Is video testimony at trial unfair?

If you don't want to argue all the other facets of the case, I might recommend you not keep mentioning them in a salacious way yourself. You have already (further down thread) made comments which could use a bit of rebutting, however I will stick with your request if you will from now on and focus on video testimony regardless of who is requesting it.I think video testimony is different than written testimony in that it is more accurate and can also draw more empathy from the viewer.However I do not see any problem with use of video testimony itself. Indeed I wonder if all testimony should be video at this point, including cross examinations, with sustained objections edited out for playing to a jury. That would remove numerous cases of having to throw out the jury, as well as lessen the emotional impact on witnesses or lawyers playing to the jury.It seems your main concern is not that it is video, but that it is video without chance for cross examination. I share your concern, but only to a slight degree. One is not compelled to testify against onesself and so may make statements without having to be crossed on them.Whether he does such a thing on video as opposed to live seems just a minor difference, and it has been allowed for children or emotionally challenged witnesses in the past, so why not an adult?Problems would arise if he starts disputing actual specific factual statements of others and asserts concrete new facts the jury must consider. That would be unusual to have facts go into record as unchallengeable by the opposition.I'd be opposed to seeing that happen, whether on video or written or live.My guess is the tape will be of MJ explaining himself and so acting as a character witness, rather than as a factual witness. I think that will be risky for the defense in that a jury could look at it negatively (as you have just done) or simply look at him negatively, in that he couldn't even face them directly to talk about his character.Frankly, I'm not surprised at the leniency he is getting at this point. I'm surprised the case hasn't been thrown out due to lack of evidence. The prosecution has been cut a lot of slack, including testimony by third parties that others have been molested, only to have the "molestees" dispute it. That seems even more problematic than video testimony. Though there is no indication that the video will go down well with the jury at all.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

holmes writes me:

quote:

---

If you don't want to argue all the other facets of the case, I might recommend you not keep mentioning them in a salacious way yourself.

---

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:

---

I think video testimony is different than written testimony in that it is more accurate and can also draw more empathy from the viewer.

---

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:

---

Problems would arise if he starts disputing actual specific factual statements of others and asserts concrete new facts the jury must consider.

---

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'm surprised the case hasn't been thrown out due to lack of evidence.

---

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!

This part may very well be an agree to disagree sort of thing. While I wish we would change trials so that they were less about show and more about facts, I am not really concerned that video allows more empathic connection than a written statement. If anything that seems to argue for more use of it in general, given the nature of trials as they are.What is necessarily wrong with having testimony that is more empathic than another kind of testimony (leaving aside the issue of non cross)? He has already challenged the accuser's statement by entering a guilty plea. So general refutation is not the issue. The question is will he try and refute testimony as to the specifics of the event.As long as he doesn't do that then there really is no problem on not having a cross, although one does wonder what he could say that wouldn't open the door to some topic for cross.If you are wondering what he is left with that isn't direct challenge to testimony, I have already mentioned a bit: character. He can discuss what his life is like and what kind of issues he has to go through. Thus he can try to get past the fact that he looks strange and his behavior seems strange, which may effect how they view him.He may also try and discuss larger issues that would be reasons not to convict him, though I seriously doubt he'd create a video asking them to allow for grown men to play sexually with boys because the world should realize not all such instances are damaging.In any case, at this point I think its premature to argue it shouldn't be allowed as he has some options of what to discuss that sets a tone about himself, rather than specifically disputes something that defense can cross on.Once the video is seen of course, there may be all sorts of reasons for disagreeing with it. I assume the judge and defense council will have to watch it before it is shown to the jury? Let me take this in reverse order. We have to allow him to do this because the judge has decided it is okay and (one must assume) will only deal with noncrossable details. Could the same thing be done with character witnesses? Absolutely and they already have, but I don't believe there should be restraint on testimony just because other testimony could or has done that job. I think you are right that it does seem unnecessary and personally I think it is a risky gambit.Even if one does not question whether it is a legal thing he has chosen to do, it may very well reverse all the ground gained by character witnesses, because it will look like he is trying to avoid something. I agree silence might be the better part of valor in this instance.But there is no law that you have to be smart in court.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

holmes writes me:

quote:

---

We have to allow him to do this because the judge has decided it is okay...

---

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!

Well here's the problem, our system is supposed to be slanted against the accuser and for the defense. Not unreasonably so, but certainly cut in that direction.However, I do not see it as you do at all. The prosecution clearly had little evidence of the crime in question, so they decided to wage a prosecution based solely on innuendo regarding his character.Almost their entire case is, look at all of these past ACCUSATIONS therefore he must be a bad guy who likely did what my client is accusing him of doing.What's insane, and completely slanted FOR the accuser, is that this line of argument was allowed. None of the cases cited are on record, and thus not legally recognized as true. Furthermore the people he was accused of molesting have appeared to say that they were in fact not molested.Thus the judge allowed the prosecution to proceed with a case built wholly on innuendo about other cases where the principle parties to the offense deny an offense ever took place!How would you like to be in a trial for theft, then the prosecution (having failed to establish the facts in the robbery you are accused of) is allowed to have various people come in and testify that they saw you rob certain stores and other people, when you had never been charged or convicted in those cases and the stores and people are readily standing behind you that the events never took place?Essentially all the judge has done is allowed a person to be tried on innuendo of character... not merits of the case.My guess is not that this judge is star-struck with MJ, if anything the judge seems star struck with being involved with a celebrity trial and wants to extend it and have people talking about it any way he can.Given his extremely biased rulings in favor of the prosecution, this seems somewhat just and definitely in character.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)