Return to Transcripts main page
Live From...
Michael Jackson Expected to Surrender Shortly
Aired November 20, 2003 - 14:05 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.
KYRA PHILLIPS, CNN ANCHOR: Watching the legal side of things for us, of course, Jeffrey Toobin, our legal analyst. He joins us out of New York. Let's just start basic for a moment here, Jeffrey, and talk about the first step legally. Obviously, he has to come in, turn himself in. Where does the legal process begin after the booking and the fingerprinting and all of that?
JEFFREY TOOBIN, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: Well, the first question to be dealt with is bail. And we know that bail is set at $3 million, and he's going to surrender his passport. But there are other conditions of bail that may be applicable here. Oftentimes the issue of bail includes, are there travel restrictions? Is he restricted to Santa Barbara County? Is he restricted to Neverland? Can he go to Los Angeles? Can he leave the state? Those kind of questions are usually dealt with.
Another issue is, may he have contact with children? May he have contact with his own children? those are often dealt with in the question of bail in child molestation cases.
So it's not just the money and the passport, there are other questions to be dealt with when you're talking about bail.
PHILLIPS: Now, yesterday, Jeffrey, that question was addressed to the D.A. there in Santa Barbara, what about his kids? What will happen with the kids? Will they be put in protective custody? And the sheriff came forward and said, you know, he's innocent until proven guilty. Could there be -- could that change? I mean, what it sounded like yesterday is that he will have his kids with him. But you're saying there might be a different -- or a different set of circumstances here.
TOOBIN: Well, there are two ways that could change. One is if as a condition of bail the prosecutors insisted that he have no contact with them. And that would be -- he would have his bail revoked if he had contact with them. That's one way the issue could be dealt with.
Another issue is the way California law works, as I understand it, is custody and -- of children is dealt with through a different court than the criminal court that handles cases like the one against Jackson. The protective services, the family court, that is how custody is withdrawn from parents. That part of the bureaucracy would have to move against Jackson, and say he is unfit to have custody of his children, and that court would have to take him away.
As far as we know, no such proceeding has taken place, but that is something that we should watch in the days ahead.
PHILLIPS: All right. Now, explain to us how the law has changed in California. There was a lot of back and forth on this yesterday and even today. The D.A. coming forward and saying, the law is different from 1993, when allegations first came forward about Michael Jackson and child molestation. He said now the law has changed, that's why we're filing charges and going forward in this manner. How has the law changed? Is it with regard to the victim being forced to speak or not to speak? Explain that to us.
TOOBIN: This really was the subject of I think it's fair to say some incorrect information that was provided by the district attorney yesterday. He -- let me give you a little background of why it's significant. In the 1993 case, Michael Jackson was accused not in a criminal court, but there was a civil accusation that he molested a child. A criminal investigation followed. There then was a civil settlement between Michael Jackson and the child. He paid the child a great deal of money, several million dollars. That child then and his family said we will not participate with the criminal justice system, we will not testify, we're checking out.
Yesterday, the district attorney said, well, things are different now, because children can be forced to testify in these investigations. That's simply not true. That is not the law. But the law did change in an important way. What happens -- the law now is that if a child under 12, and that's a significant fact, if the child is under 12, if the child under 12 has given a prior statement under circumstances that the court thinks are reliable, and then the child withdraws his cooperation that previous statement can be admitted in court. If it's a written statement, if it's a videotaped statement, that statement can be admitted in court even though it's hearsay. So that's a big change. But it is not a change that says kids can be forced to testify, because they can't.
PHILLIPS: Sounds like there's a big challenge here with regard to proving intent.
TOOBIN: Well, these cases are very tough to prove. And the law is also very concerned about a second violation of children in the sense of forcing them to testify, forcing them to live through this, forcing them to be cross-examined. That's a tension in the system. We want defendants to have a fair trial, to be able to test the evidence against them, but we also want children not to be harassed and further abused by the legal system.
