Michael Jackson's legal woes live after him.

Michael Jackson was a one-man cottage industry for the legal profession. Two child-molestation investigations (no convictions), two divorces, myriad civil lawsuits over concerts, special performances and soured business deals, near-bankruptcy and the threatened foreclosure of his Neverland ranch kept teams of lawyers busy.

Jackson's legal stable included the elite of Los Angeles, California, litigators -- Thomas Mesereau Jr., Mark Geragos and the late Johnnie L. Cochran Jr. Legal foes included Gloria Allred, Larry Feldman and Anthony Pellicano, the convicted "wiretapper to the stars."

His legal legacy seems destined to live on. Jackson's death at age 50 is likely to be the subject of a coroner's investigation. Also to be determined is who raises Jackson's three children, whether he left a will and whether anyone will challenge it.

Michael Jackson in pajama bottoms, during his 2005 child molestation trial.

Attorney Allred's thoughts were on the pop music icon's children -- Prince Michael I, Paris and Prince Michael II.

"I am very concerned about the children he leaves behind," she said. "What will happen to them? If the mother relinquished parental rights, then who's to have custody?"

She added that if Jackson left a will, it likely will be challenged in court.

Allred filed the complaint with Child Protective Services that resulted, in part, in the 2004 Santa Barbara County grand jury investigation. Jackson was acquitted in June 2005 of child molestation charges after a 14-week media circus of a trial in Santa Maria, California.

Prosecutors charged the singer with four counts of lewd conduct with a child younger than 14; one count of attempted lewd conduct; four counts of administering alcohol to facilitate child molestation; and one count of conspiracy to commit child abduction, false imprisonment or extortion.

Jackson began the legal battle by giving an impromptu mini-performance for the horde of fans who flocked to his arraignment. CNN legal analyst Jeffrey Toobin was there.

"I was standing about 20 feet away from Jackson on the day of his arraignment in Santa Maria when he danced on the top of his car before an adoring crowd. It was one of the most bizarre moments of my journalism career," Toobin recalled.

Some of the testimony was equally bizarre, as the accusing witness told of being plied with wine -- "Jesus Juice," he said Jackson called it.


Jackson became even more of a curiosity when he wore pajama bottoms to court on the day his accuser took the witness stand. He arrived an hour and 40 minutes late, after the judge threatened to revoke his $3 million bail.

Former child star Macaulay Culkin was among the more than 130 people who testified at the trial. He disputed testimony from earlier witnesses who claimed they saw Jackson behaving inappropriately with him in the early 1990s.

The jury deliberated for 32 hours before clearing Jackson of charges that could have sent him to prison for 20 years.

Jackson's defense attorney in that case, Mesereau, told reporters at the time that "justice was done." He was in court when his former client died Thursday afternoon.

"I'm in an absolute state of shock," Mesereau said. "He was a very gentle, kind soul who wanted to make the universe a better place. I'm honored to have spent the time with him that I did and to have helped preserve his honor, reputation and freedom."

In a February 2003 broadcast of an unflattering television documentary by British journalist Martin Bashir, Jackson was shown on the program holding hands with the boy who accused him of child molestation. He defended as "loving" his practice of letting young boys sleep in his bed.

"He was a great talent but had very poor judgment in the choices he made in his personal life," said Allred, who filed her complaint after watching the documentary.

"His choices led to serious accusations against him. His own words were problematic," she added. "There were significant questions about his personal choices, particularly with young children."

California authorities searched Neverland, Jackson's mansion complete with roller coaster and petting zoo, that November. He was in Las Vegas, Nevada, at the time, and flew back to California on a private jet, accompanied by lawyer Geragos. Even that journey, which was surreptitiously taped, resulted in litigation and an undisclosed financial settlement.

A decade earlier, prosecutors in Los Angeles declined to file charges in their own 13-month child molestation investigation.

A 13-year-old boy complained to social workers that Jackson had molested him over a period of several months in 1993. The boy's father also filed a civil lawsuit, and Jackson's lawyers characterized the allegations as a $20 million extortion attempt. But the case settled out of court, reportedly with Jackson paying millions in damages.

The boy later refused to testify in the Los Angeles case, but was among the witnesses during the 2005 trial in Santa Maria.

Jackson and his legal team were equally well known in the civil courts. He was sued by more than a dozen people over the past decade. Those suing included former managers, financial advisors, lawyers, business partners -- even a porn producer -- over nonpayment or soured deals. He settled most of the lawsuits out of court.

