Created: Tuesday, 26 April 2005
Monday, April 25, 2005 On Day 38 the judge overruled defense objections in Michael Jackson’s trial Monday, saying he will allow Mr. Jackson’s ex-wife Debbie Rowe to testify as a prosecution witness.
Prosecutors want Rowe, the mother of two of his three children, to tell jurors that she was compelled to appear on a videotape praising Mr. Jackson as a good father and a humanitarian. Defense attorney, Mr. Sanger stated that there was no script for the video, just questions that were written out.
The defense objected on grounds that the testimony was part of a prosecution “desperation” tactic at the end of its case and had no relevance to the charges against Mr. Jackson.
(Excerpt from Court Transcript)
MR. SANGER: This, once again, is reaching.
First of all, Debbie Rowe gave up her parental rights, which is a totally different situation than we have here. There’s an ongoing family law matter that persists, even as we speak today, in Los Angeles over this, over the relationship and attempt to get some — possibly some visitation or some other benefit from that. However, we keep hearing “scripted performances,” and there are no scripts.
The only thing that has ever come up in this case, and will be clearly shown, if it isn’t already, by the time we get through, is that there were questions that were written out in advance. And anybody that does any kind of an interview for television is going to script out questions in advance, just as lawyers script out questions or question areas before they get up and ask witnesses on the stand, so interviewers script out their questions.
There’s nothing untoward about that. There was no scripted response to anything, despite Janet Arvizo’s common sense that there was no script of answers. So it doesn’t show a darned thing in that regard. And as we pointed out, and the Court’s already commented, the Maury Povich show is not in evidence. I don’t think there’s any way we can get it into evidence. We don’t intend to offer it. And as a result, unless Debbie Rowe testifies, of course, so how is her performance on that tape relevant, as much as the prosecution would like to make it relevant.
And I’m hearing they’d like to play parts of her tape, which just creates, under 352, if we even get to that point, if there is any probative value to this, it’s far exceeded by the consumption of time, the confusion of the jury and the prejudicial effect. Because if they bring that in and they play even part of the Debbie Rowe tape, we’ll play the three hours.
There’s no question that Debbie Rowe was spontaneous in her remarks, and it goes on and on. I think the Court saw the Maury Povich part of it, where she even answers at one point, “Look,” and she uses some term that would not ordinarily be appropriate on television, kind of laughs about it, and says, “I just want to get to the point.
Here’s what it’s all about.” That is her demeanor on the rest of that tape. She is giving an interview based on how she felt at the time. However, if the Court allows the prosecution to get into this, besides playing the three-hour tape or a large portion of it - not as a threat, but because it will show the context of her answering questions in a very spontaneous fashion - we will have to get into this whole business with Ian Drew, and his fight with Marc Schaffel, and Marc Schaffel’s fight with Ian Drew, and all these — the — all that surrounded this. Debbie Rowe’s on tape. In fact — and she surreptitiously tape-recorded conversations that she had with Ian Drew that go on for hours where she is not upset at Michael Jackson, doesn’t say anything bad about Michael Jackson as far as this — the case is concerned. She says a few callous things, I might point out. But other than that, her focus is she doesn’t like Marc Schaffel. And so she’s fighting with — or working with Ian Drew to fight about Marc Schaffel. All of this will come out to show — it will have to come out because it shows the context in which she would be testifying here. She has been extremely upset with Marc Schaffel for some other reason and has had an agenda that’s clear on all of her taped remarks, including the ones she taped of herself talking.
It’s very clear that she has some agenda with regard to Marc Schaffel that has nothing whatsoever to do with Michael Jackson. She regards him as just being pretty much a victim in Marc Schaffel’s machinations. So if she’s going to testify, we’re going to have to bring that out. Again, it’s not a threat. But I want the Court to understand the context. There really is a tremendous amount of material, tape-recorded material, by Debbie Rowe and by others in the group that the prosecution is trying to present here which indicate that there are - there are many other agendas on this case. I don’t know if you get to 352 because I just plain don’t see the relevance, forgetting about the giant can of worms that it would open. I just don’t see the relevance to these proceedings. So I’d submit it, Your Honor.
(End of Excerpt)
“I will admit testimony in that case” from Rowe, Judge Rodney Melville said, adding that he would seek ways to limit the scope of her evidence after defense attorneys warned that it would open “a giant can of worms.” In addition, the defense said that if Rowe testified they would seek to present the entire three hours of her video interview with Mr. Jackson’s associates as well as a tape recording she made secretly.
“She didn’t say anything bad about Michael Jackson,” said defense attorney Robert Sanger.
Mr. Sanger denied there were any threats to her during what he called “a tremendous amount of taped material.”
“I just plain don’t see the relevance to these proceedings,” he said, noting that she had quarrels with Mr. Jackson aide Marc Schaffel, not with Mr. Jackson, and that her testimony would be a way to push her own agenda regarding Schaffel.
Superior Court Judge Rodney S. Melville said, “I will admit the testimony and will look to ways to restrict that testimony.”
The defense noted that Rowe had voluntarily given up her parental rights to the children. Zonen said those rights had been recently restored and that she has a case under way in family court regarding visitation.
Rowe was a nurse for one of Mr. Jackson’s dermatologists when they married in November 1996. Their son was born in February 1997, followed by their daughter in April 1998. The couple filed for divorce in October 1999. Mr. Jackson has a third child, Prince Michael II, whose mother has remained anonymous.
One of Mr. Jackson’s attorneys, Brian Oxman, left the team Monday. Lead attorney Thomas Mesereau Jr. announced the departure in a statement that gave no explanation. Mr. Mesereau and Mr. Oxman were seen talking and then giving each other a hug after court recessed for the day. Mr. Oxman did not return a call for comment.
In other developments, District Attorney Tom Sneddon unexpectedly announced without explanation that planned witness Christopher Carter, a former Jackson security guard, will not be testifying.
Carter was recently arrested in Las Vegas and is facing bank robbery, kidnapping and other charges and had indicated he would invoke the Fifth Amendment protection against self-incrimination if asked about his criminal case.
He was the only witness that the prosecution had hoped would corroborate claims by the accuser and his family that Mr. Jackson gave alcohol to children and specifically to the accuser.
In another key ruling, the judge decided to grant “use immunity” to a travel agent who also is invoking Fifth Amendment protection and is under investigation by federal authorities looking into the alleged illegal and secret videotaping of private conversations between Mr. Jackson and his attorney on a charter jet flight.
The form of immunity granted to Cynthia Montgomery means her testimony in the Jackson case cannot be used against her in any other proceeding. She had told the court last week she would refuse to testify about anything involving the charter jet flight.
The jury, which was out of the courtroom most of the morning, returned to hear testimony by former Jackson employee, Kassim Abdool.
Abdool said he saw Mr. Jackson and the boy, who later received a multimillion-dollar settlement, leave a Jacuzzi with Mr. Jackson. Mr. Jackson, wearing a towel, gave a piggyback ride to the boy, who wore a bathrobe.
Abdool was one of a group of former employees who lost a wrongful termination suit against Mr. Jackson in 1997 and were ordered to pay damages to the entertainer.
Under defense questioning, Abdool said he participated in an interview for a tabloid for which they received $15,000 and that he spent the money to fund the lawsuit.
The prosecution spent the balance of the day calling witnesses to authenticate documents.
Recent Comments