSTALK)

GRACE: Whoa. I`m sorry. I just choked. What did you say?

VELEZ-MITCHELL: Well, basically, he did two world tours. And the sister estimated they each last half a year. And so, she kind of said, you do the math. That`s 365 days that he was on tour, presumably sleeping with Michael Jackson. And so that backfired.

GRACE: Debra, you know, I have got to put the camera on Debra Opri, the Jackson family lawyer. Just picture it, Michael Jackson, a man in his 40s, sleeping with little boys 365 nights that we know of. Thoughts?

OPRI: Listen, you know, your public, I think, knows a little bit more than the panel does tonight. And I`m saying this with the utmost respect.

First of all, Michael Jackson is not, I repeat, Michael Jackson is not being charged with lewd conduct. While your psychologist, psychiatrist may think it`s represent reprehensible -- and a lot of people do. And I`m sure some people on the jury do think it`s reprehensible that he`s sleeping with little boys, it is not against the law. That is not what Michael Jackson is being charged with.

He is being charged with I think four counts of child molestation and counts of serving alcohol with the intent to molest and conspiracy, 28 counts. Now, what does anything have to do with sleeping with the little boys? I call it a smokescreen, because the prosecution didn`t have anything else. And so what that these witnesses admitted sleeping with him 365 days? So what? It`s not against the law.

GRACE: OK. You know what? A lot of things are not deemed a felony, but...

OPRI: Not against the law, Nancy.

GRACE: But it makes the jury have a bad taste in their mouth. And let me repeat my question. And may I ask the judge to direct the witness to give a responsive answer?

OPRI: And I always tell you I did. Ask me again.

GRACE: Ms. Opri, what is your man, Michael Jackson, doing 365 nights snugged up with this kid?

OPRI: He playing like a little child. He`s hanging out with the guys. He`s having sleepovers. What do I know what Michael Jackson is doing 365 days a year, Nancy? Have you been there? Have I been there? Has anybody said or proven that he molested them? No. On the contrary, he has had these witnesses saying, nothing happened. We just fell asleep wherever. Does anyone remember Macaulay Culkin? Does anyone remember Barnes and Robson?

GRACE: Yes. I`ve got to agree with you.

OPRI: Selective memory is not the way to go, Nancy.

GRACE: Huge, huge score for the defense. I agree with that. I just can`t get over that 365 number.

To Lauren Howard. Did you see that shot of Jackson coming in? That is from today, everybody. And it`s a Kabuki-esque white makeup. He looks more frail, more fragile than ever.

HOWARD: Well, he`s a performer and he`s probably wearing makeup.

GRACE: It`s changed during the trial.

HOWARD: Well, maybe it is. Maybe it has.

(CROSSTALK)

GRACE: See, I don`t mind the makeup. I don`t mind him wearing makeup. I don`t care if he wears makeup.

HOWARD: OK. But he might purposefully be trying to make himself appear more frail.

(CROSSTALK)

GRACE: Have you noticed his appearance changing during the trial?

HOWARD: Absolutely. And guess what? This is a heavy trial. His appearance should change. This is a very stressful situation for him, guilty or not guilty. This is a horrific ordeal.

GRACE: And, finally, back to Jane Velez-Mitchell, before we go down to the runaway bride`s indictment.

Jane Velez-Mitchell, the specter of Mark Geragos back in the courtroom on surrebuttal -- that`s the defense coming back at the plate -- reared its ugly head today. What`s that all about? Why would Geragos be dragged back into court?

VELEZ-MITCHELL: Well, they were discussing this in motions and they were kind of speaking in their usual cryptic fashion.

But what I understood was that the prosecution had sought e-mails from Mr. Geragos after he testified and said, we reserve the right to bring him back if we find some information that we want to talk to him about in these e-mails. And that was my understanding, that he could end up coming back to answer some questions vis-a-vis the e-mails that they demanded from the defense.

GRACE: OK.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: That might give some indication of what was happening during the alleged conspiracy.

Before we leave the Michael Jackson trial for tonight, take a listen to this.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP, "THE TODAY SHOW")

LENO: After, what, 12 weeks of trial, Michael Jackson`s attorneys, they have finally admitted that Michael slept with children, but it was about love, not sex. Which just goes to prove, that line works for all guys.

(LAUGHTER)

LENO: All guys.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

GRACE: That`s Jay Leno, "Tonight Show" host, witness for the defense and, in my mind, for the state.

Thank you, Jane Velez-Mitchell. See you tomorrow night.

Very quickly, let`s shift gears. The development in the so-called runaway bride case has a lot of court watchers scratching their heads. OK, all you murderers and dope dealers and armed robbers, get out of jail. We need to make way for the runaway bride. That`s right. Jennifer Wilbanks facing a felony indictment.

Tonight, in Atlanta, CNN correspondent Sara Dorsey is joining us.

Sara, bring me up to date, friend.

SARA DORSEY, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Well, Nancy, the runaway bride is in hot water. This comes. The Gwinnett County D.A. is saying now a bench warranty will issued for her arrest within the next day or two.

That comes after a grand jury today indicted Wilbanks on two charges, the first, making a false statement, which is a felony and carries up to five years prison and $10,000 worth of fines. The second is filing a false report, that, only a misdemeanor, but it could carry a possibility of up to 12 months in jail and $1,000 in fine.

Now, all of this stems from that call that Jennifer Wilbanks made from New Mexico after calling 911. She made that call back to Georgia authorities and told them she had been abducted by a Hispanic man and a white woman and had in fact also been sexually assaulted. We know now that was all a lie, all a made-up tale.

But that`s where exactly where this indictment and these charges came from -- Nancy.

GRACE: CNN correspondent Sara Dorsey with us out of Atlanta. It looks like an indictment has been handed down by a Georgia grand jury.

Now, a bench warrant where someone is arrested and brought in with police custody is if she doesn`t show up to court. Does she have a court date, Sara, that we know of?

DORSEY: Not that we know of right now. And the D.A. is telling us that he does plan to work with Wilbanks` attorney to try to work out some sort of agreement to where she can turn herself in before...

(CROSSTALK)

GRACE: You know, it sounds like it`s a dangerous felon turning themselves in. They have got to work out the whole thing. Incredible.

I have got with me right here the indictment. Dusty (ph), we`ll show it to the viewers in just a few minutes.

Quick break, everybody.

