Jim Avila Q+A on Jackson Trial (3/30/05)

March 30, 2005 — -- Michael Jackson continues to stand trial in Santa Barbara, Calif. The singer, 46, has pleaded not guilty to charges that he molested a 13-year-old cancer survivor and plied the boy with alcohol.

ABC News correspondent and lead Jackson trial reporter Jim Avila answers a selection of your questions about the case in this online Q+A.

Wilma in Maine asks: Isn't the judge allowing past stories about Jackson paramount to admitting hearsay evidence, which I always had thought wasn't allowed. Thank you.

Jim Avila: There is a special law in California. Evidence code 1108. It allows evidence of prior bad acts to prove a propensity to commit sex crimes. It only affects rape and sexual molestation cases and allows prosecutors to bring in witnesses from past allegations even if they were never proven or even charged in court.

Craig in Cincinnati asks: Won't Michael Jackson have to take the stand and testify now that so many prior allegations are coming into the case? If Michael Jackson takes the stand, don't you think it will be very dangerous for him to be cross-examined by Sneddon?

Avila: Michael Jackson of course never "has" to take the stand. His attorney said in open arguments more than once that the jury "will hear from Mr. Jackson." And our own source reporting is that the Jackson defense team for now plans on calling its client to the stand. But that is subject to change.

As for fearing Sneddon … cross-examination for Jackson contains several perils. Including having to answer why two other boys accused him of sexual abuse and why he settled the cases.

Jon in Raleigh, N.C., asks: Don't the parents of the alleged victim have any responsibility? Why isn't the department of social services investigating them for putting their children at risk? Is it likely they could be charged?

Avila: The Department of Children and Family Services did investigate the family and Jackson immediately after the broadcast of the 2003 Martin Bashir documentary, "Living With Michael Jackson." The DCFS didn't find a problem. The boys now say they lied to DCFS and didn't tell DCFS about the molestation and other conduct they now allege.

As for parental responsibility, certainly many parents would question why anyone would leave their children unattended at the home of a 45-year-old with no children their age. Also, even after the mother complained about treatment at Neverland she left the accuser there and went home to Los Angeles.

Is any of that illegal? So far, only DCFS has investigated and found no problems.

The mom has yet to testify and explain some of her parenting actions. She has told sources close to the accuser's family that she was unaware of anything inappropriate until after the boy visited a Los Angeles psychiatrist.

Kirstin in St. Louis asks: What does Mr. Jackson do when the most damaging testimony is taking place? Where is he looking? Where are his hands? Does he write notes to his attorney during testimony? Does he shake his head or in any way show reaction to the negative testimony? Does he appear to be lucid? How often has the judge had to admonish the spectators for outbursts? The family is in the courtroom. Are they reacting to the racier parts of testimony?

Avila: For the most part, Jackson sits in his orthopedically altered chair and watches intently. He communicates with his attorneys by note and whisper frequently. He watches the witness, sometimes reacts with shrugs of the shoulders … complains with exasperated looks when he can't hear the witness.

Most days he appears quite lucid, however on those days when he was late and complained of pain he looked out of it. I have not heard the judge admonish spectators for outbursts, since the actual trial began the fans have been quite orderly. They are warned each day by the bailiffs that there are no second chances.

Perhaps the most difficult thing to watch is all the porn which is displayed on a huge screen in front of the courtroom during testimony about it. Michael Jackson's mother, Katherine, looks down at her lap every time one of the pictures are displayed.

aurorabramble in Florida e-mailed: What I do not understand is how the family of the accuser is in contact with so many famous people? How do they do it? It seems odd to me?

Avila: This family which lives in Los Angeles, home to the stars, was able to get in touch with celebrities. First of all, the accuser had cancer and suffered from the disease at the same time he was a student at a comedy club camp. The comedy camp was the tie to the celebrities who volunteered to help out the kid dying of cancer.

TJ in Los Angeles asks: If a person is found innocent why can't lawyers and fake accusers be sued for malicious litigation???

Avila: Well, they can. Jackson has counter-sued before and won against a group of security guards who were forced to pay court costs and damages to Jackson after losing their suit.

If the accuser in this case was shown to be making everything up, he could be charged with perjury. Of course, the district attorney who is prosecuting the case would have to make a 180 and prosecute the kid.

JB in Milwaukee asks: What is in this case for the prosecutor? What is his psychological profile and what has he to gain from trying every trick in the book to win this case?

Avila: The prosecutor has said, how can I ignore this case? A child comes to me and says he was molested, our investigation shows inappropriate conduct. The DA's office took its case to the grand jury in Santa Barbara County, presented its evidence and the grand jury returned an indictment. In other words -- found enough evidence to take the case to trial. So it's not one person.

Of course, the Jackson side says Tom Sneddon is on a personal vendetta and is angry because the 1993 case went nowhere after the accuser settled with Jackson and refused to testify.

Greg in Los Angeles asks: My concern is that this case can establish a precedent that can ultimately legitimize harassment. A dedicated team could bring repeated (false!) allegations over the years against any target -- when those allegations reach some jurisprudential critical mass, then they can be taken into consideration at yet another trial based on false accusation.

Does this seem potentially a tool that will serve us only ill?

Avila: The law I described above was passed by the California legislature. It felt child molesters were getting away too easily because sex crimes happen in secret without eyewitnesses and often pit children against adults in the witness box. So to support the accusers it passed the law that allows previous uncharged cases to be presented to the jury.

Defense attorneys think it's grossly unfair, but officials elected by the people of California voted for it and its law.

Mihos in Egypt asks: My question involves due process and accountability issues. After court convenes for example, and cameras are turned off, what sort of impression do the tabloid styled court-television reporters leave in the collective mind of objective, professional journalists hired to report factual information in an unbiased manner? Do you and your colleagues ever discuss the possibility that unethical coverage of this case may have negative ramifications on ongoing efforts galvanized by genuinely empathetic advocates of child abuse?

Unquantified, sensationalized reporting is not something practiced by ABC. Do your journalists follow an ethics guideline or peer review?

Where do these reporters get the leaked documents?

Avila: There is a great deal of discussion among the non-tabloid media. And there are different rules we must follow. Among them: We do not report rumors. We multi-source our stories based upon unnamed sources. We do not pay for interviews.

The biggest challenge we have is to compete for the latest news and secrets and still uphold our standards. While the tabloids use different standards, our best weapon is reputation. People talking to us and leaking to us know their story will be reported factually and frequently that's all our sources want.

We get leaked documents through sources we cannot reveal.

Frankie in Scotland writes: I have watched the reconstruction of the trial on Sky One and it seems to me there is a lot of contradiction in what is being said on the stand so why not pull out the good old polygraph test?

Avila: Polygraphs are not allowed in United States criminal courts. They are not deemed reliable. They can be fooled. Subjects can be taught how to fool them, and pathological liars who believe what they are saying can go undetected.

Eric in Los Angeles: Why do all of the media services shine such a bright light on stories such as these just because it is attached to a celebrity? If he is guilty -- that is horrible for the kids he abused. If he is not guilty then this is a horrible public attack against an innocent man who is a bit odd. Either way it is not "News" in the traditional sense.

Avila: News in the traditional sense? He is one of the most famous people in the world. He is on trial for serious crimes that could end his career and put him in jail for up to 20 years. The challenge is to report the story by ABC standards and not tabloid standards, which is what we strive to do every day.