by Patrick Moser
SANTA MARIA, California - Rival lawyers in Michael Jackson`s child sex trial wrangled Friday over whether his jurors should be told about two previous allegations that the star molested young boys.
Judge Rodney Melville ordered a special hearing to help him decide whether the two previous boy accusers will be allowed to testify in front the embattled star`s trial jurors.
If admitted into evidence, details of the cases, which were both settled out of court, could deal a major blow to Jackson, who is accused of fondling a now 15-year-old boy two years ago.
Intent on demonstrating a pattern of child abuse in Jackson`s past, Prosecutor Tom Sneddon asked Melville to allow him to tell jurors of the previous cases, including much-talked about 1993 claims by a 13-year-old youth that Jackson paid more than 20 million dollars to settle.
"There will be two separate civil suits involved," said Sneddon, without giving details of the second case.
Settlement of the 1993 case prompted the collapse of a criminal case against Jackson and led to a change in California law to allow evidence of previous uncharged allegations to be presented in evidence in a child molestation trial -- a law that could ironically now hurt the star`s defense.
The judge told lawyers in the case that he would hold a mini-hearing on whether to allow the crucial testimony on March 28, out of the jury`s earshot, but said it was unlikely he would call witnesses.
If evidence of the past child sex allegations is allowed, Jackson`s previous accusers could be called to give what would be explosive testimony in the current case that could see the star jailed for up to 20 years.
The defense urged the judge to consider whether the prosecution evidence presented so far at the trial, including testimony from Jackson`s accuser and his siblings, was credible enough to warrant raising the previous uncharged cases.
Jackson lawyer Robert Sanger said the judge would have to determine "if the evidence is so inflammatory as to be prejudicial" in the current case against the superstar.
Sanger also urged Melville to consider whether raising the earlier cases would cause major delays in the trial or whether "there was a potential for confusing the jury."
Before Jackson`s trial formally started on January 31, Melville had put off making a decision about allowing testimony from the previous allegations to be raised in front of jurors.
Jackson has pleaded innocent to 10 counts of sexually molesting the boy, plying him with alcohol and conspiring to kidnap him and his family and hold them against their will at Neverland two years ago.
In another key decision on Friday, Judge Melville also said he would allow prosecutors to summon Jackson`s financial records in their bid to prove that the panicked star was motivated by his flagging financial situation to plot to kidnap the boy.
During the hearing, which neither Jackson nor his trial jurors attended, Melville said he would allow Jackson`s financial records to be subpoenaed but would not allow lengthy discussion on the issue.
"I already ruled Jackson`s general financial statements can be raised as a motive," Melville said of the star`s financial situation that prosecutors have claimed is disastrous.
Prosecutors claim Jackson and five aides were so panicked by the February 2003 broadcast of a damaging television documentary, in which the star was seen holding hands with his future accuser, that they plotted to detain the family until they made a video exonerating him of any wrongdoing.
But Jackson`s lawyers contended that the star`s current financial situation was not relevant to the case and that his records could not be used to show a motive for an alleged crime.
Also Friday, prosecutors withdrew a request to summon the foreperson of the grand jury that handed down the 10-count indictment against Jackson in April 2004.
The defense maintains that fingerprints belonging to Jackson`s accuser found on at least one pornographic magazine seized in a search of the star`s bedroom was placed on the book during the grand jury hearings and not at Neverland, as the prosecution maintains.
03/18/2005 20:18 GMT