And, as we go to break, I want to remind you that we here at NANCY GRACE want very much to solve unsolved homicides, to help find missing people. Tonight, take a look at Adrianna Wix. Adrianna disappeared from Cross Plains, Tennessee, March 2004, just 3 years old. If you have any information on Adrianna Wix, please contact the Robertson County Sheriff`s Office, 615-384-7971, or go to beyondmissing.com. Please, help us.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

GRACE: OK. It`s not funny. It`s a felony indictment, for Pete`s sake.

Let`s go straight back down to Sara Dorsey, CNN correspondent.

You know, Sara, maybe I`m just jaded from trying murderers and rapists and child molesters and arsonists. I guess we`re going to have to throw one of them out of the jail to give this woman a bunk. I`m stunned. What did Danny Porter have to say about it?

DORSEY: Well, he had said the whole time, people have been calling him and e-mailing him, people in this community, saying, hey, we think you should prosecute. This woman led everyone astray, made people believe that possibly she was dead. Maybe you should look at prosecuting.

Now, Porter didn`t go out on a limb here. He went to a grand jury. The grand jury looked at the evidence. And they were the ones that came down with this indictment. It can`t be blamed on Porter, if that`s the stance that you take, Nancy. He handed it to a grand jury. And they did what they were supposed to do.

GRACE: Well, I have personally presented to the grand jury for many, many years, 10 years, to be exact. And when the D.A. takes something to a grand jury, it`s because they believe in the case. Why would you take something to a grand jury if you didn`t believe in it yourself, if you didn`t think it was the right thing to do?

But I`m looking at the actual indictment, Sara. And you`re right. Dusty, let`s show this to the viewers. The first count talks about a false writing or document. There`s $1,000 fine and five years, five years, behind bars, or both. Five years, this woman can get. Then there`s a misdemeanor charge of a false police report, count two. That is a misdemeanor. That is 12 months and can be also $1,000 fine in most circumstances.

So, back to Sara Dorsey. Would they run that consecutive or concurrent? Is she looking five or six years behind bars?

DORSEY: Well, we`re told five years for the felony. So, I`m going to guess concurrently. But that is just speculation at this point.

Danny Porter only gave us guidance on what those charges could possibly be. Also keep in mind, there could be a plea bargain. You know, they were talking about that today. Will he be open to that? He said, hey, we got this out of the way. Now we`ll move forward. We don`t know exactly what`s to come as far as that goes.

I`ll tell you, Nancy, she`s also facing having to pay $43,000 back to the city of Duluth, where that full-scale search went on for her.

GRACE: Yes.

DORSEY: We`re waiting to see what`s going to happen there. He attorneys say they`ll pay just over $13,000. That`s the agreement they`re putting on the table right now. But nothing has been signed formally at this point.

GRACE: Right. Right.

Take a listen to this.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DANNY PORTER, GWINNETT COUNTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY: This morning, the grand jury of Gwinnett County met and heard evidence from approximately 9:15 to almost 10:30. They just -- they have returned an indictment charging Jennifer Carol Wilbanks with one count of the offense of false statements and one count of the offense of false report of a crime.

The first count of the indictment, false statements, which is a violation of OCGA-161020 (ph), is a felony. The second count, which is false report of a crime, is the misdemeanor.

The maximum -- the punishment ranges for the felony are one to five years. And the punishment range for the misdemeanor is up to 12 months in confinement.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

GRACE: Look, I know Porter. He is a stand-up guy. He`s a straight arrow. He has handled a lot of very tough cases.

Out to Debra Opri. What do you think is the appropriate punishment, Debra?

OPRI: Well, you know, Nancy, you and I have talked about this. This guy had to do it. It`s a political thing. There has to be a message sent out.

I don`t think a Geragos mistake with the Winona Ryder, where there was a big press conference and all that and putting down the D.A., I think that is the wrong way to go. The best deal will be to come out with a public apology, to basically say, she needed counseling. She got counseling. She is not someone that jail time would serve any benefit to. She is remorseful. Pay a stiff fine. Do a lot of community service and continue with counseling.

I`m probably looking at, you know, probably maybe three years probation, maybe up to six weeks or three months for community service. I don`t think it should be anything more. I think part of a negotiated plea agreement -- and this should not go to trial -- should be a waiver of a felony and just to cop a plea to misdemeanor.

GRACE: Yes. Now, that sounds like the kind of deal that should have been struck in Winona Ryder.

OPRI: Yes.

GRACE: And I think, if there is a deal to be had, that`s the one we`re looking at.

You know, I was worried, Daniel Horowitz, about giving this girl a record. Can you show me that triple shot, Elizabeth (ph), please, dear? She shouldn`t be too, too worried about a record. Each one of these are different arrests.

So, Daniel Horowitz, we don`t have to worry about blemishing her record.

HOROWITZ: I`m not worried about her record, Nancy. I`m worried about what we`ve come to when we prosecute an obviously mentally ill and probably physically ill, as well, young woman. I believe she may have some hyperthyroid or other problem. And we`ve heard hints of this.

GRACE: Oh, thank you, Dr. Horowitz.

HOROWITZ: Well, I`ve talked to doctors about this. And we`ve also heard that she`s being treated for both medical and psychological conditions.

GRACE: Hey.

HOROWITZ: Nancy, the point is -- and we agree on this, so you got to give me this. This should have been treated with treatment, with maybe civil judgments against her. We have other goose to cook, rather than this poor Jennifer Wilbanks.

GRACE: You have another goose to cook?

HOROWITZ: Yes.

GRACE: Remember, you have got a J.D., not an M.D. I appreciate all that thyroid diagnosis you were giving me.

HOROWITZ: Thank you, Nancy.

GRACE: Thanks. I say, take an aspirin and go to bed.

Lauren Howard, final thought.

HOWARD: Well, I`m going to go with him on this thyroid. She has...

GRACE: Oh, lord, I`ll never hear the end of it.

HOWARD: I`m so sorry. What can I say?

(LAUGHTER)

HOWARD: Synthroid, which is synthetic thyroid, is what you use to treat a thyroid condition. It`s often used to treat depression. They`re often concurrent.

GRACE: So, Sara Dorsey, what do you do we expect to happen next?

DORSEY: Well, we`re expecting that bench warrant to be served eventually or some sort of deal to be worked out with her attorney, so Jennifer Wilbanks can turn her in -- turn herself in, rather -- in the next day or two. That`s what we`re waiting for now.

