A Santa Monica jury had a resounding answer for the question posed in Michael Jackson’s charity record “What More Can I Give?â€, which was at the center of a contentious lawsuit brought against the entertainer by a former associate — about $1 million. Following two days of deliberations, a Santa Monica jury comprised of six men and six women on Friday awarded F. Marc Schaffel $900,000 in his breach of contract suit brought against the entertainer. Schaffel — who originally sought $3.8 million as reimbursement for a series of cash advances, royalties from the record and TV deals, and other miscellaneous services — had reduced his claims to $1.4 million by the trial’s conclusion on Thursday.
“I thought this was a fair verdict from the jury,†Schaffel said outside the courtroom afterwards. “I’m pleased … this has been going on for two years.â€
The jury also awarded Jackson, who appeared at the trial solely through a videotaped deposition, a sum of $200,000 stemming from a disputed music deal, as part of a cross complaint filed by the entertainer against Schaffel. On Thursday, Jackson’s attorney, Thomas Mundell, asked the jury to award Schaffel nothing, reasoning that he actually owed Jackson in upwards of $660,000.
Howard King, the attorney who represented Schaffel in LA Superior Court during the two-week trial, said the decision will net his client more than $1 million when all is said and done. Interest and costs will more than offset the subtracted $200,000 awarded Jackson, said King, who added that his client stands to reap even more if Judge Jacqueline Connor decides to rule on a separate accounting claim. However, King didn’t expect Judge Connor to undertake the claim, feeling the contracts between Jackson and Schaffel were typically oral agreements and somewhat unorthodox.
“We are delighted. It’s a victory for the system,†said a beaming King, outside the courtroom. “It was a great jury, in that they were able to cut through what was irrelevant. “It’s a fair number.We’re very pleased.†Friday afternoon’s verdict capped a trial that began with jury selection on June 28 and featured a string of accusations and intimate revelations, including Schaffel’s claim last week that he was sent to Brazil on Jackson’s behalf to buy boys for the singer to adopt, and the Jackson camp’s contention that Schaffel manipulated the singer by parlaying their friendship into a means of supporting his lavish lifestyle.
Separating the facts of the case from the outrageous personalities involved proved a test for the jury, which rendered their decision with some of the jurists abstaining. Earlier in the day on Friday the jury had some testimony read back to them and asked if each of the members of the panel had to be accounted for, with Judge Connor informing them they did not.
“We saw character flaws on both sides,†said Cathleen Yancey, 20, the youngest member of the jury. “There were some (jurists) talking that he (plaintiff and defendant) was a sleazeball. We said we just need to look at the facts here, not our opinions. “I mean, I have issues with adult entertainment, and I have issues with child molestation.â€
Schaffel, as was mentioned numerous times in the trial by Mundell, has produced an array of gay adult films, while Jackson was acquitted last year on child molestation charges.
Attempts to reach Mundell at his office on Friday for comment were unsuccessful. At least two jurors wanted to award more money to Jackson, according to Yancey, a Brigham Young University student who listens to Jackson’s music. Following the verdict, a recording of the ill-fated song “What More Can I Give?†was played for jurists, reporters, counsel and Judge Connor in the Santa Monica Courthouse via a laptop computer. The 2001 recording — featuring Jackson and more than 20 other recording artists, such as Mariah Carey, N*SYNC, Celine Dion, Beyonce and Usher — was a point of contention in the case, and has never been released as a result of the legal wranglings between Jackson, Schaffel and others regarding copyrights and production deals.
“I think it’s great, amazing,†Yancey said. “After tons of back and forth and hearing about it throughout the case, it’s nice to hear it now. It should be out there.†Following the verdict, most of the jurists claimed Jackson’s absence in the case didn’t weigh in their decision, feeling the trial would have become a media circus, making their task of separating the facts of the case from the swirling outside distractions all the more difficult. “Some of the things mentioned in the case bothered us, but they had nothing to do with the case,†remarked Irma Beard, a jurist who lives in Palms. “Mr. Schaffel has his life. Mr. Jackson has his life. We just had to go with the dealings we were presented.â€
The jury foreman, identifying himself only as an information technology worker from Calabasas, didn’t come away with a very favorable opinion of the pop superstar. In his videotaped deposition, Jackson repeatedly denied any memory of his business dealings with Schaffel, who claims he was empowered by the singer to negotiate contracts on his behalf. Indeed, it was a recurrent theme of Mundell’s in his defense of the entertainer that Jackson was a childlike musical genius without an ounce of business acumen, a gentle artist unable to recall even the financial transactions that might have bolstered his case.
“I think Jackson is very aware of the business aspects of his music, whether or not he has advisors dealing with marketing,†the foreman said on Friday afternoon, standing in the courtyard just outside the courtroom. “Jackson is an incredibly savvy person.†Another juror, Roy Shimogaki of Marina del Rey, just shook his head outside the courtroom, seemingly exhausted from the ordeal.
“It’s a different world,†he said.
Source: Daily Press
