Return to Transcripts main page

American Morning

Michael Jackson Case

Aired November 21, 2003 - 07:32   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.


BILL HEMMER, CNN ANCHOR: It's been a decade since California prosecutors tried and failed to bring a criminal child molestation case against Michael Jackson. The kid backed out after he reached a financial settlement out of court. So, then, can prosecutors make the charges stick this time around?
The laws are different. They've changed since then in California.

Jeff Toobin is here to talk about what it could mean for Jackson now.

First of all, the laws changed how?

JEFFREY TOOBIN, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: A couple of ways. One very important way, if there are prior accusations of sexual misconduct with children, that is admissible even if the person was not charged criminally in the prior acts. Specifically, what that means is if this case goes to trial, as we expect it will, prosecutors will be able to introduce evidence about the '93 incident even though Jackson was never charged in it. That's a very important change in the law.

HEMMER: That is. It's significant. So even if a kid makes a statement, say, 10 years ago, you can enter that in the court without even proving it.

TOOBIN: It's come up a lot in the prosecution of Catholic priests because many of those cases involve accusations that go back decades which were never charged. OK, that's one area.

The second area there was a lot of confusion about because the district attorney really sort of misspoke about this. He said now children, victims, can be forced to testify. That's not true. They can't be forced to testify.

However, if child victims have made statements previously to therapists, to police, to anyone that a judge finds credible, those statements can be introduced into evidence, even if he later decides not to cooperate.

HEMMER: So even from 10 years ago, you could enter this evidence?

TOOBIN: Well, that's -- no, this is the current case.

HEMMER: Something doesn't strike me as fair, though. TOOBIN: No, that's absolutely -- some defendants, defense lawyers, think it's totally unfair because those statements by the accuser can't be cross-examined. But those statements are admissible even if -- so this current accuser, let's say for whatever reason, health reasons, he decides not to cooperate. If he made a statement when he was under 12 and he made it out of court to a therapist or someone, that statement could be admitted if the judge finds its reliable and that could be the basis for the case and Geragos would have no chance to cross-examine that.

HEMMER: Wow. Wow, there's a...

TOOBIN: It's a big change in the law.

HEMMER: ... a report in the "L.A. Times" today about wine and sleeping pills being served to some.

True or not?

How could that impact the case in terms of evidence?

TOOBIN: Well, it's a major,, devastating piece of evidence against Michael Jackson if it's true. And I want to hesitate that I don't -- I want to emphasize that I don't know whether it's true or not. But it would certainly be an aggravating factor to, you know, lure a kid into your house and then essentially drug him and molest him. It's just a very bad fact.

HEMMER: Shake down some of these facts. There was a report last night that said -- and we'll go through this quickly, if we could, we don't have much time -- that in March, Geragos and Michael Jackson knew the family was getting ready to come forward. Well, isn't it a coincidence the D.A. says the other day that they were ready to raid Neverland on Halloween, but because too many people come into Santa Barbara County around that time of the year, they weren't able to do it? I don't know if Santa Barbara is that hot this time of year for Halloween.

However, Tuesday, Scott Peterson is bound over for trial. Wednesday morning the raid is carried out. Thursday, Geragos is by Michael Jackson's side.

When we talk about the negotiations here, is it possible they went all the way back to March and aligned the stars this way to be carried out this way?

TOOBIN: It is possible. It is often the case that defense lawyers and prosecutors negotiate surrender dates. That is actually fairly common. There's nothing unusual about that. And it would be perfectly appropriate for Geragos to say look, wait till the Peterson case is over and I'll bring him in, which he did.

What doesn't make sense to me is that they would negotiate about a search warrant, because you always want surprise in a search warrant. You don't want to give a suspect the time...

HEMMER: And they got surprise on Wednesday with Jackson in Vegas.

TOOBIN: Apparently. So there will be more to tell.

HEMMER: That's right.

TOOBIN: I have a feeling we will return to this story.

HEMMER: I think you're right, Jeff.

Thanks.

TOOBIN: OK.