GRACE: Well, you know, Sara, I thought all along that what would happen is that they would have to pay civilly to the city what it cost for the search. They had offered $100,000 reward and the whole thing would be laid to rest, not so. A grand jury has spoken. As of tonight, Jennifer Wilbanks facing felony indictment.

Big thank you to CNN correspondent Sara Dorsey.

DORSEY: Thank you.

GRACE: Very quickly to tonight`s all-points bulletin.

FBI and law enforcement across the country on the lookout for this man, Miguel Hermosillio-Alcaraz, wanted in connection with the 2003 South Carolina murder of ex-girlfriend. Hermosillio-Alcaraz, 37 years old, 5`7``, 150 pounds, black hair, brown eyes, armed and dangerous. If you have information on Miguel Angel Hermosillio-Alcaraz, please contact the FBI, 803-551-4200.

Local news coming up for some of you. But we`ll all be right back.

And, remember, live coverage of the Michael Jackson trial tomorrow 3:00 to 5:00 Eastern on Court TV`s "Closing Arguments."

Please stay with us as we remember an American hero.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

GRACE: It is Missing Children`s Week.

And, tonight, we take a look at children who have touched our lives.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: We didn`t realize it at the time, but Samantha was not just our little girl. She became America`s little girl. Samantha was all that was good in the world. And what happened to her is all that was evil in the world.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I don`t think anyone can describe the feeling that you feel inside when you get up one morning and you go into your daughter`s room and she`s not there.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Please, please release my children safely. They had nothing to do with any of this.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: She was good in coming to church and in supporting everybody and loving everybody.

MARK LUNSFORD, FATHER OF JESSICA LUNSFORD: I will never see Jesse go on her first date. I will never be a grandfather to her children. There is more to raising a child than bumps and bruises, Band-Aids and bicycles. I will never have those things with Jesse.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I have a lot of questions. But it`s just mostly rage at whoever could do this to two little girls.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: We can take comfort that Polly now rests at peace with God. But we cannot rest.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

END


Aired May 25, 2005 - 20:00:00   ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
NANCY GRACE, HOST: Tonight, after weeks of bitter courtroom battle over evidence of repeated child molestation, the defense of music icon Michael Jackson has rested its case.
And tonight, many court-watchers are stunned that a Georgia district attorney announces a grand jury has handed down a felony indictment against the so-called runaway bride, Jennifer Wilbanks.

Good evening, everybody. I`m Nancy Grace. Thank you for being with us tonight.

A grand jury hands down a felony indictment against runaway bride Jennifer Wilbanks. That could land Wilbanks six years behind bars. I guess the jail will simply have to kick out all the dope dealers, the armed robbers, and the murderers to make room behind bars -- let`s give a cot to Jennifer Wilbanks.

But first, the Michael Jackson defense comes to an abrupt end, without putting Jackson on the stand. An intense battle over the state`s rebuttal case raging in court today. Closing arguments expected as soon as next week.

Tonight, in L.A., Jackson parents` attorney, Debra Opri; in Santa Maria, California, defense attorney Daniel Horowitz; in New York, psychotherapist Lauren Howard.

But first, let`s go straight to "Celebrity Justice correspondent" Jane Velez-Mitchell. Jane, bring me up-to-date, friend.

JANE VELEZ-MITCHELL, "CELEBRITY JUSTICE": Well, Nancy, a very dramatic, momentous day here at the Michael Jackson trial. It began when Chris Tucker got back on the stand and said he thought the boy accusing Jackson was unusually cunning, that his mother was possessed and mentally unstable. He said he warned Michael Jackson about it

Now, he was the 50th and final witness for the defense. After his testimony, the defense rested. But there was no rest for the weary, because the prosecution immediately began its rebuttal case, calling a number of witnesses, including the former Neverland house manager, Jesus Salas.

Now, Jesus delivered some very explosive testimony saying that he saw Michael Jackson frequently intoxicated during the very same time period that the accuser and his kid brother -- he said he saw them sleeping in Michael Jackson`s bedroom. So that`s a very serious connection there.

Finally, at the end of the day, the prosecutors dropped a real bombshell. They said that they want to play a one-hour videotape of this boy`s very first interview with police back in July of 2003. The defense vigorously objecting to that, saying, if they do that, they`re going to bring this accuser back to the stand to try to cross-examine him again during the rebuttal. And of course, it was a cliffhanger, because the judge hasn`t decided if he will allow that videotape in.

GRACE: Well, obviously, Daniel Horowitz, the reason that the prosecution believes they can play this videotape of the police interrogation with the boy, because the defense has told the jury that there are so many inconsistencies in the boy`s statement. So naturally, they have a right to play that video to the jury.

And why, Daniel, why would the defense struggle so vigorously to keep this boy`s taped interview from the jury?

DANIEL HOROWITZ, DEFENSE ATTORNEY: Because it`s not fair, Nancy. They want -- meaning the prosecution -- to play this tape un-rebutted. It`s like the Bashir documentary all over again, a hit piece prepared by the police in cooperation with this kid with no response from the defense.

Sure, Sneddon would like that. But he didn`t have the guts to put it in during his case in chief. Now he wants to sneak it in the back door. That`s what this is about.

GRACE: No, no, no, no. Daniel, no. Daniel, what this is about, is that they called the boy to the stand. He survived a rigorous cross- examination by the defense. The defense went on to portray the boy as having given inconsistent statements during the defense case in chief. This rebuts that. It`s very simple. They don`t he a right to re-cross- examine.

HOROWITZ: It`s packaged, Nancy.

GRACE: What?

HOROWITZ: Nancy, this is packaged. This is not the kid coming up and explaining the inconsistencies. It`s a tape that the police made with the kid. It`s like a movie production. And in our courts, you have cross- examination of witnesses.

GRACE: A movie production? OK, hold on.

HOROWITZ: Yes, it is, when police...

GRACE: Hold on. Debra Opri, let`s get real just a moment. Neither defense nor prosecution -- do I ask you to wear -- the police, a movie? Are you kidding?

DEBRA OPRI, JACKSON FAMILY LAWYER: It`s not a movie. It is literally a videotape, audiotape of the interview with the young boy. Why is it a problem for the defense? Because it`s right about the time of alleged incident. They`re interviewing him. And he`s speaking.

And I know Mesereau knew that this might come in. So why did Mesereau hold such credence with the paralegal, Holzer? Because he knew it was coming, and he was getting the jury ready and saying, "Hey, listen, just in case you`re going to see something of sincerity in a police interview with the young accuser, we want to remind you, he was given acting lessons."

