|
When the Prosecutor Becomes the Lawbreaker!Commentary by FunkyBrotha"[The prosecutor] is the representative not of an ordinary party to a controversy, but of a sovereignty whose obligation to govern impartially is as compelling as its obligation to govern at all; and whose interest, therefore . . . is not that [he] shall win a case, but that justice shall be done . . . . He may prosecute with earnestness and vigor -- indeed, he should do so. But, while he may strike hard blows, he is not at liberty to strike foul ones." Berger v. U.S., 295 U.S. 78, 88 (1935) (Sutherland, J.).
The win at any cost attitude highlighted above seems to many analysts of the Jackson trial to be one of the factors motivating District Attorney Tom Sneddon in his pursuit of a criminal conviction in a case with very little substance and credible or physical evidence. This attitude is of course one of the most worrying problems facing the US legal system because the actions of a corrupt prosecutor has a more damaging outcome than the actions of any criminal. At the expense of true justice we witness over-zealous prosecutors who cheat and offer false testimony and fabricated evidence. Of course, it must be noted that such behavior would be contrary to the Citizens Protection Act 1998 which aimed to re-establish that prosecutors are bound by rules of ethics and enforce the idea that they are NOT above the law.However, despite these rules of law being in place many prosecutors continue to behave unprofessionally and illegally in order to boost their image and receive promotion. The following will detail the areas where such corruption can take place resulting in innocent people being convicted but, it must be realized that not all the following will relate to the Jackson trial itself.Firstly, most defendants suffer from the guilty until proven innocent principle, or should that be flip reversed, who knows? Nevertheless, most ordinary citizens who are called up for jury service suffer from lack of knowledge of the legal system and may not have the ability to intelligently analyze the way in which evidence was gathered, witnesses found etc. It is generally accepted that once a person is arrested, charged, indicted and brought to trial there must be bona fide evidence against the person. But, you guessed it, this is not always the case. Sometimes prosecutors invoke strong feelings at grand jury testimony time, sometimes prosecutors make false imputations of criminal activity past and present, sometimes prosecutors encourage witnesses to change their story and as a result, sometimes defendants go to trial on the basis of illegal behavior on the part of the prosecution.Moving on, we will focus on the Jackson trial once again in order to discuss the role of the police in his arrest and the creation of charges against him. No doubt, several police officers will be called to testify in this trial, but many judges throughout the U.S. have stated that perjury on the part of the police is another serious problem, with many police lying under oath on a regular basis sometimes to protect their position and also due to their fear of losing their job. We have learned that on several occasions a few police officers in SBPD actually left the department because they disagreed with the way in which the Jackson case was being handled, some stating that their was no evidence to suggest that he should have been charged in the first place. Corruption also occurs in the gathering and nature of the evidence itself, most criminal trials do not rely on tangible evidence at all but in the testimonies of the various witnesses called by both the defense and the prosecution. Therefore, the issue of credibility is a serious one, and one which can ultimately lead to conviction even where there is a lack of physical evidence.Credibility is a major factor in the Jackson trial, in fact, it is the only real matter that the jury must decide upon. The question on everyone’s lips is, “who will they believe?” Well, with the discovery that the family have been involved in several extortion attempts and have also made false child abuse allegations several times before, it is almost unimaginable how this will be a difficult question to answer.One other question on our lips is whether the DA Tom Sneddon is a law enforcer or law breaker? As we all know by now, Sneddon has stopped at nothing in search of evidence and victims to slap charges on Michael Jackson. Is that the job of a prosecutor. How many prosecutors become obsessed with one case over a period of twelve years? How many prosecutors waste millions in tax payers money chasing after charges over that time frame? How many prosecutors span the globe searching for victims that don’t exist, using their own cash to hunt “victims” in Australia. Moreover, after the airing of “Living with Michael Jackson”, Sneddon's vendetta stepped up a gear when he decided to leave notes under the door of the family now accusing Jackson of abuse, offering his legal services. Strange that the family made no accusations and were singing a very different tune prior to Sneddon's involvement. Before and after charges were brought, in fact, almost a year after his arrest over one hundred search warrants were being executed on Jackson’s property and related associates and employees. It must be reminded that without Michael Jackson’s name, this case is completely simple, one boy makes an accusation against one man, there is no real tangible evidence, it’s a he said-he said affair. How could such an accusation turn into one hundred search warrants including the seizure of financial statements which are totally irrelevant to the charges being made.We have already begun trial proceedings and in the first days this “case” has been exposed as being weak and susceptible to collapse. We will see, in time, whether Sneddon will have to answer for his inappropriate conduct or whether he will be able to disguise his shady and questionable behavior within the doctrine of ‘harmless error’. Of course, there is in fact many ways in which prosecutors are protected and immune from civil suits, but since 1991 and the decision in Burns v Reed prosecutors are no longer immune from civil suits relating to their actions during the investigative stage of a case. Could this decision create a problem for Sneddon whose actions have already been labeled as “regrettable” by Judge Melville, only time will tell. However, many of his actions during the Grand Jury may remain unpunishable due to the fact that grand juries very rarely refuse to follow the prosecutions lead and also the fact that the prosecution has absolutely no obligation to present exculpatory evidence. The proceedings in the grand jury are also never made public even in the most high profile cases and the media are never allowed access to such proceedings. The other problem facing the defense is how they will prove, if they intend to prove, that Sneddon has a vendetta against Jackson. This is a dodgy area since there has never been such an instance where a prosecutor has had a dislike for a major celebrity, however, simply disliking Jackson’s music for example does not constitute a vendetta but it is clear that Sneddon enjoys using his name to bask in the limelight, to become famous and to be able to go on television to laugh and joke over serious criminal charges. What the public really wants to know is, ‘Who is the REAL criminal here?’ I will leave you with a quote from Olmstead v United States 1928 which highlights the real crime being committed and the real crime in which justice will never be served: -“ To declare that the government may commit crimes in order to secure the conviction of a private criminal…….would bring terrible retribution”
|
楼主
显身卡
狗仔卡
发表于 2005-2-26 00:00:00
发表于 2005-2-28 00:00:00
"I know his mannerisms. I know his character. I know his body language, " says Edward Moss, a veteran Jackson impersonator.
