- LOS ANGELES (AP) -- Charges
against Michael Jackson won't be derailed by a settlement, a prosecutor
says, and the reason is a law passed in response to the last time the pop
singer was accused of molestation, when the accuser refused to testify.
-
- "It is an irony," Santa Barbara District Attorney
Tom Sneddon said in an interview with The Associated Press. "The history
of the law is that the L.A. district attorney's office carried the legislation
as a direct result of the civil settlement in the first investigation."
-
- Mr. Sneddon baffled legal experts when he seemed to imply
in a nationally televised news conference Wednesday morning that state
law had changed since the 1993 case so that prosecutors could force minors
to testify. In that case, Mr. Jackson's alleged victim refused to testify
against him after reportedly receiving a multimillion settlement from Mr.
Jackson.
-
- "The law in California at that time provided that
a child victim could not be forced to testify in a child molest proceeding
without their permission and consent and cooperation," Mr. Sneddon
said. "As a result of the [first] Michael Jackson case, the Legislature
changed that law and that is no longer the law in California."
-
- But Mr. Sneddon later told the AP he was referring to
a change that allow prosecutors to intervene in a civil action and stop
it, removing the monetary incentive for someone to wait for the outcome
of a civil case before they decide whether to testify in a criminal trial.
-
- "The practical effect is that they cooperate"
with prosecutors in the criminal case, he said.
-
- Mr. Sneddon said he was aware that children cannot be
forced to testify, and that reporters and other attorneys had misinterpreted
his remarks at the news conference.
-
- Loyola University Law Professor Laurie Levenson said
she was fielding calls all day from members of the legal community and
other professionals who deal with molestation victims who were baffled
by the district attorney's comments.
-
- "I think he misspoke and he was confusing,"
Prof. Levenson said. "In a case of this magnitude with this much media
attention, there is a responsibility to be more precise."
-
- "This could affect other potential victims who wonder
if they come forward will they be forced to testify. It is a bad message
and it's not a good first impression. ... Everyone interpreted him as saying
he could now force witnesses to testify. It was a disservice in that what
he said may be scaring off other victims."
-
- Mr. Sneddon's mention of compelling testimony was especially
puzzling, legal experts said, because he also stated that the child now
making allegations against Mr. Jackson is willing to testify and has no
plans to bring a civil suit.
-
- If Mr. Sneddon's interpretation of the law is accurate,
it could be a significant boon to prosecutors, said Donald Steier, an attorney
who has represented several priests accused of molestation.
-
- "It's an area of law that has really changed dramatically
in the last few years through legislation that makes it a lot easier to
prosecute molestation cases," he said. "This might be another
example of the shift toward easing the burden of the prosecutor."
-
- © 2003 Bell Globemedia Publishing Inc. All Rights
Reserved.
-
- http://www.globeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20031120.wjack1120/BNStory/Front/
|