So if I were Mesereau, I would have been concerned about that videotape tape. I don`t think he`s surprised. But I do think on surrebuttal, that if they put that accuser`s videotape on, they have a right to bring the accuser back to explain the environment when he was given that interview.

GRACE: OK, you know what? I think that`s a fair shot, Debra Opri. And I think that there is no way. Of course, you know, how Mesereau is going to rule may not have a thing to do with the California code of criminal procedure.

Back to Jane Velez-Mitchell with "Celebrity Justice." Jane, what was the end -- who was the last testimony at the end of the day today?

VELEZ-MITCHELL: Well, the last argument today were the motions over this dramatic video. And I have to say that Debra Opri has said over and over again, Jackson got to testify without having to be cross-examined because they played the video of Michael Jackson. So I think it`s only fair that we allow the video of this boy to be played. It`s kind of tit- for-tat.

I think the judge may decide, hey, what`s good for the goose is good for the gander.

OPRI: She`s right. She`s right. You vigorously oppose it, but you can`t really challenge it. I mean, they got in Michael`s two shots of Neverland in his own interview. So...

GRACE: To Lauren Howard -- Lauren Howard is a psychotherapist -- we all agree that the mother of this accuser has been portrayed to be a vulture, a grifter, although yesterday, Jay Leno took the stand and he completely reversed...

LAUREN HOWARD, PSYCHOTHERAPIST: Right.

GRACE: ... as to what Mesereau, the defense, said he would say. He said the family never asked for money at all.

HOWARD: No money was offered. Right.

GRACE: But what do you think about the jury? How will they take the boy? Will they take him in a package with the mother or will they consider him independently?

HOWARD: That is the only question that matters right now, because the truth is that the mother, and her character, does not speak for whether or not the molestation occurred. And if the prosecution drives that home to the jury, that this is not about the behavior of the mother, this is about what occurred, the behavior of Michael Jackson, what occurred with this boy, that`s really the only thing anyone has to assert in order to find him guilty.

GRACE: And you know, Jane Velez-Mitchell, I thought it was very telling today. A witness was on the stand talking about having seen Michael Jackson inebriated, drunk in front of his kids, was a little worried about kids. And then the witness said, "Yes, I`ve been intoxicated in my own home." Several people started laughing. A friend of mine look at the jury. Not one of them were laughing. They do not think any of this is a laughing matter, Jane Velez.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: Yes, in fact, the only time I ever saw them laughing was when a very, very top professional, Jay Leno, was cracking jokes. They are stone faced. They`re poker players. And we were out here in the parking lot debating this case, because everybody is kind of trying to figure out, "Well, what`s going to happen? How is the jury going to go?"

And you should see the fierce debates right here between lawyers, all of whom have a lot of experience and have handled many cases. And you hear one witness, Chris Tucker, for example, on direct describing the bizarre behavior of this family. And you think, "Oy."

And then you here this Jesus Salas talking about seeing Michael Jackson intoxicated in front of his own children to the point that Jesus said he was worried about the children. And you go, "Hmm." That puts Michael Jackson, and alcohol, and this accuser in the same bedroom during the time of this alleged conspiracy. That doesn`t sound good.

So it`s a seesaw. It`s a roller coaster. And every witness and every piece of evidence turns you and spins you around. Who know what the jury is going to do? It can either decide...

GRACE: Hey, Jane?

VELEZ-MITCHELL: Yes?

GRACE: Take a look at Jackson coming into court right now. This is from today. And I didn`t think this was possible, but he looks -- no, no, what we were just showing, Liz. If you could show Jackson walking into court today. He looks even paler and more frail than ever.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: Does he have an armband on?

GRACE: I can`t see that. I`m talking about his complexion. He looks even paler and more gaunt than he has in the past. How is he holding up in front of the jury, Jane?

VELEZ-MITCHELL: Well, there was a gasp when he walked into court today, because he wasn`t wearing an armband. And we all -- our jaws dropped. This was the first time I`ve seen him arrive in court without an armband. And we all starting asking ourselves, "What`s the significance of that?"

And then someone else said, "Well, he looks paler than usual," as you mentioned. So we all began reading into it. But honestly, it`s hard to speculate.

The only person more stone-faced than the jurors is Michael Jackson himself sometimes. Because he sits there absolutely motionless, almost like a mannequin, during the testimony. And then every time he puts a Kleenex up to his nose to blow his nose, everybody reports that he has been crying and weeping in court.

It`s really hard to tell. You`re seeing his back. And all I could say was the biggest clue he has given us is no armband today, and I want to know why.

GRACE: Well, Jane Velez-Mitchell, I`ve tried a lot of cases. And I have got to say, I thought I had seen it all and heard it all. But now I realize I haven`t, because if a big shocker, if the gasp comes out in the courtroom because Jackson isn`t wearing an armband, hello? We`re talking about child molestation, and everybody is gasping because Jackson didn`t wear an armband? Reality check.

Quick break, everybody. I want to inform you that today is National Missing Children`s Day. As we go to break, take a look at some of the children who have gone missing.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

GRACE: It was all star power for the defense in the Michael Jackson case. And the state only had a little boy as their star witness. Well, hold on now. Let`s see. Make that one little boy, two little boys, stories of three, four, five little boys.

Welcome back, everybody. As you know by now, the defense in the Michael Jackson case has rested. They forgot a witness, Michael Jackson. He never took he stand. Take a listen to this.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

RAYMONE BAIN, MICHAEL JACKSON`S SPOKESPERSON: Michael listened to his defense team, and he was not going to say, "Well, I just demand on testifying." It was a group decision. And at the end of the day, it was decided that it was not necessary for him to. But I thought that he would have been a good witness, had the decision been made for him to testify. And I`ve maintained that throughout the trial.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

GRACE: Yes, you certainly have. From the get-go, Raymone Bain, the Jackson family spokesperson, made it abundantly clear, as did Mesereau in his opening statement, that Jackson would testify, would take the stand and explain to the jury his side.

What happened, Lauren Howard? I think we need a shrink.

HOWARD: What happened is that Mesereau was never going to put Michael Jackson on the stand because that would have been the absolute nail in the coffin. You can`t put Michael Jackson on that stand. What is he going to say exactly? He`s going to try to sort of explain why it`s OK to sleep with young boys, that it`s really about world peace? I don`t think so.

