|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Is video testimony at trial unfair? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
berberry Inactive Member |
It would appear that Michael Jackson's attorneys have found a way to allow him to testify at his molestation trial without having to take the stand: show videotape of MJ making his own case. That way, MJ doesn't have to face cross-examination. Isn't there something wrong with that?
This is a very focused question which has absolutely nothing to do with MJ's guilt or innocence. I would request that moderators consider any comments about the core issues of this trial to be off-topic in this thread. I simply want to get some feedback about this practice of testimony-by-videotape. In my opinion, if defense attorneys use a videotape where a defendant gives testimony, the prosecutors ought to be able to compel the defendant to take the stand and be cross-examined. I'm not an attorney and I don't understand all the finer points of these issues, but this practice seems fundamentally unfair to me. Am I missing something?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
berberry Inactive Member |
Charles Knight asks:
quote: Unless I'm mistaken, it is considered to be like a written statement and that's why it's allowed. But if it's no different than a written statement, then why not simply allow MJ to make a written statement? There must be some reason why his attorneys want the video presented, and my guess is that a video statement is not the same as a written statement; it's at least somewhat more compelling. Keep America Safe AND Free!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
berberry Inactive Member |
I'm having trouble finding anything online as well, Ben. I'm going on what I've heard on TV. I did find the transcript to yesterday's Abram's Report on MSNBC in which the video testimony was described. In response to Dan Abram's question "why did Michael Jackson break down?", correspondent Mike Taibbi responded:
I‘m not sure he broke down. I mean he was listening very intently. And then later on when they played almost all of the two-hour video shot by Jackson videographer, Hamid Moslehi, Jackson listened to himself intently as the jurors listened to himself, basically tell his story. A very important daymaybe more important in some ways than Macaulay Culkin‘s testimony, because this is what Jackson‘s side wants to do to get the entire Jackson story out there. Last week, it was OK, he sleeps in bed with individual boys night after night, hundreds of nights if not more, shock wave still running through the courtroom about that, presumably through the jurors‘ minds. Now that ship has sailed. The jurors know that. They‘re reminded of that and they got to hear Michael Jackson without the intrusion of cross-examination, or limits on his testimony, speak for almost two hours to the jury about what he thinks about children, about adults who betrayed him, about why he feels safe at Neverland, why he feels safer with children, about his loneliness and his pain. He was humanized in that today, and the prosecution couldn‘t do a thing about it, at least not today. Keep America Safe AND Free!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
berberry Inactive Member |
mick writes me:
quote: You're preaching to the choir. We've already seen that different rules apply - MJ is allowed to arrive for trial whenever he gets ready. There doesn't seem to be a set time when MJ is expected to show up. All the jurors have to be there at a certain time, all the attorneys and prosecutors have to be there at a certain time, but if MJ wants to stop by the hospital for a cup of coffee and a pain pill and then show up late he's allowed to do so. My question has more to do with the propriety of video testimony in this or any case. Obviously video testimony is allowed; I'm asking for opinions on whether it should be allowed. My feeling is that it shouldn't be, or if it is the prosecutors should be able to compel the defendant to take the stand. Keep America Safe AND Free!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
berberry Inactive Member |
mick writes me:
quote: But that isn't the case here. Jackson is sitting right there in the courtroom. If this is the way things are done, then why didn't they allow Scott Peterson to arrange for his attorneys to lob softball questions at him on video and present that in his defense? Scott Peterson was rich too, wasn't he? I think the problem here is a star-struck judge. Keep America Safe AND Free!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
berberry Inactive Member |
minnemooseus asks:
quote: My contention is that by presenting the video, the defendant is testifying, only without the inconvenience of cross-examination. If he actually took the stand in his own defense, the prosecutors would have the right to cross-examine him. The video testimony is nothing more than a way for him to answer only the questions he wants to answer. Written statements are allowed, so why wouldn't that be sufficient? Keep America Safe AND Free!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
berberry Inactive Member |
Sorry moose, I missed this question first time through:
quote: Yes. Unless I'm very much mistaken a defendant is always required to be in the courtroom. Earlier, mick said something about video being allowed if a defendant was in hospital, but if that were the case I don't think the trial could even proceed. Keep America Safe AND Free!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
berberry Inactive Member |
holmes writes me:
quote: Point taken. I didn't want to get into the issues related to guilt or innocence, there's already a thread for that. I am most interested in the question of video testimony but I'm not opposed to discussion of other matters related to the conduct of the trial if such discussion can shed light on why this sort of testimony might have been allowed. I did comment on MJ's repeated tardiness but only as support for the notion that he's getting special treatment - I really do think this judge may be star-struck.
quote: Exactly, and that's why I say it shouldn't be allowed under the same premise by which a written statement would be allowed. It isn't the same thing, and IMO if a defendant is going to testify in any way beyond a written statement he should be subject to cross. He shouldn't be allowed to pick and choose the questions he wants to answer.
quote: But what else is he going to do, holmes, talk about the weather? Of course he's going to try to contradict the charges that have been made against him, otherwise there'd be no point. Please tell me if I'm mistaken, but doesn't this video testimony somewhere include a statement that he would never do the sorts of things he's been accused of doing? I think this is the same rebuttal video he made in response to the British documentary of a year or so ago. In order to avoid getting into the specifics, let's make this a hypothetical. Suppose this is a murder trial in which an accuser claims to have witnessed the crime. The defendant is allowed to make a video statement in which he doesn't specifically say "I didn't kill this person" but instead says "I would never kill anyone". Would that not be a challenge to the accuser's statement?
quote: I am too, but that's beside the point of whether or not video testimony should be allowed. But the lack of evidence and the flimsy case that the prosecution has made would seem to me to make the video testimony unneccessary. If the only point is to establish that MJ is a nice man of good character, couldn't that be done by character witnesses? Why do we have to allow him to appear before the jury, in effect defending himself, without requiring him to take the stand? You're absolutely correct that he doesn't have to testify against himself. But if he doesn't want to answer the prosecution's questions then I think he should just keep quiet entirely or he should be limited to presenting a written statement. Keep America Safe AND Free!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
berberry Inactive Member |
holmes writes me:
quote: Well there's the crux of the matter. It was the judge's decision, and it seems to me to be prejudicial against the accuser. In any case, you've helped me to understand the practice a bit better. I think you know more about it than I do. Still, because the young boy's case is so weak through no fault of his (unless he's lying, and we can no more assume that than we can that MJ is guilty) this seems to me to be a case of piling on. If MJ's case was more desperate I might think that the judge needs to do everything he can to see to it that the trial is fair, and that might involve allowing something like video testimony. But as you might have gathered I believe that this trial has been more than fair to MJ. It's beginning to seem unfair to the accuser. Keep America Safe AND Free!
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024