quote:The pop star's attorney, Thomas Mesereau Jr., was to conclude his closing argument, after which the prosecution was to make its rebuttal. The case then goes to the jury.
So wait..... what's this rebuttal stuff? What if the defense wants to rebuttal what they say? Why do they get the last word? I always thought the closing arguments were it. Prosecution went then Defense went. Done. Is this some sort of CA thing? Does it vary from court to court?
I guess funnier questions would be you think he’ll be found guilty and do you think he did it? I really hope he didn’t do it, but I think he did come close to crossing the line if he didn’t. Kind of doubt he’ll be found guilty.
And the best question, will there be riots if he is found guilty? Why not? LA loves a good riot!
[ June 03, 2005, 03:37 PM: Message edited by: Jay ]
Posts: 2845 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Woah... How is it that the defense was allowed to show video of Jackson "explaining" what was going on. Isn't that like putting him on the stand, yet denying the prosecution the chance to cross-examine him? How is that legal??? I know he has a choice of taking the stand or not--but if he chooses to, then he gets crossed! That's the way it works!
posted
That's what I was wondering, Katarain. I wonder sometimes if the prosecution was even trying.
quote: So wait..... what's this rebuttal stuff? What if the defense wants to rebuttal what they say? Why do they get the last word? I always thought the closing arguments were it. Prosecution went then Defense went. Done. Is this some sort of CA thing? Does it vary from court to court?
You'll have to wait for Dagonee, but I think it might have to do with the burden of proof lying with the prosecution--they have more to prove than the defense.
Posts: 4089 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
In federal court, the prosecution gets a brief rebuttal. I assume the rule is similar in California. It's a very powerful tool. It's supposed to only be used to respond to the defense, but depending on how lenient the judge is, it can be used to present something for the first time. But from what I've heard, most judges are pretty strict about it.
And yes, the burden of proof is the rationale we were given for it. In policy debate, the affirmative opened and closed the debate.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I would think that Kat had a good point...wouldn;t a tape of Jacko be the same as letting him testify but not allowing him to be cross examined?
posted
Katarain, I have no idea. An out of court statement presented to prove the truth of the matter asserted is hearsay, which is generally not allowed. But there are dozens of exceptions. I have no idea which one was used by the defense. I'm sure the prosecutor objected and was overruled.
For example, the videotape of the boy's testimony was admitted because the defense accused him of making up the story recently. "Recent fabrication" is a reason to allow a hearsay statement in that disproves it.
I'm interested now - I'll see if I can find the exception used by the defense.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
OK, did a little research. The prosecution got the documentary "Living With Michael Jackson" aired for the jury, on the grounds that the documentary was the motive for MJ to hold the family against their will in order to get them to tape a rebuttal to the documentary. The clips of MJ played by the defense were, I think, parts of the film edited out by the director.
So it's possible the judge was mitigating the bias inherent in the aired portions.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Did a little more research: the hearsay (the documentary) was admitted by the prosecution because it was relevant to motive. There is a rule, however, that when a portion of an out of court statement is entered into evidence, the other side can enter the rest if needed to avoid misrepresentation.
Good example: You get in a car wreck, and the plaintiff gets hold of an email that contains the sentence: "The whole stupid accident was my fault." Pretty damning evidence, right?
However, what if the next sentence were "I should have just stayed on the interstate - I know there are lots of crazy drivers on Route 666 when school is letting out."
Changes the whole nature of the admission, right? If you could present that email, it would be far more convincing than merely testifying that that's what you meant. The rule is designed to keep lawyers from pulling one sentence out of context.
In this case, the documentary edited the footage of Michael. The videotape introduced by the defense was the portion of his interview not aired in the show.
So it was a pretty basic decision for the judge to make.
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