GRACE: Well, here is the thing, Debra Opri. And just go with me for a moment, all right? Debra is the Jackson family lawyer. She`s a veteran defense attorney, as well.

I know that a lot of attacks have been made on the boy and the family as being grifters. Given. I give you that. But if this jury believed the other accuser, the -- now he is a youth minister, a newlywed, survived cross very well, made a good impression on the jury, said Jackson molested him, fondled him.

If the jury believes that accuser, the `91 accuser, and they don`t know what to think about the current accuser, I believe there`s a likelihood they will convict because they believe is Jackson is a pedophile. And you simply have a hard time explaining 365 nights in bed with Jackson.

OPRI: All right. Response?

GRACE: Go ahead.

OPRI: First, I don`t often agree with Diane Dimond, but I do agree with what she said about the jurors. She has been out in Santa Maria over the years as a journalist. I have tried cases over the years out there. As an attorney, I will tell you they are very down to earth, reasonable people.

I do not believe a jury is going to take the testimony of someone from 13 years ago and say, "Well, we think it happened to him, and we`re more inclined or not to think it happened, or should have happened, this time, so we`re going to convict."

That`s not what it takes, Nancy. You were a prosecution attorney. You know. What it takes is, you have to believe the credibility of the accuser. And what the prosecution is doing in rebuttal, which they should have done way back in their direct case, they should have separated the mother from the son and just put the son up there and let the mother out, you know, to laundry.

But will the jury convict just on what the 1991 accuser said? No, because we have the dancer. We have the boy from Australia. We have Macaulay Culkin. I mean, you know, when push comes to shove, all the evidence is going to be waived, Nancy. So...

GRACE: OK. I have got to ask you something, Daniel Horowitz; 365 nights, a boy in bed with Michael Jackson. Give me one, just one -- don`t go crazy -- one innocent explanation.

HOROWITZ: Nancy, Michael Jackson is a person who needs a lot of people around him, animals around him, children around him, to create his fantasy world. I mean, we have heard that his chimpanzees slept with him. And you`re not accusing him of anything there, are you?

Some people just need touch and love. And he does it in a childish way. I believe that, in this case, it`s all made up against him. I think he really is innocent. These kids took a script from 1993, `94 and repeated it for money. That`s what I believe.

GRACE: Lauren Howard?

HOWARD: Oh, I`m sorry. You know, I think it`s a sad state of affairs when mature adults are going to justify a grown man sleeping with young boys. I`m sorry. At the end of the day, I don`t -- it is an absolutely reckless abandonment of boundaries, appropriate boundaries, and an abuse of power between an adult and a child.

If Michael Jackson needs physical attention, he should find someone his own age, a mature, consenting adult to get physical attention from, not underage children.

GRACE: Take a listen to this.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

JAY LENO, HOST, "THE TONIGHT SHOW": Michael`s fans are out front. They wait for you when you come out. They were very nice to me. I was so touched by what they did when I left the courthouse. Show the footage of me leaving the courthouse today.

I`m coming out. I get in the car. Now, I`m just ready to go. I thought this was a lovely gesture.

(LAUGHTER)

Lovely. Real nice.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

GRACE: That`s Jay Leno, "Tonight Show" host. He was a witness for the defense. And on cross-examination, he fulfilled all the dreams of the prosecution by telling the jury under oath this family of the accuser never once asked him for money, not once, not one time.

Elizabeth, if you could rack up that other sound from Jay Leno.

Back to Jane Velez-Mitchell with "Celebrity Justice." Do you really think that nobody on this jury is watching Leno? They started laughing -- when the judge came in and said, "Hey, where is my gavel?" Because last night -- I think it was last night -- I watched Leno come in for his monologue. He had some guy with an umbrella over him when he came out, just like Jackson. Then he pretended that he had swiped the judge`s gavel.

Some of the jurors started laughing when the judge said, "Hey, has anybody seen my gavel?" Don`t tell me not one of them has seen Leno.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: We`ve been talking about this. How can you avoid the Jackson case? It`s everywhere. You walk down the street here, you see it on posters. You turn on the TV, you see it. How could these jurors avoid it?

And especially when it`s entertainment like Jay Leno. Sure, they can avoid news. But you`re watching an entertainment show. So obviously, it`s like osmosis. It`s going to seep in. But what impact it`s going to have, I don`t know.

I think what Daniel Horowitz said is a very interesting point. We were sitting next to each other in court this morning, and we were discussing the criteria for finding guilt or innocence on these particular acts, for example, lewd act with a child. And he was saying that he thought it was touching with a sexual intent.

To me, I think it`s all going to boil down to what exactly do these charges mean? What do you have to find in order to find him guilty or innocent?

GRACE: We were just talking about Jay Leno and whether any of the jurors had watched Leno during his monologues. Take a listen to this.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

LENO: Well, there was a lot of talk about Michael Jackson. If he`s acquitted, he wants to leave the country as soon as the trial is over. That`s what they said. One report says he wants to go to Africa and disappear. He wants to disappear in Africa.

(LAUGHTER)

Africa? I think he has a better chance of disappearing in Sweden.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

GRACE: Jay Leno, "Tonight Show" host, witness for the defense, and basically, witness for the prosecution on cross.

Lauren Howard, Jane Velez brought up a really interesting point. What does happen if some of this seeps into the juror`s consciousness? I mean, it`s all joking. It`s all kidding.

HOWARD: It`s not funny.

GRACE: Yes, well, to me, Leno is hilarious. But the point is...

HOWARD: Yes, he is, but not in this context.

GRACE: ... what he is saying, when he is joking, it`s almost as if everything Jackson is accused of is a given.

HOWARD: Well, I will say that Leno`s demeanor does not speak to a defense demeanor.

GRACE: No.

HOWARD: As a juror, if I watched the Jay Leno show last night, I would not get an implication from him that he felt that -- he`s making fun of the process and about him testifying. He is not belittling the accusations or...

(CROSSTALK)

GRACE: No, not at all. And none of his jokes go towards the victim...

(CROSSTALK)

HOWARD: And I thought he was very responsible in that way. Absolutely not. Absolutely not.

GRACE: ... or go toward the process. They all go toward Jackson`s antics

HOWARD: Absolutely right. That`s right. He is making fun of Jackson`s antics, which is what he does. He makes fun of antics.

But in terms of what the jury thinks, what the impact on the jury is, it comes down to -- and Jane had said, in looking at the faces of these jurors, they are stone-faced, they are serious, they are taking this seriously. They do not think this is a light, airy matter.