HEMMER: Nice to see 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 21, 2003 - 07:32   ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
BILL HEMMER, CNN ANCHOR: It's been a decade since California prosecutors tried and failed to bring a criminal child molestation case against Michael Jackson. The kid backed out after he reached a financial settlement out of court. So, then, can prosecutors make the charges stick this time around?
The laws are different. They've changed since then in California.

Jeff Toobin is here to talk about what it could mean for Jackson now.

First of all, the laws changed how?

JEFFREY TOOBIN, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: A couple of ways. One very important way, if there are prior accusations of sexual misconduct with children, that is admissible even if the person was not charged criminally in the prior acts. Specifically, what that means is if this case goes to trial, as we expect it will, prosecutors will be able to introduce evidence about the '93 incident even though Jackson was never charged in it. That's a very important change in the law.

HEMMER: That is. It's significant. So even if a kid makes a statement, say, 10 years ago, you can enter that in the court without even proving it.

TOOBIN: It's come up a lot in the prosecution of Catholic priests because many of those cases involve accusations that go back decades which were never charged. OK, that's one area.

The second area there was a lot of confusion about because the district attorney really sort of misspoke about this. He said now children, victims, can be forced to testify. That's not true. They can't be forced to testify.

However, if child victims have made statements previously to therapists, to police, to anyone that a judge finds credible, those statements can be introduced into evidence, even if he later decides not to cooperate.

HEMMER: So even from 10 years ago, you could enter this evidence?

TOOBIN: Well, that's -- no, this is the current case.

HEMMER: Something doesn't strike me as fair, though. TOOBIN: No, that's absolutely -- some defendants, defense lawyers, think it's totally unfair because those statements by the accuser can't be cross-examined. But those statements are admissible even if -- so this current accuser, let's say for whatever reason, health reasons, he decides not to cooperate. If he made a statement when he was under 12 and he made it out of court to a therapist or someone, that statement could be admitted if the judge finds its reliable and that could be the basis for the case and Geragos would have no chance to cross-examine that.

HEMMER: Wow. Wow, there's a...

TOOBIN: It's a big change in the law.

HEMMER: ... a report in the "L.A. Times" today about wine and sleeping pills being served to some.

True or not?

How could that impact the case in terms of evidence?

TOOBIN: Well, it's a major,, devastating piece of evidence against Michael Jackson if it's true. And I want to hesitate that I don't -- I want to emphasize that I don't know whether it's true or not. But it would certainly be an aggravating factor to, you know, lure a kid into your house and then essentially drug him and molest him. It's just a very bad fact.

HEMMER: Shake down some of these facts. There was a report last night that said -- and we'll go through this quickly, if we could, we don't have much time -- that in March, Geragos and Michael Jackson knew the family was getting ready to come forward. Well, isn't it a coincidence the D.A. says the other day that they were ready to raid Neverland on Halloween, but because too many people come into Santa Barbara County around that time of the year, they weren't able to do it? I don't know if Santa Barbara is that hot this time of year for Halloween.

However, Tuesday, Scott Peterson is bound over for trial. Wednesday morning the raid is carried out. Thursday, Geragos is by Michael Jackson's side.

When we talk about the negotiations here, is it possible they went all the way back to March and aligned the stars this way to be carried out this way?

TOOBIN: It is possible. It is often the case that defense lawyers and prosecutors negotiate surrender dates. That is actually fairly common. There's nothing unusual about that. And it would be perfectly appropriate for Geragos to say look, wait till the Peterson case is over and I'll bring him in, which he did.

What doesn't make sense to me is that they would negotiate about a search warrant, because you always want surprise in a search warrant. You don't want to give a suspect the time...

HEMMER: And they got surprise on Wednesday with Jackson in Vegas.

TOOBIN: Apparently. So there will be more to tell.

HEMMER: That's right.

TOOBIN: I have a feeling we will return to this story.

HEMMER: I think you're right, Jeff.

Thanks.

TOOBIN: OK.

HEMMER: Nice to see 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