By Dan MacMedan, USA TODAY This week, the professional Michael Jackson impersonator, 27, takes his moonwalking skills to the small screen by playing Jackson in weeknight re-enactments of the singer's child molestation trial on E! News: The Michael Jackson Trial (7:30 pm ET/PT). The E! series replicates parts of the previous day's testimony. The trial began Monday and is not televised. Moss, who has been mimicking Jackson, 46, at corporate events and on shows such as Mad TV for nearly a decade, now has to study daily trial transcripts to get into Jackson's head. "When I sing and dance and do a stage show, I've already got that down," he says. "But now I have to re-create Michael Jackson without any visual reference. I have to be him without knowing how he is. I have to re-create his emotions."He won't share his own opinion on Jackson's guilt or innocence. "I got hired to do a job. I don't want to be conflicted about this. I want to be able to go home and be myself at the end of the day."
His untelevised child molestation trial started Monday, and now Michael Jackson junkies can catch up on his courtroom saga with E!'s The Michael Jackson Trial, a re-enactment of action in court the day before.What's the format?Each weeknight, the cable network will air half-hour segments that re-create portions of the previous day's proceedings, with information culled from court transcripts.Friday's re-creations run the following Monday.Legal expert James Curtis hosts the show, which stars professional Jackson impersonator Edward Moss as the superstar singer. A cast of relative unknowns plays the legal team. A British version of the show will air on Sky News in the U.K.To pull it together, E! cut a deal with a court reporter to get transcripts via e-mail twice a day. Once they arrive, producers from both networks review the material and decide what to re-enact; the re-enactments themselves take four to five hours to shoot."The logistics are complex," says E! CEO Ted Harbert. "But we didn't want to do the same kind of coverage as every other TV outlet, with a reporter standing outside the courtroom and providing 60-second summaries."So why do it?"It's a story of national and international interest," Harbert says. "There is a great interest in this chapter in Jackson's life."Jackson, 46, is accused of molesting a 13-year-old child. He has pleaded not guilty.
After transforming himself into Jackson, that is. Moss is so practiced at playing the onetime King of Pop that he needs less than an hour to complete his physical transformation."Once I start putting on the makeup, change my skin to (being) lighter, thin out the nose a little bit and add wigs, that builds the character," he says.Even in his regular clothes, it's uncanny how Moss — who looks like Jackson during his Thriller heyday in 1982, with a touch of Vincent D'Onofrio's burly ruggedness — becomes the pop star on a dime. He turns away, leans back in his chair and bashfully looks at the floor, perfectly mimicking Jackson's voice. No big deal, Moss says: "I know his mannerisms. I know his character. I know his body language."And his fashion choices. Moss' on-screen wardrobe will depend on what Jackson actually wears to court. "I have a repertoire of outfits he has already been seen in. Black slacks, the black coat. And you've got to have the white armband." Moss first started being Jackson when he was 17. While working at McDonald's, he won a $200 costume contest by dressing up as the singer. "I wore these gray jeans. I knew nothing about makeup, and all I knew was Michael was whiter, so I smashed baby powder and smeared it on my face, and I borrowed some red lipstick. I was like, 'Wow, I can make some money doing this.' "Making mimicry a career entailed watching hours of Jackson footage and studying his videos and dance moves. The hardest part of being Jackson? "His shyness. He's so shy and I'm so the opposite," Moss says. "I lean into you when I talk, and he leans away. He wants his distance." Moss actually met Jackson while he was imitating the singer in front of the Hollywood Wax Museum in 1997. He spotted the singer, who was disguised as a woman, checking out Moss' performance, and ran up to say hello. "He said, 'You're really good, but I've got to go,' " Moss says. "He's nice, really quiet. He was walking down the street and kept right on going." The Los Angeles native is single and lives with his dog. And after his stint on the small screen is over, he says, he wants to start something that's not Jackson-related: "I want people to know who Edward Moss is. I feel I'm ready."