And the fact that he`s a celebrity is not going to make them find him guilty or not guilty. That`s the impression you get from this jury. It`s certainly what you want from this jury.

GRACE: Quick break, everybody.

To "Trial Tracking": As you know, today is National Missing Children`s Day. As you know, we at NANCY GRACE want very much to help find missing children. As of May 1st, there are nearly 67,000 missing children in the U.S. Over 2,000 times a day, a parent or caregiver calls police to report a child is missing.

Tonight, Shasta and Dylan Groene still gone, day 10. If you have any information on these two children, please call the Kootenai County Sheriff`s Office, 208-446-2292.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

GRACE: Michael Jackson in happier days, when he wasn`t in a courtroom charged with felony child molestation. This is what some of the jurors may remember about Michael Jackson.

Welcome back, everybody. The defense has rested.

To Jane Velez-Mitchell. Jane, when the defense first started, how many witnesses did they say they were going to present?

VELEZ-MITCHELL: More than 300, by some estimates. We were all writing down as fast as we could.

GRACE: OK. And how many did they put up?

VELEZ-MITCHELL: Fifty.

GRACE: Fifty. Do you think that`s common, Jane? We`ve only got a few seconds left in this block. The defense never puts up what they promise.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: Well, yes. And the judge ruled that a lot of those people were irrelevant, Elizabeth Taylor. What`s she going to say except he`s a nice guy? And that wasn`t germane to the case.

GRACE: Hold on. Got to go. Three hundred down to fifty. Stay with us.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(NEWS BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP, "THE TONIGHT SHOW WITH JAY LENO")

JAY LENO, HOST: You know, it`s interesting. I had my little cell phone camcorder with me while I was in the witness holding area.

KEVIN EUBANKS, BAND LEADER: Oh, yes?

LENO: And I got pictures of all the other witnesses. Show that picture we got of the other witnesses. There they are there. There`s...

(LAUGHTER)

LENO: I will tell you, I was surprised how many children there were in the courtroom.

EUBANKS: Oh, yes?

LENO: Even the sketch artist was -- couldn`t been more than 11. Show the sketch he did of me. You see what I`m saying?

(LAUGHTER)

(END VIDEO CLIP)

GRACE: You know, you said it wasn`t funny. I just observed you laughing.

HOWARD: It`s funny. No, it`s funny.

GRACE: She was.

OK. That was Jay Leno, obviously, "Tonight Show" host. He was on the list, a defense witness. But, in my mind, he turned out to be a state`s witness in the Michael Jackson trial.

Daniel Horowitz, 300 witnesses Mesereau said they were going to call, including Elizabeth Taylor. You name it. They only called 50. What happened, Daniel?

HOROWITZ: Nancy, that`s a lot of witnesses. You know, most defense attorneys rely just on cross-examination.

GRACE: No, they don`t.

HOROWITZ: Mesereau did wonderful job.

GRACE: No, they don`t.

HOROWITZ: Putting on 50 relevant -- well, Nancy, we don`t have budget and we often don`t have witnesses. In this case, there were a lot of witnesses who had a lot of say.

(CROSSTALK)

GRACE: You finally confessed. The defense rarely has witnesses. Thank you. I`m going to get a tape of that.

HOROWITZ: Nancy, well, fine. But the other point is that Jay Leno actually helped Michael Jackson.

(CROSSTALK)

GRACE: No, but that`s not what I asked you.

HOROWITZ: He got suspicious. I know.

GRACE: I asked you, what happened to the other 250 witnesses Mesereau promised?

HOROWITZ: He only needed 50. But, you know, he didn`t promise that many. He gave the prosecution all that they asked for, a witness list, all possible witnesses. And then he tortured them by giving them a lot more than they really needed or that he ever intended to call. And he knew that. And everybody knew that. He called the 50 best.

(CROSSTALK)

GRACE: OK, Daniel Horowitz, that was a good try, good try.

HOROWITZ: Thank you.

GRACE: Jane Velez-Mitchell, were you surprised that the defense lasted such a short time?

VELEZ-MITCHELL: No, not as the defense case wore on, because I think it became abundantly clear at the start of the defense case that less was more. And a lot of people said the defense should have rested at the end of the prosecution case.

Then, when the defense case started, a lot of their witnesses kind of backfired, especially the first two young men, who got on the stand and were supposed to be the bombshell witnesses, who said nothing happened. But, in the process of saying nothing happened, it was revealed that he slept with one of them, according to the boy`s sister, 365 times in the same bed.

(CROSSTALK)

GRACE: Whoa. I`m sorry. I just choked. What did you say?

VELEZ-MITCHELL: Well, basically, he did two world tours. And the sister estimated they each last half a year. And so, she kind of said, you do the math. That`s 365 days that he was on tour, presumably sleeping with Michael Jackson. And so that backfired.

GRACE: Debra, you know, I have got to put the camera on Debra Opri, the Jackson family lawyer. Just picture it, Michael Jackson, a man in his 40s, sleeping with little boys 365 nights that we know of. Thoughts?

OPRI: Listen, you know, your public, I think, knows a little bit more than the panel does tonight. And I`m saying this with the utmost respect.

First of all, Michael Jackson is not, I repeat, Michael Jackson is not being charged with lewd conduct. While your psychologist, psychiatrist may think it`s represent reprehensible -- and a lot of people do. And I`m sure some people on the jury do think it`s reprehensible that he`s sleeping with little boys, it is not against the law. That is not what Michael Jackson is being charged with.

He is being charged with I think four counts of child molestation and counts of serving alcohol with the intent to molest and conspiracy, 28 counts. Now, what does anything have to do with sleeping with the little boys? I call it a smokescreen, because the prosecution didn`t have anything else. And so what that these witnesses admitted sleeping with him 365 days? So what? It`s not against the law.

GRACE: OK. You know what? A lot of things are not deemed a felony, but...

OPRI: Not against the law, Nancy.

GRACE: But it makes the jury have a bad taste in their mouth. And let me repeat my question. And may I ask the judge to direct the witness to give a responsive answer?

OPRI: And I always tell you I did. Ask me again.

GRACE: Ms. Opri, what is your man, Michael Jackson, doing 365 nights snugged up with this kid?

