|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total) |
| |
popoi | |
Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0 |
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?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
CK Member (Idle past 4127 days) Posts: 3221 Joined: |
How is it any different from making a written statement?
(Unless the law is very different in the states, that doesn't not require the accused to take the stand.) This message has been edited by Charles Knight, 12-May-2005 07:07 PM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
Ben! Member (Idle past 1398 days) Posts: 1161 From: Hayward, CA Joined: |
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. I did a few Google search, trying to find some information about exactly what happened (and also about the rules for video testimony in general). Too much noise... It would be really helpful if you could post a link to an article that describes the situation allowed, or if you could post information about the rules for video testimony in general. From the searches I could conduct, seems like video testimony is granted only in special cases, due to, for example, "poor state of the Witness’ health and his extreme difficulty in coping with the emotional stress caused by giving evidence" (Sayfa bulunamad - TR). But I couldn't find anything for your case (Jackson) or for the general case. Thanks.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
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!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
mick Member (Idle past 4986 days) Posts: 913 Joined: |
I suspect MJ is allowed to bend the rules, because he is very very rich.
I had a friend who was requested to attend a trial by jury as a witness. My friend's buddy had smashed up a bar. My friend was informed that if he did not turn up to the trial in person he would be charged with contempt of court. As far as I know, my friend wasn't given the option of making a video statement. For that matter, he wasn't allowed to give a written statement, either. Different rules apply for rich people, berberry. Mick
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
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!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
CK Member (Idle past 4127 days) Posts: 3221 Joined: |
No I think different things apply to the accused.
In the same way, that the law can compel a witness to take the stand but not the accused. We need to be very careful to seperate out the two - they are not interchangable. This message has been edited by Charles Knight, 12-May-2005 08:08 PM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
mick Member (Idle past 4986 days) Posts: 913 Joined: |
the law can compel a witness to take the stand but not the accused well I'm no lawyer, that's for sure, but I don't really see why that should be the case. Seems a bit weird to me. Mick ps. I'm probably making a stupid mistake here... I like jury trial, i like the idea of showing up to defend yourself in person. But I don't know much about law. These are just gut reactions, and therefore are likely silly! This message has been edited by mick, 05-12-2005 08:13 PM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
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!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
mick Member (Idle past 4986 days) Posts: 913 Joined: |
I guess video testimony should be allowed, in special cases. If you have a good reason for it, i.e. you're lying in bed dying of cancer, then I guess it's fair enough.
What confuses me is why MJ (or anybody else) should want to make use of video testimony in the first place. Personally I'd rather defend myself in person, have accusations made against me directly, and speak for myself. MJ is quite the showman, he could probably win over a jury no problem. This message has been edited by mick, 05-12-2005 08:18 PM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
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!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
Minnemooseus Member Posts: 3941 From: Duluth, Minnesota, U.S. (West end of Lake Superior) Joined: Member Rating: 10.0 |
I don't personally know what Scott Peterson was compelled to do.
But since there are constitution protections against forced self-incrimination, can the defendent in any criminal case be compelled to testify at all? Even if he makes a vidio statement, he still isn't obligated to testify in person? Is he even obligated to be in the courtroom? Moose
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
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!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
CK Member (Idle past 4127 days) Posts: 3221 Joined: |
actually searching google - I can't find anything about this. Can you provide a link?
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024