Two marriages -- to Deborah Rowe, his dermatologist's assistant, and Lisa Marie Presley, daughter of the late Elvis Presley -- ended in divorce.

Rowe took him to court over their custody and visitation arrangement, but settled for a reported $8.5 million, giving up her parental rights.

In recent years, Jackson has also narrowly avoided bankruptcy and foreclosure on his Neverland ranch, which also includes an amusement park, complete with Ferris wheel, and a petting zoo.
advertisement

He sold Neverland last year. He also "amicably" settled a legal claim by a son of the King of Bahrain over a failed $10 million recording venture, according to reports in London.

In the United States, Jackson was still fighting civil claims by a former publicist, a concert promoter and John Landis, the writer an director of his iconic "Thriller" video, according to the Los Angeles Times.

Sphere: Related Content

Australian Priest Fined $400 for Wilful Exposure

A Melbourne priest caught sunbaking in a public park next to a school has been convicted of wilful exposure.

The Rev Father Wieslaw Pawlowski claimed he was just following doctor's orders to get some sun.

Much of the evidence heard yesterday centered on whether the priest was nude or wearing a G-string and whether sunbaking naked in a public park was actually lewd and obscene.

Two pairs of underwear -- a pair of white briefs and a grey G-string -- were offered up as evidence as the priest fought to prove that he wasn't a perve, but a 40-year-old following his doctor's orders and getting sun on a skin condition.

Medical evidence tendered to the court said that sunbaking, physio and hydrotherapy were all part of treatment needed for widespread and severe burn scarring on the priest's back.

"The sun is good for my skin. I have to sunbake to stay healthy," said the Rev Father Pawlowski.

The Polish priest, who has lived in Australia since 2002, had moved from Sydney to Melbourne in 2006 but was on a three-month holiday in Sydney for his health.

He told the court that he sunbaked for 20 minutes up to three times a week, as ordered by his doctor.

When he was approached by police in the park about 10am on September 15 last year, he was lying on his back.

The court heard that the priest had seen the police and begun to put on a pair of white underpants. Father Pawlowski said he put white pants on over the top of the grey G-string he was already wearing.

Father Pawlowski said it was "nonsense" that he was lying naked with his penis exposed. "I never sunbake in the nude because it doesn't agree with me . . . it's against my principles."

Magistrate Janet Wahlquist found that Father Pawlowski was indeed naked in the park and that most people would find it obscene that a grown man was sunbaking naked in a park where children might play.

She fined him $400 she recorded a conviction.

Sphere: Related Content

Functions of a Good Criminal Defense Lawyer

When faced with a serious criminal charge, it's almost always important to have an experienced lawyer on your side.

Defendants faced with the possibility of going to jail or prison should almost always hire an attorney, unless they qualify for the free or reduced-fee services of a public defender or court-appointed attorney. The truth is, no matter what the person's intelligence or educational background, the criminal justice system makes it virtually impossible to do a competent job of representing oneself. Each criminal case is unique, and only a specialist who is experienced in assessing the particulars of a case -- and in dealing with the many variables present in every criminal case -- can provide the type of representation that every criminal defendant needs to receive if justice is to be done.

Criminal defense lawyers do much more than simply question witnesses in court. For example, defense lawyers:

* negotiate "deals" with prosecutors, often arranging for reduced charges and lesser sentencing (by contrast, prosecutors may be uncooperative with self-represented defendants)
* formulate sentencing programs tailored to a client's specific needs, often helping defendants avoid future brushes with the criminal justice system
* help defendants cope with the feelings of fear, embarrassment and reduced self-esteem that criminal charges tend to produce in many people
* provide defendants with a reality check -- a knowledgeable, objective perspective on their situation and what is likely to happen should their cases go to trial. This perspective is vital for defendants trying to decide whether to accept a prosecutor's offered "plea bargain"
* are familiar with important legal rules that people representing themselves would find almost impossible to locate on their own, because many criminal law rules are hidden away in court interpretations of federal and state constitutions (for example, understanding what may constitute an "unreasonable search and seizure" often requires familiarity with a vast array of state and federal appellate court opinions)
* are familiar with local court customs and procedures that aren't written down anywhere (for example, a defense lawyer may know which prosecutor has the "real" authority to settle a case, and what kinds of arguments are likely to appeal to that prosecutor)
* understand the possible "hidden costs" of pleading guilty which a self-represented person might never think about
* spend time on a case that a defendant cannot afford to spend
* gather information from prosecution witnesses, who often fear people accused of crimes and therefore refuse to speak to people representing themselves, and
* hire and manage investigators, who may be able to believably impeach (contradict) prosecution witnesses who embellish or change their stories at trial.