OPRI: He playing like a little child. He`s hanging out with the guys. He`s having sleepovers. What do I know what Michael Jackson is doing 365 days a year, Nancy? Have you been there? Have I been there? Has anybody said or proven that he molested them? No. On the contrary, he has had these witnesses saying, nothing happened. We just fell asleep wherever. Does anyone remember Macaulay Culkin? Does anyone remember Barnes and Robson?

GRACE: Yes. I`ve got to agree with you.

OPRI: Selective memory is not the way to go, Nancy.

GRACE: Huge, huge score for the defense. I agree with that. I just can`t get over that 365 number.

To Lauren Howard. Did you see that shot of Jackson coming in? That is from today, everybody. And it`s a Kabuki-esque white makeup. He looks more frail, more fragile than ever.

HOWARD: Well, he`s a performer and he`s probably wearing makeup.

GRACE: It`s changed during the trial.

HOWARD: Well, maybe it is. Maybe it has.

(CROSSTALK)

GRACE: See, I don`t mind the makeup. I don`t mind him wearing makeup. I don`t care if he wears makeup.

HOWARD: OK. But he might purposefully be trying to make himself appear more frail.

(CROSSTALK)

GRACE: Have you noticed his appearance changing during the trial?

HOWARD: Absolutely. And guess what? This is a heavy trial. His appearance should change. This is a very stressful situation for him, guilty or not guilty. This is a horrific ordeal.

GRACE: And, finally, back to Jane Velez-Mitchell, before we go down to the runaway bride`s indictment.

Jane Velez-Mitchell, the specter of Mark Geragos back in the courtroom on surrebuttal -- that`s the defense coming back at the plate -- reared its ugly head today. What`s that all about? Why would Geragos be dragged back into court?

VELEZ-MITCHELL: Well, they were discussing this in motions and they were kind of speaking in their usual cryptic fashion.

But what I understood was that the prosecution had sought e-mails from Mr. Geragos after he testified and said, we reserve the right to bring him back if we find some information that we want to talk to him about in these e-mails. And that was my understanding, that he could end up coming back to answer some questions vis-a-vis the e-mails that they demanded from the defense.

GRACE: OK.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: That might give some indication of what was happening during the alleged conspiracy.

Before we leave the Michael Jackson trial for tonight, take a listen to this.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP, "THE TODAY SHOW")

LENO: After, what, 12 weeks of trial, Michael Jackson`s attorneys, they have finally admitted that Michael slept with children, but it was about love, not sex. Which just goes to prove, that line works for all guys.

(LAUGHTER)

LENO: All guys.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

GRACE: That`s Jay Leno, "Tonight Show" host, witness for the defense and, in my mind, for the state.

Thank you, Jane Velez-Mitchell. See you tomorrow night.

Very quickly, let`s shift gears. The development in the so-called runaway bride case has a lot of court watchers scratching their heads. OK, all you murderers and dope dealers and armed robbers, get out of jail. We need to make way for the runaway bride. That`s right. Jennifer Wilbanks facing a felony indictment.

Tonight, in Atlanta, CNN correspondent Sara Dorsey is joining us.

Sara, bring me up to date, friend.

SARA DORSEY, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Well, Nancy, the runaway bride is in hot water. This comes. The Gwinnett County D.A. is saying now a bench warranty will issued for her arrest within the next day or two.

That comes after a grand jury today indicted Wilbanks on two charges, the first, making a false statement, which is a felony and carries up to five years prison and $10,000 worth of fines. The second is filing a false report, that, only a misdemeanor, but it could carry a possibility of up to 12 months in jail and $1,000 in fine.

Now, all of this stems from that call that Jennifer Wilbanks made from New Mexico after calling 911. She made that call back to Georgia authorities and told them she had been abducted by a Hispanic man and a white woman and had in fact also been sexually assaulted. We know now that was all a lie, all a made-up tale.

But that`s where exactly where this indictment and these charges came from -- Nancy.

GRACE: CNN correspondent Sara Dorsey with us out of Atlanta. It looks like an indictment has been handed down by a Georgia grand jury.

Now, a bench warrant where someone is arrested and brought in with police custody is if she doesn`t show up to court. Does she have a court date, Sara, that we know of?

DORSEY: Not that we know of right now. And the D.A. is telling us that he does plan to work with Wilbanks` attorney to try to work out some sort of agreement to where she can turn herself in before...

(CROSSTALK)

GRACE: You know, it sounds like it`s a dangerous felon turning themselves in. They have got to work out the whole thing. Incredible.

I have got with me right here the indictment. Dusty (ph), we`ll show it to the viewers in just a few minutes.

Quick break, everybody.

And, as we go to break, I want to remind you that we here at NANCY GRACE want very much to solve unsolved homicides, to help find missing people. Tonight, take a look at Adrianna Wix. Adrianna disappeared from Cross Plains, Tennessee, March 2004, just 3 years old. If you have any information on Adrianna Wix, please contact the Robertson County Sheriff`s Office, 615-384-7971, or go to beyondmissing.com. Please, help us.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

GRACE: OK. It`s not funny. It`s a felony indictment, for Pete`s sake.

Let`s go straight back down to Sara Dorsey, CNN correspondent.

You know, Sara, maybe I`m just jaded from trying murderers and rapists and child molesters and arsonists. I guess we`re going to have to throw one of them out of the jail to give this woman a bunk. I`m stunned. What did Danny Porter have to say about it?

DORSEY: Well, he had said the whole time, people have been calling him and e-mailing him, people in this community, saying, hey, we think you should prosecute. This woman led everyone astray, made people believe that possibly she was dead. Maybe you should look at prosecuting.

Now, Porter didn`t go out on a limb here. He went to a grand jury. The grand jury looked at the evidence. And they were the ones that came down with this indictment. It can`t be blamed on Porter, if that`s the stance that you take, Nancy. He handed it to a grand jury. And they did what they were supposed to do.

GRACE: Well, I have personally presented to the grand jury for many, many years, 10 years, to be exact. And when the D.A. takes something to a grand jury, it`s because they believe in the case. Why would you take something to a grand jury if you didn`t believe in it yourself, if you didn`t think it was the right thing to do?

But I`m looking at the actual indictment, Sara. And you`re right. Dusty, let`s show this to the viewers. The first count talks about a false writing or document. There`s $1,000 fine and five years, five years, behind bars, or both. Five years, this woman can get. Then there`s a misdemeanor charge of a false police report, count two. That is a misdemeanor. That is 12 months and can be also $1,000 fine in most circumstances.

So, back to Sara Dorsey. Would they run that consecutive or concurrent? Is she looking five or six years behind bars?

