Will Jackson's Past Haunt His Acquittal Chances?
March 28, 2005 — -- A judge's ruling on whether evidence of previous similar allegations against Michael Jackson will be admitted into his child molestation trial could be the turning point of the case.
Santa Barbara County, Calif., Superior Court Judge Rodney S. Melville will hear arguments today on whether prosecutors can present testimony about prior alleged similar wrongdoing by "The King of Pop" -- including the 1993 scandal where a 12-year-old accused him of molestation -- in his current trial. Jackson is on trial for allegedly molesting a now-15-year-old boy who spent time at his Neverland ranch and appeared with him in the 2003 British documentary "Living With Michael Jackson." He has pleaded not guilty to 10 charges that include felony conspiracy with 28 overt acts involving child abduction, false imprisonment and extortion.
Jackson has never been criminally charged for the 1993 accusations or any similar allegations. Santa Barbara prosecutors decided not to pursue the 1993 case after they said the alleged victim refused to testify. Jackson settled a civil suit filed by the boy's family for a reported $20 million but has always denied any wrongdoing in that case or ever harming children.
However, the scandal and any past allegations Jackson has weathered may come back to haunt him. A change in California law in 1995 regarding sex crime cases may allow prosecutors to present testimony on alleged bad acts or propensity evidence in Jackson's trial. ABC News has reported that the prosecution wants to present testimony of at least seven others -- including the 1993 accuser -- who spent time with Jackson when they were young.
Some court observers say that if Melville admits the evidence, it will be a major win for the prosecution, no matter how inconsistent or questionable his accuser's testimony in his current trial has appeared.
California-based attorney Steve Cron believes the judge will let the evidence in. If it does come in, and if the prosecution can present a compelling case that others have been molested, then Cron believes Jackson may well be convicted.
"Jackson's defense will be hard-pressed to overcome that," Cron said. "It will be an uphill battle for them."
In addition to the 1993 accuser, prosecutors, ABC News has reported, want jurors to hear about: Child actor Macaulay Culkin, who has repeatedly denied anything sexual happened between him and Jackson; a son of a former Neverland employee whom Jackson's defense admits received a multi-million dollar settlement in the mid-1990s; a friend of the Jackson family; a boy -- now a young adult -- who wrote a fan letter to Jackson in the early 1990s and became friends with him; a boy who met Jackson during the filming of a commercial; and an Australian who now works in Hollywood.
However, even if Melville were to allow the testimony, it is uncertain who would be willing to testify against Jackson and what they would say. Several of those on the prosecution list have publicly insisted that nothing sexual or untoward happened between them and Jackson. The defense has previously told ABC News that at least three of the boys would be willing to testify in defense of Jackson.
Jackson's 1993 accuser, now in his 20s, has told prosecutors he does not want to testify, sources have told ABC News. However, his 1993 sworn affidavit, his civil records and his mother have been subpoenaed. The mother is on the prosecution witness list, sources told ABC News. In addition, the boy who received a settlement from Jackson in the mid-1990s and his mother are on the prosecution witness list.
The prosecution has suggested that Jackson won the trust of his younger accuser, who is a cancer survivor and was 13 at the time of the alleged molestation, by showering him with lavish gifts and accommodations. The singer then, prosecutors allege, took advantage of him after showing him adult magazines and Web sites and serving him wine, which he referred to as "Jesus juice," in soda cans.
Prosecutors believe Jackson has used similar tactics on other people and that his alleged actions with his accuser in his molestation trial illustrate a pattern of bad behavior.
"The purpose of evidence like this is to show the person's modus operandi -- that this is a bad person who has behaved in a certain way with others in past and that he probably behaved badly in the crime alleged in the prosecution's case in chief," said James Cohen, a professor at Fordham University School of Law in New York. "But whether it is let in depends on the context of the evidence."
Admission of propensity evidence has long been a source of legal debate. It has generally been disallowed in non-sex crime cases, although laws vary from state-to-state regarding the admissibility of propensity evidence in sex crime trials. In 1994, President Clinton signed into law the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act, which authorized the admission of a defendant's prior sexual offense evidence in sexual assault and child molestation cases -- but only when relevant. The prosecution must tell the defense its intent to offer prior sexual misconduct evidence before trial.
Law enforcement officials have argued that propensity evidence allows them to identify and protect the public from sexual predators, helps establish motives in sex cases and may empower victims who are hesitant to file reports to police. But some legal experts have argued that propensity evidence unfairly sways a jury against a defendant.
Testimony about previous convictions for similar crimes or previous similar allegations, some experts say, may cause jurors to convict someone based on their past and not on the evidence directly related to their trial. Propensity evidence may empower jurors to seek revenge for the past and cloud their judgment over whether the defendant is guilty of the charges he faces in the present.
Popular Reads
ABC News Live