Trial Date for Michael Jackson Postponed Until January 2005
Date 2004/7/28 14:24:00 | Topic: Michael Jackson in the News
| Michael Jackson's Trial Date Postponed Until January 2005
Defence attorneys fight to have indictment dismissed
July 28, 2004
Michael Jackson's attorneys were in court yesterday to attend another hearing in the case against the King of Pop to discuss several motions. A motion was filed by Defence attorneys on July 13th and consisted of 22 pages of reasons why the trial should be delayed for four months, and was signed by Steve Cochran. According to the Associated Press, the motion called the charges against Michael an effort to "take down a major celebrity".
As Defence attorneys fought for the grand jury indictment to be thrown out, Judge Rodney Melville postponed the trial date (originally scheduled for September) until January 31st 2005, according to Reuters.
During the hearing, Deputy District Attorney Gordon Auchincloss (speaking on behalf of the Prosecution) claimed that once the documentary Living with Michael Jackson aired in February 2003, that the Accuser (who appeared in the documentary) was then manipulated by Michael Jackson, who used Neverland which Auchincloss said was "designed to entice and attract children". The Prosecution also claimed that the Accuser's family were abducted and held against their will at Neverland while being showered with gifts.
The Prosecution's words angered Defence attorney Thomas Mesereau, who passionately proclaimed these words as "absurd" to say that a stay at Neverland was abduction and claimed that the Prosecution had little evidence to support their accusations.
Prosecutors also claimed that after the documentary aired, Michael and his associates "forced" the Accuser and his family to take a vacation at luxurious resorts, according to the AFP.
Mesereau completely refuted these claims stating "The idea that they were imprisoned and forced to fly on private jets to Florida, to socialize with celebrities such as (actor) Chris Tucker, is absurd on its face. It would be laughed out of court by a jury."
- Information from www.mjni.com
|
|