DORSEY: Well, we`re told five years for the felony. So, I`m going to guess concurrently. But that is just speculation at this point.

Danny Porter only gave us guidance on what those charges could possibly be. Also keep in mind, there could be a plea bargain. You know, they were talking about that today. Will he be open to that? He said, hey, we got this out of the way. Now we`ll move forward. We don`t know exactly what`s to come as far as that goes.

I`ll tell you, Nancy, she`s also facing having to pay $43,000 back to the city of Duluth, where that full-scale search went on for her.

GRACE: Yes.

DORSEY: We`re waiting to see what`s going to happen there. He attorneys say they`ll pay just over $13,000. That`s the agreement they`re putting on the table right now. But nothing has been signed formally at this point.

GRACE: Right. Right.

Take a listen to this.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DANNY PORTER, GWINNETT COUNTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY: This morning, the grand jury of Gwinnett County met and heard evidence from approximately 9:15 to almost 10:30. They just -- they have returned an indictment charging Jennifer Carol Wilbanks with one count of the offense of false statements and one count of the offense of false report of a crime.

The first count of the indictment, false statements, which is a violation of OCGA-161020 (ph), is a felony. The second count, which is false report of a crime, is the misdemeanor.

The maximum -- the punishment ranges for the felony are one to five years. And the punishment range for the misdemeanor is up to 12 months in confinement.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

GRACE: Look, I know Porter. He is a stand-up guy. He`s a straight arrow. He has handled a lot of very tough cases.

Out to Debra Opri. What do you think is the appropriate punishment, Debra?

OPRI: Well, you know, Nancy, you and I have talked about this. This guy had to do it. It`s a political thing. There has to be a message sent out.

I don`t think a Geragos mistake with the Winona Ryder, where there was a big press conference and all that and putting down the D.A., I think that is the wrong way to go. The best deal will be to come out with a public apology, to basically say, she needed counseling. She got counseling. She is not someone that jail time would serve any benefit to. She is remorseful. Pay a stiff fine. Do a lot of community service and continue with counseling.

I`m probably looking at, you know, probably maybe three years probation, maybe up to six weeks or three months for community service. I don`t think it should be anything more. I think part of a negotiated plea agreement -- and this should not go to trial -- should be a waiver of a felony and just to cop a plea to misdemeanor.

GRACE: Yes. Now, that sounds like the kind of deal that should have been struck in Winona Ryder.

OPRI: Yes.

GRACE: And I think, if there is a deal to be had, that`s the one we`re looking at.

You know, I was worried, Daniel Horowitz, about giving this girl a record. Can you show me that triple shot, Elizabeth (ph), please, dear? She shouldn`t be too, too worried about a record. Each one of these are different arrests.

So, Daniel Horowitz, we don`t have to worry about blemishing her record.

HOROWITZ: I`m not worried about her record, Nancy. I`m worried about what we`ve come to when we prosecute an obviously mentally ill and probably physically ill, as well, young woman. I believe she may have some hyperthyroid or other problem. And we`ve heard hints of this.

GRACE: Oh, thank you, Dr. Horowitz.

HOROWITZ: Well, I`ve talked to doctors about this. And we`ve also heard that she`s being treated for both medical and psychological conditions.

GRACE: Hey.

HOROWITZ: Nancy, the point is -- and we agree on this, so you got to give me this. This should have been treated with treatment, with maybe civil judgments against her. We have other goose to cook, rather than this poor Jennifer Wilbanks.

GRACE: You have another goose to cook?

HOROWITZ: Yes.

GRACE: Remember, you have got a J.D., not an M.D. I appreciate all that thyroid diagnosis you were giving me.

HOROWITZ: Thank you, Nancy.

GRACE: Thanks. I say, take an aspirin and go to bed.

Lauren Howard, final thought.

HOWARD: Well, I`m going to go with him on this thyroid. She has...

GRACE: Oh, lord, I`ll never hear the end of it.

HOWARD: I`m so sorry. What can I say?

(LAUGHTER)

HOWARD: Synthroid, which is synthetic thyroid, is what you use to treat a thyroid condition. It`s often used to treat depression. They`re often concurrent.

GRACE: So, Sara Dorsey, what do you do we expect to happen next?

DORSEY: Well, we`re expecting that bench warrant to be served eventually or some sort of deal to be worked out with her attorney, so Jennifer Wilbanks can turn her in -- turn herself in, rather -- in the next day or two. That`s what we`re waiting for now.

GRACE: Well, you know, Sara, I thought all along that what would happen is that they would have to pay civilly to the city what it cost for the search. They had offered $100,000 reward and the whole thing would be laid to rest, not so. A grand jury has spoken. As of tonight, Jennifer Wilbanks facing felony indictment.

Big thank you to CNN correspondent Sara Dorsey.

DORSEY: Thank you.

GRACE: Very quickly to tonight`s all-points bulletin.

FBI and law enforcement across the country on the lookout for this man, Miguel Hermosillio-Alcaraz, wanted in connection with the 2003 South Carolina murder of ex-girlfriend. Hermosillio-Alcaraz, 37 years old, 5`7``, 150 pounds, black hair, brown eyes, armed and dangerous. If you have information on Miguel Angel Hermosillio-Alcaraz, please contact the FBI, 803-551-4200.

Local news coming up for some of you. But we`ll all be right back.

And, remember, live coverage of the Michael Jackson trial tomorrow 3:00 to 5:00 Eastern on Court TV`s "Closing Arguments."

Please stay with us as we remember an American hero.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

GRACE: It is Missing Children`s Week.

And, tonight, we take a look at children who have touched our lives.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: We didn`t realize it at the time, but Samantha was not just our little girl. She became America`s little girl. Samantha was all that was good in the world. And what happened to her is all that was evil in the world.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I don`t think anyone can describe the feeling that you feel inside when you get up one morning and you go into your daughter`s room and she`s not there.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Please, please release my children safely. They had nothing to do with any of this.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: She was good in coming to church and in supporting everybody and loving everybody.

MARK LUNSFORD, FATHER OF JESSICA LUNSFORD: I will never see Jesse go on her first date. I will never be a grandfather to her children. There is more to raising a child than bumps and bruises, Band-Aids and bicycles. I will never have those things with Jesse.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I have a lot of questions. But it`s just mostly rage at whoever could do this to two little girls.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: We can take comfort that Polly now rests at peace with God. But we cannot rest.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

END