So what the change meant in the law since '93 is to try to achieve a better balance there, to give the prosecutor some option of using information gleaned from these victims without subjecting them to cross-examination. The California courts have upheld this process of allowing these prior statements to be admitted. But it is a difficult balance between these two competing interests.
PHILLIPS: As this goes on and this proceeds, I want to ask you a question about this because this interview has come up time and time again. You remember the interview that Michael Jackson did. It was very controversial. At least what he said was very controversial. With the British TV -- remember the British TV interview that he did, and I have a number of the quotes here that I wrote down that came from that documentary. He said things in this documentary, for example, I used to walk around holding baby dolls, because I wanted children so badly. He talked about having kids sleeping in his bed, including certain former child actors. When we'd go to sleep, I put the fireplace on, I give them hot milk. You know, we have cookies. It's very charming, it's very sweet, it's what the whole world should do. And he goes on to talk about how there's not nothing -- anything sexual going on here, but he has admitted a number of times about his relationship and love for children.
Can this come back and haunt him in this case?
TOOBIN: You know, Kyra, sometimes I worry that I give weaselly answers. Here I'm going to give you a straight answer. Absolutely. These kinds of statements are clearly admissible. Prior statements by a defendant that tend to show intent are clearly admissible. And certainly, that statement about allowing children to sleep in the same bed as him would come in.
Now, the defense would have the opportunity to put in the full context of this statement where he says, oh, it's very innocent, it's not -- there's nothing wrong with it, there's nothing inappropriate. So the defense would certainly be allowed to introduce the full statement, but prosecutors absolutely would be allowed to put in that statement. And frankly, I think it would be very damaging, a grown man admitting that he sleeps in the same bed with children, a man who is now accused of child molestation? Sounds damaging to me.
PHILLIPS: Jeffrey Toobin, our legal analyst, standing by there in New York.
Jeffrey, thanks so much. We'll continue to check in with you.
TO ORDER A VIDEO OF THIS TRANSCRIPT, PLEASE CALL 800-CNN-NEWS OR USE OUR SECURE ONLINE ORDER FORM LOCATED AT www.fdch.com
Aired November 20, 2003 - 14:05 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
KYRA PHILLIPS, CNN ANCHOR: Watching the legal side of things for us, of course, Jeffrey Toobin, our legal analyst. He joins us out of New York. Let's just start basic for a moment here, Jeffrey, and talk about the first step legally. Obviously, he has to come in, turn himself in. Where does the legal process begin after the booking and the fingerprinting and all of that?
JEFFREY TOOBIN, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: Well, the first question to be dealt with is bail. And we know that bail is set at $3 million, and he's going to surrender his passport. But there are other conditions of bail that may be applicable here. Oftentimes the issue of bail includes, are there travel restrictions? Is he restricted to Santa Barbara County? Is he restricted to Neverland? Can he go to Los Angeles? Can he leave the state? Those kind of questions are usually dealt with.
Another issue is, may he have contact with children? May he have contact with his own children? those are often dealt with in the question of bail in child molestation cases.
So it's not just the money and the passport, there are other questions to be dealt with when you're talking about bail.
PHILLIPS: Now, yesterday, Jeffrey, that question was addressed to the D.A. there in Santa Barbara, what about his kids? What will happen with the kids? Will they be put in protective custody? And the sheriff came forward and said, you know, he's innocent until proven guilty. Could there be -- could that change? I mean, what it sounded like yesterday is that he will have his kids with him. But you're saying there might be a different -- or a different set of circumstances here.
TOOBIN: Well, there are two ways that could change. One is if as a condition of bail the prosecutors insisted that he have no contact with them. And that would be -- he would have his bail revoked if he had contact with them. That's one way the issue could be dealt with.
Another issue is the way California law works, as I understand it, is custody and -- of children is dealt with through a different court than the criminal court that handles cases like the one against Jackson. The protective services, the family court, that is how custody is withdrawn from parents. That part of the bureaucracy would have to move against Jackson, and say he is unfit to have custody of his children, and that court would have to take him away.