The Gulf Between Paper and Practice

Self-representation is made more difficult by the typical gulf between paper and practice in criminal cases. In books you can find laws that define crimes, fix punishments for their violation and mandate courtroom procedures. Take the time and trouble to read these books, defendants might think, and they'll understand the system. Alas, the practice of criminal law can't be understood by reading books alone. To experienced criminal defense attorneys, the criminal law appears much the same as a droplet of water appears to a biologist under a microscope -- a teeming world with life forms and molecules interacting unpredictably.

For example, "prosecutorial discretion" -- the power of prosecutors to decide whether to file criminal charges, and what charges to file -- determines much of what actually happens in the criminal courts. Which prosecutor has the power to make decisions, and when those decisions are made, can greatly affect the outcome of a case. An act that looks on paper to constitute one specific crime can be recast as a variety of other crimes, some more and others less serious. What in a statute book appears to be a fixed sentence for a particular crime can be negotiated into a variety of alternatives. In other words, the world of criminal law is vast, hidden and shifting, and defendants enter it alone at their peril. At the very least, most self-represented defendants should arrange for a lawyer to be a "legal coach" and consult with their coaches as needed.

Sphere: Related Content

How To Find A Criminal Law Attorney

Finding a Lawyer

If you or a loved one have been arrested or made the subject of a criminal investigation, you may need the immediate assistance of an experienced criminal defense lawyer. Unlike civil court cases, where money or property may be at stake, people suspected of committing a crime will see their fundamental freedoms put in jeopardy, and should act quickly to make sure that their rights are protected by an experienced criminal defense attorney.

If You Cannot Afford a Lawyer

At most steps in the criminal justice process, the United States Constitution guarantees the assistance of an attorney to almost all people who have been charged with a crime. This means that, even if you cannot afford to hire a criminal defense lawyer for yourself or a loved one, the government will provide you with a lawyer free of charge. Usually employed by the government as "public defenders", these attorneys are responsible for zealously protecting a criminal defendant's rights at all stages of the criminal process -- from arrest to appeal.

If a person can't afford the fees normally charged by criminal defense lawyers, the person will want the court to appoint a lawyer for him or her at government expense. To do this, the person must:

* ask the court to appoint a lawyer, and
* provide details about his or her financial situation.

A person's first opportunity to ask the court to appoint a lawyer is usually at his or her first court appearance, often called the arraignment.

Typically, the person shows up in court on the day indicated on the citation or bail receipt -- or the person is escorted to the court courtesy of the local sheriff if he or she hasn't posted bail -- and waits to be called. After being called, he or she moves to the place indicated by the bailiff (the court officer). Most often the judge will inquire about whether the person is represented by a lawyer. If he or she is not, the judge will ask the person whether he or she wishes to apply for court-appointed counsel. If the person says yes, some courts appoint a lawyer right then (if one is available in court) and finish the arraignment. After that the person is asked to fill in a financial questionnaire to be sure he or she qualifies for a court-appointed attorney. Other courts delay the case and only appoint a lawyer after the person's economic circumstances have been reviewed and the person has been approved for a lawyer at the state's expense.

Each state (or even county) makes its own rules as to who qualifies for a free lawyer. Also, the seriousness of a charge may affect a judge's decision as to whether a defendant is eligible for free legal assistance. For example, a judge may recognize that a wage-earner can afford the cost of representation for a minor crime, but not for one involving a complicated and lengthy trial.

Most states also provide for "partial indigency." This means that a judge may allow a defendant who doesn't qualify for free help but who cannot afford the full cost of a private lawyer to receive the services of a court-appointed attorney. At the conclusion of the case, the judge will require the defendant to reimburse the state or county for a portion of the costs of representation.

Sphere: Related Content

42-Year-Old Ex-Politician & Lawyer Engage In Sexual Intercourse With An Underaged

AN Australian lawyer has been granted bail after appearing in a Brisbane court on child sex charges.

The 42-year-old former politician is facing seven charges of engaging in sexual intercourse with a person under 16.

The charges carry a maximum penalty of 17 years imprisonment.

The man, who cannot be named in Queensland for legal reasons, today faced Brisbane Magistrates Court.

Magistrate Jacqui Payne granted him bail on a $100,000 surety, to be provided by his Brisbane-based uncle, and ordered he live with his parents in Sydney and report to the Castle Hill police station every day.

The man has been in custody since being arrested last Thursday at Brisbane International Airport following his extradition to Australia over the alleged rape of a 13-year-old girl in 1997.

