Appeals Court Hears Arguments in Jackson Case

Michael Jackson’s lawyers have requested the 2d District Court of Appeal to review trial court judge Rodney Melville’s various orders sealing documents pertaining to the case and other information that he has determined would taint the jury and prejudice the defendant’s right to a fair trial. Among the documents that have not been officially released are the grand jury transcripts, even though normally such transcripts are often made public. Pursuant to California Penal Code section 938.1(b)  “[t]transcript shall not be open to the public until 10 days after its delivery to the defendant or the defendant’s attorney. Thereafter the transcript shall be open to the public unless the court orders otherwise on its own motion or on motion of a party pending a determination as to whether all or part of the transcript should be sealed. If the court determines that there is a reasonable likelihood that making all or any part of the transcript public may prejudice a defendant’s right to a fair and impartial trial, that part of the transcript shall be sealed until the defendant’s trial has been completed.” Judge Melville’s order notwithstanding, someone leaked the transcripts to ABC News which used them as the basis for a “Primetime Live” broadcast on January 13, 2005. In response to that broadcast, the judge allowed Jackson to make a statement via his own website. 

Meanwhile the media are also seeking information about members of the jury pool, requests that Jackson’s lawyers oppose. At the same time that they insist that more transparency in the process would safeguard Jackson’s rights, they argue that potential jurors would be less than forthcoming if they believed that their own privacy would be invaded. (For more information about the media request as well as estimated costs of the trial, see Tim Molloy, Media Want Potential Jackson Juror Info, Feb. 7, 2005).

The media attention surrounding Phil Spector’s trial for the murder of actress Lana Clarkson is much less frenetic but still discernible. The transcripts in that case have been released despite the defendant’s lawyers’ objections. Spector was famous in the sixties; despite his attorney’s valiant characterization of him as “a musical icon” clearly he is no longer as celebrated, since the newspaper and television coverage is much less intense. The judge in that case, having weighed the interests at stake, found that Spector’s arguments that his right to a fair trial would be further prejudiced by a release of the grand jury transcript before the start of the actual proceedings were not persuasive.