In response to accusations by Michael Jackson’s lawyers that Santa Barbara County District Attorney Tom Sneddon has misused his power and should be removed from their client’s case, prosecutors fought back in a tersely worded motion released Friday.

Defense lawyers have repeatedly questioned Mr. Sneddon’s conduct, accusing the veteran prosecutor of having a “vendetta” against Mr. Jackson stemming from the failure of a 1993 case.

There is not “one scrap of evidence” to support the “vendetta” theory, Senior Deputy District Attorney Gerald Franklin stated in the response motion.

His motion stated that it would be reasonable if Mr. Sneddon does “not have warm personal regard for” Mr. Jackson, since the prosecutor had substantial evidence that the entertainer molested at least one boy in 1993 and “molested another lad 10 years later.”

Mr. Franklin added: “The defendant does not have a constitutional right to a District Attorney who likes him, nor to one who is indifferent about prosecuting him successfully. He has a constitutional right to be prosecuted fairly, by prosecutors who confine their zeal within legal and ethical limits.”

The request to disqualify Mr. Sneddon and his office from prosecuting the Jackson case is scheduled to be heard Nov. 4. If approved, the Attorney General’s Office would take over. The state office has submitted its opinion, which has not been released by the court. The attorney general is expected to have a representative at the hearing.

State Penal Code states that requests to take cases away from a district attorney “shall not be granted unless it is shown by the evidence that a conflict of interest exists such as would render it unlikely that the defendant would receive a fair trial” — which the defense has alleged but the prosecution says is baseless.

This is the third in a string of defense motions alleging prosecutorial misconduct, including that Mr. Sneddon “bullied” witnesses during the grand jury proceeding, crossed the line by acting like an investigator and violated attorney-client privilege during a search. Judge Rodney Melville recently denied the request to set aside the indictment and to bar evidence seized from Neverland Valley Ranch and a private investigator’s office. The defense team, led by Thomas Mesereau, will likely challenge those decisions with the Court of Appeal.

Mr. Jackson is out on bail and has pleaded not guilty to charges of child molestation and conspiracy. Trial is scheduled to begin in January.

In response to defense accusations that Mr. Sneddon is “overzealous,” Mr. Franklin replied that he is doing the job he was elected to do: “Just as the Santa Barbara District Attorney was duty-bound not to commence a criminal prosecution in 1994 without testimonial evidence to support it, he was duty-bound to charge Michael Jackson in 2003 when evidence warranted it.”

Defense lawyers had lambasted Mr. Sneddon for “bullying,” “threatening” and “intimidating” witnesses during the grand jury proceeding. While Judge Melville found this was insufficient reason to set aside the indictment, he did characterize Mr. Sneddon’s tone as “regrettable.”

Mr. Franklin acknowledged that there may have been a “certain lack of cordiality,” but the district attorney’s “apparent impatience with two distinctly hostile witnesses of the 40 who were examined by one or another of the prosecutors in the grand jury proceeding is not evidence of a conflict sufficient to disqualify him as one of defendant’s prosecutors at trial.”

Defense lawyers also attacked Mr. Sneddon’s performance at a press conference Nov. 19, 2003, when a warrant was issued for Mr. Jackson’s arrest, because he joked with reporters.

Mr. Sneddon later apologized on national television for not having a more serious tone.

Source: News Press

Category: Archive