As far as we know, no such proceeding has taken place, but that is something that we should watch in the days ahead.
PHILLIPS: All right. Now, explain to us how the law has changed in California. There was a lot of back and forth on this yesterday and even today. The D.A. coming forward and saying, the law is different from 1993, when allegations first came forward about Michael Jackson and child molestation. He said now the law has changed, that's why we're filing charges and going forward in this manner. How has the law changed? Is it with regard to the victim being forced to speak or not to speak? Explain that to us.
TOOBIN: This really was the subject of I think it's fair to say some incorrect information that was provided by the district attorney yesterday. He -- let me give you a little background of why it's significant. In the 1993 case, Michael Jackson was accused not in a criminal court, but there was a civil accusation that he molested a child. A criminal investigation followed. There then was a civil settlement between Michael Jackson and the child. He paid the child a great deal of money, several million dollars. That child then and his family said we will not participate with the criminal justice system, we will not testify, we're checking out.
Yesterday, the district attorney said, well, things are different now, because children can be forced to testify in these investigations. That's simply not true. That is not the law. But the law did change in an important way. What happens -- the law now is that if a child under 12, and that's a significant fact, if the child is under 12, if the child under 12 has given a prior statement under circumstances that the court thinks are reliable, and then the child withdraws his cooperation that previous statement can be admitted in court. If it's a written statement, if it's a videotaped statement, that statement can be admitted in court even though it's hearsay. So that's a big change. But it is not a change that says kids can be forced to testify, because they can't.
PHILLIPS: Sounds like there's a big challenge here with regard to proving intent.
TOOBIN: Well, these cases are very tough to prove. And the law is also very concerned about a second violation of children in the sense of forcing them to testify, forcing them to live through this, forcing them to be cross-examined. That's a tension in the system. We want defendants to have a fair trial, to be able to test the evidence against them, but we also want children not to be harassed and further abused by the legal system.
So what the change meant in the law since '93 is to try to achieve a better balance there, to give the prosecutor some option of using information gleaned from these victims without subjecting them to cross-examination. The California courts have upheld this process of allowing these prior statements to be admitted. But it is a difficult balance between these two competing interests.
PHILLIPS: As this goes on and this proceeds, I want to ask you a question about this because this interview has come up time and time again. You remember the interview that Michael Jackson did. It was very controversial. At least what he said was very controversial. With the British TV -- remember the British TV interview that he did, and I have a number of the quotes here that I wrote down that came from that documentary. He said things in this documentary, for example, I used to walk around holding baby dolls, because I wanted children so badly. He talked about having kids sleeping in his bed, including certain former child actors. When we'd go to sleep, I put the fireplace on, I give them hot milk. You know, we have cookies. It's very charming, it's very sweet, it's what the whole world should do. And he goes on to talk about how there's not nothing -- anything sexual going on here, but he has admitted a number of times about his relationship and love for children.
Can this come back and haunt him in this case?
TOOBIN: You know, Kyra, sometimes I worry that I give weaselly answers. Here I'm going to give you a straight answer. Absolutely. These kinds of statements are clearly admissible. Prior statements by a defendant that tend to show intent are clearly admissible. And certainly, that statement about allowing children to sleep in the same bed as him would come in.
Now, the defense would have the opportunity to put in the full context of this statement where he says, oh, it's very innocent, it's not -- there's nothing wrong with it, there's nothing inappropriate. So the defense would certainly be allowed to introduce the full statement, but prosecutors absolutely would be allowed to put in that statement. And frankly, I think it would be very damaging, a grown man admitting that he sleeps in the same bed with children, a man who is now accused of child molestation? Sounds damaging to me.
PHILLIPS: Jeffrey Toobin, our legal analyst, standing by there in New York.
Jeffrey, thanks so much. We'll continue to check in with you.
TO ORDER A VIDEO OF THIS TRANSCRIPT, PLEASE CALL 800-CNN-NEWS OR USE OUR SECURE ONLINE ORDER FORM LOCATED AT www.fdch.com
