Prior Allegations May Help Jackson Defense
March 29, 2005 — -- The judge's decision to allow jurors in Michael Jackson's child molestation trial to hear about prior similar allegations against "The King of Pop" may not be as devastating to the defense as some experts believe.
On Monday, Santa Barbara County, Calif., Superior Court Judge Rodney S. Melville ruled that prosecutors in Jackson's molestation trial can present testimony about allegations that the singer molested or behaved inappropriately with five other boys, including former child star Macaulay Culkin and two youngsters who reached multimillion-dollar settlements with the singer in the 1990s.
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." The entertainer has pleaded not guilty to 10 charges that include felony conspiracy with 28 overt acts involving child abduction, false imprisonment and extortion.
The judge's ruling could be devastating for Jackson, who has never been criminally charged for the other allegations and has denied any wrongdoing. Melville's decision means Jackson's attorneys must now defend him against allegations that he behaved inappropriately with five other boys, in addition to the alleged victim in his trial.
However, some court observers believe the testimony about the prior allegations could backfire for the prosecution. In his failed bid to get the testimony excluded from trial, lead defense attorney Thomas Mesereau Jr. argued that some of the prosecution witnesses who want to testify about the allegations are disgruntled former Neverland employees who have a grudge against Jackson or have unsuccessfully tried to sue him.
Mesereau can be expected to attack the credibility of these witnesses, arguing that Jackson has always denied wrongdoing, was never charged in connection with the prior allegations and that money motives have fueled the prior allegations. Some witnesses, the defense has argued, have sold their stories to supermarket newspaper tabloids.
"I can see Mesereau arguing that the previous cases were about the money, that there was a money motive," said California-based attorney Steve Cron. "I can see him arguing that, 'Well, if something bad happened, why didn't you report it to police?'"
In addition, three of the boys mentioned in the allegations -- including Culkin -- have publicly insisted that their friendships with Jackson involved nothing sexual or improper. Only one Jackson accuser -- the son of a former Neverland maid who made allegations against "The King of Pop" in 1990 and ultimately reached a reported $2 million settlement with him in the 1994 -- is expected to testify for the prosecution, along with his mother.
The boy at the center of the 1993 scandal who reached a reported $20 million settlement with Jackson in 1994 has told prosecutors he does not want to testify. (Santa Barbara prosecutors decided not to pursue the 1993 case after they said the alleged victim refused to testify.) However, his mother is on the prosecution's witness list. Witnesses from the Neverland ranch who claim to have seen inappropriate behavior between Jackson and three other boys, including Culkin, are expected to testify. Melville said he would allow only witnesses who could testify to alleged actual physical, sexual misconduct.
Still, the absence of direct incriminating testimony from all but one of the boys Jackson allegedly molested or had designs on may confuse jurors and give the defense more ammunition to discredit the defense.
"I would not be taking a victory lap just yet if I'm the prosecution," ABC News legal analyst Joseph Tacopina, who also represents one of the unindicted co-conspirators related to the conspiracy charge in Jackson's trial, said on "Good Morning America."
"We are going to hear from one of the alleged victims," said Tacopina. "Out of the other four alleged incidents, three of the four people say nothing ever happened. The other one [the 1993 alleged victim] refuses to testify. I'm not sure this is the sort of evidence that will help the prosecution if it comes in that way," he added.
Culkin's representatives said after Monday's ruling that he "is presently not involved with the proceedings, and we do not expect that to change." But sources told ABC News that Jackson's defense plans to call the actor to the witness stand to refute the prosecution's claim.
If Culkin testifies and denies the allegations, he could cast doubt on the credibility on the prosecution's case.
"If he [Culkin] gets up on the witness stand and says, 'Nothing happened to me. Read my lips, nothing happened,' the jury has to accept that as fact," said ABC New legal analyst Dana Cole.
A change in California law in 1996 regarding sex crime cases has allowed prosecutors to present testimony on alleged bad acts or propensity evidence in Jackson's trial.
The prosecution has suggested that Jackson won the trust of his younger accuser, a cancer survivor who 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 the boy after showing him adult magazines and Web sites and serving him wine, which he referred to as "Jesus juice," in soda cans.