Prosecutor Craig Chowhury today opposed bail on the grounds the man posed a risk of failing to appear after he fought attempts to have him brought back to Australia.

The man has already faced criminal proceedings overseas relating to the offences but a magistrate dropped the charges in 1999.

His lawyer Chris Nyst told the court the charges related to a family who had fallen into debt to the then-highflying lawyer after they failed to repay a loan.

Magistrate Payne adjourned the case for mention in Brisbane Magistrates Court on February 15.

Sphere: Related Content

Kung fu' Attacker Charged To Court

Leonard Parker is a 105-kilogram former security guard with martial arts training and a hair-trigger temper.

William and Jeanette Wright are grandparents who arrived at the Plaza shopping centre in Palmerston North to do some early Christmas shopping.

A dispute over a car park led to Parker kung-fu kicking a terrified Mrs Wright, 57, in an attack that ended only when police aimed pepper spray at him.

Parker, 39, appeared in Palmerston North District Court for a defended hearing on a charge of intimidatory behaviour, having admitted assault and intentionally damaging the Wrights' car.

He still claims the diminutive Mrs Wright inflamed the situation by pushing him so hard that he was knocked off balance - and he had to knock her to the ground with a leg sweep because she was marching toward him.

The Wrights had beaten Parker to the car park on November 30 and he had approached them, the court was told.

Even though the next park was free a short time later, Parker abused the couple and followed them as they walked away.

The court was told Parker, who is 1.88 metres (6ft 2in) tall, punched Mrs Wright in the shoulder before leg sweeping her from behind.

"I couldn't believe what had happened," she told the court.

"I just had no power in me to get up. My leg was very sore ... I couldn't work for weeks."

When Constable Andrew Royds arrived Parker was abusing bystanders and the officer had to aim his pepper spray before Parker calmed down and was arrested.

Defence lawyer Fergus Steedman said Parker was remorseful and realised he had gone too far - but argued that Mrs Wright had inflamed the situation by being angry herself and had pushed him twice, enough to knock him off balance.

Parker denied punching her and told the court the leg sweep was done to defend himself when Mrs Wright marched at him.

Mr Steedman said that, at the time of the assault, Parker's sick daughter was screaming in his car.

A car accident a few years ago had left him unable to deal with stress.

Judge Nevin Dawson found Parker guilty of intimidatory behaviour.

The judge said the parties' accounts differed and, though the Wrights had taken Parker's park, his size and demeanour had terrified them.

He was pleased Parker had accepted responsibility for his actions and was undergoing anger management.

"You may have a `hair trigger' and there was doubtless provocation that day, however that is no justification for what you did.

"There are times we all have to just walk away."

Parker was sentenced to 200 hours' community work and nine months' supervision. He was ordered to pay more than $1100 in reparation.

Outside court, the Wrights said the experience had been traumatic and Parker had got off lightly.

"You should have heard the swear words, it was very frightening," Mr Wright said.

"He should have got a prison sentence, I just don't believe that talk about anger management."

Sphere: Related Content

Junkies Throw Themselves In Front Of Car To Claim Compensation

Motorists claim drug-users are flinging themselves into the path of oncoming traffic in an attempt to get injured so they can put in personal injury claims.

The Tele understands junkies are behind several recent accidents on Drumfrochar Road.

One motorist, who asked not to be named, said: “There was an accident two weeks ago. I was driving along Dunlop Street when I saw this commotion.

“Someone had been hit by a car. I got out and asked what had happened and it looked like this guy had been just been winged.

“The guy didn’t seem too bothered, he was full of it to be honest. He had three cronies round about him. The woman driver of the car asked if he was okay, and he just said ‘It’s okay, I’ve got my witnesses’ and the four of them walked off. The police weren’t called.

“I asked the driver what happened and she said the guy had just jumped out from behind a parked car. She said she thought he had been crouching behind the car. She was really shaken up”

Another source, a driving instructor who also asked not to be named, said: “This is definitely happening. I know for a fact that it has happened at last twice within the last fortnight around Drumfrochar Road. They are always looking for the next scam, and this is it.

“It might seem funny, but this could cause a serious accident.”

Greenock lawyer Aidan Gallagher said the drug users may be claiming compensation through the Motor Insurers’ Bureau, which allows people to claim even though the police have not become involved or the motorist has no insurance.

He said: “People will make a claim for anything.”

Duncan Simpson of the Inverclyde Taxi Owners’ Association said: “This is no shock at all. They’ll get up to anything. I was a prison officer for 10 years, and I’m still learning.”

Sphere: Related Content