[bountyhunter]

But the Michael Jackson case is a MAJOR civil liberty issue but I am wagering that nobody outside of California knows about it.

Ten years ago Jackson thumbed his nose at the law becuse his hired pit bull (Tony Pelicano) intimidated the complainant and his family and got them to accept a $25 Million dollar bribe to drop the charges (settlement of a civil law suit). At that time, kali had a law which said a minor child COULD NOT be compelled to testify in a sex crime case if they did not want to.

The DA was furious that Jackson got away and that law has been changed. Now, the law in Kali is:

1) If a teacher, medical provider, therapist etc see any evidence of abuse to a minor they are REQUIRED to report it.

2) The minor child is REQUIRED to testify in any criminal proceedings if the state subpoenas them.

While I understand the reason, the upshot is:

If your ten your old is molested, you have no rights at all to say what happens next. He can be dragged through hell in a courtroom and you can't do jack about it.

Personally, I hope they throw the book at Michael Jackson but I also feel sorry for the kid that DA is going to use to do it.

BTW: it's the SAME district attorney today as it was ten years ago when MJ skated away. The DA called a press conference about this the day they searched his ranch and he looked like the cat who swallowed the canary.

[El Tejon]

bounty, why on earf would Kali need a separate statute to compel a material witness to testify?:confused:

Would this not be addressed in the court's power to subpoena for trial or grand jury? Do they not have investigatory/Prosecuting Attorney subpoenas out there?

Are any other witnesses given the option not to testify if under subpoena in Kali? :confused:

I understand I am not licensed out there, but I do not understand the rational basis for such a statute.

[KC]

"why on earf would Kali need a separate statute to compel a material witness to testify?"

Because the material witness is a minor, and has/had the protection of a body of law not available for adults.

[bountyhunter]

bounty, why on earf would Kali need a separate statute to compel a material witness to testify?

The law about not being able to force minor rape victims to testify in court was a compassion-based law. We all know what hell adult rape victims are subjected to at trial. It was deemed only fair that a small child be allowed to refuse the ordeal.

Thanks to Michael Jackson, they no longer have that right. I don't know if they named the new statute the "Michael Jackson Law", but they might as well have.

But, there is another side to this:

Before when minors could "bail out", it set up a pretty sick scenario. We keep hearing people ask why anybody would let their children stay over at his house, given the fact he has admitted publicly that he has the kids sleeping in his bed.

Well: the answer in some cases is that the adult parents are hoping MJ would bugger their kid so they could work the $25 Million cash machine. It goes like this: they tell the cops and charges are brought. They file a civil lawsuit for "damages" and pick a number like 100 Zillion dollars. The suit is "settled" for an undisclosed amount and suddenly the kid gets amnesia. The parents just won the lottery.

That's pretty sick. If I was the DA, I would charge any parent who lets their kid sleep over their with felony child endangerment and tell social services to jump on them. If they let their kid sleep with a guy who delights in filling his bed with ten year old boys, they should have the kid taken away from them.

Bottom line: the new law at least broke the "cash machine". They can't bail out and take the money once charges are filed, so there is no financial incentive for them. maybe MJ will start having difficulty getting parents to lend (pimp) their kids to him now.:barf:

[Lone_Gunman]

We should not prosecute rapists and child molesters, its just too hard on the victims???

[Henry Bowman]

As I understand it, the current accusor and his parents are very willing to testify and do not need to be compelled to do so.

[GSB]

Ten years ago Jackson thumbed his nose

That might explain a lot actually.

[El Tejon]

bounty, oh, "compassion based law", I see. I'm in the wrong darn state to think of that.:D

[Sergeant Bob]

This is what I posted on a previous (locked) thread.
_________________________________________________________
Actually, I think there might be a (civil?) rights issue to the case. In 1993, Jackson was accused of child molestation. Then later the charge was withdrawn when Jackson settled with the plaintiff for 20 million dollars (IIRC). The prosecutor could no longer pursue the case as there was effectively no longer an injured party.
Because of that case, the law was changed in California so that once a complaint was filed, even if the plaintiff withdrew the complaint, the State could still prosecute, then compell them to testify.
Would that be violating the victims rights, if he no longer (for whatever reason) contended that he had been victimized? Since the victim is a minor, is it up to the (possibly gold digging) parents?

Or, might it be a violation of Jackson's rights (supposing the alleged victim withdrew the complaint) if the State pursued prosecution without a complainent?
Does this make any sense? This has just been bouncing around in my head for a couple of days. Any thoughts?
___________________________________________________________

I don't think Bounty Hunter is argueing that that Jackson shouldn't be held accountable. If someone withdraws their complaint, isn't it effectively saying thet no crime was commited? If so, how can a procecutor force the alleged victim to testify if he says no crime or harm was commited on him?