There are many precedents where civil proceedings have been frozen to allow the criminal trial ahead, preserving a defendant’s right to a fair trial and preventing that right from being violated. According to precedent cases:
“When both criminal and civil proceedings arise out of the same or related transactions, the defendant is entitled to a Stay of Discovery and trial in the civil action until the criminal matter has been fully resolved.” [2; page 116-117]
However, in regards to the case against Michael Jackson, all such attempts by Jackson’s lawyers to stay the civil proceeding were dismissed by
Superior CourtJudge David M. Rothman. Apparently, the Chandler’s trump card was Jordan’s age. Here is what Geraldine Hughes (the legal secretary of Barry Rothman, the attorney who represented the Chandlers before Larry Feldman took over), writes in her book entitled
Redemption:
“Michael Jackson lost all four motions. It was obvious from a legal standpoint of view that the scales of justice were not pointing in Michael Jackson’s favor. Instead, it was weighing heavily in favor of the 13-year old boy. Michael Jackson’s attorneys were applying precedent laws which were applied in a similar sexual battery case. Pacers Inc. v. Superior Court specifically held that it is improper invasion of the defendant’s constitutional rights not to stay civil proceedings where a criminal investigation is ongoing. But Mr. Feldman’s trump card was, “a child’s memory is developing,” and their inability to, “remember like an adult.” This law was designed to protect a small child’s ability to recall for prolonged periods of time after being a victim and/or witness to a crime. This case, however, involved a 13-year old boy, who was soon to be turning 14 years old.” [2; page 124]
Using this reasoning, Feldman filed a Motion for Trial Preference for the civil proceedings. “
This is a special request to have the trial heard within 120 days after the motion is granted” [2; page 121]. In this regard, Hughes writes:
“Mr. Feldman filed a declaration by Dr. Evan Chandler in support of the Motion for Trial Preference which had one statement: that the child was under the age of 14. That was it! Dr. Chandler did not state anything else in his declaration, which is a written statement under oath declaring statements of truth. I have never seen a declaration concerning an important case this short in my entire legal career. A declarant will usually attest to several facts, especially concerning an important case like this one. They will also declare that said facts are true and correct and state their willingness to be called to competently testify under penalty of perjury. Is it possible that the information that Dr. Chandler declared was the only information he could competently testify under penalty of perjury?”[2; page 122]
Under extremely unfavorable conditions, Jackson and his attorneys might have found themselves in a position where they would have had to fight and defend Jackson on two fronts at the same time – in both a civil and criminal trial. On top of that they would have to prepare for a civil trial within 120 days, while the police for the criminal proceedings had seized all of Jackson’s personal records and refused to provide copies or even a list of what they took.
“The District Attorney’s office was operating, with the blessings of the Court, in violation of Michael Jackson’s constitutional rights, and the Court was weighing heavily in favor of the 13-year old boy [2; page 133].” After all motions to push the civil proceedings behind the criminal had been denied, the Jackson team was left between a rock and a hard place. The start of the civil trial was set for March, 1994 and Jackson was to be deposed at the end of January, beginning of February. The Chandler’s motion papers accused Jackson and his attorneys of applying “delay tactics”, but they knew well that those “delay tactics” were all about getting the criminal proceedings heard ahead of the civil proceedings. Ray Chandler, in his book,
All That Glitters, quotes a conversation that took place between Jordan Chandler’s father, Evan Chandler and their civil attorney, Larry Feldman and it proves that they were the ones utilizing delay tactics with regards to criminal proceedings:
“Later in the afternoon, after everyone had consumed their holiday repast, Larry Feldman called Evan with news they could all be thankful for. “Hey, Evan, you gotta hear this one. Howard Weitzman demoted Fields again. They definitely don’t want your deposition, or June’s deposition. They don’t want to preserve anything. If they’re gonna make a deal they don’t want anything on the record about Jackson.” No shit! Larry, these guys are in a real mess.” “Yeah, they ****ed this up unbelievably. What could be better? But I’m going forward. We’re going to push on. So far there ain’t a button I’ve missed. The only thing we gotta do is keep the criminal behind us. I don’t want them going first.” Larry had said it before, but it hadn’t registered in Evan’s brain till now. “You mean if they indict, the criminal case automatically goes before us?”
“Yeah.”
“Jesus Christ!”
“Right! So we don’t want that.”[3; page 201-202]
It must be reiterated that only a criminal trial can send a perpetrator to jail; a civil trial can only result in a monetary award. The California law that allowed the Chandlers to push the civil trial ahead of the criminal trial was changed eventually – according to Santa Barbara District Attorney, Thomas Sneddon directly because of what happened in the Chandler case. Because of this change, an accuser in a sexual assault case cannot pursue a civil lawsuit right away. The new law restricts a civil trial from preceding a criminal trial. It is for this reason that Jackson’s 2003 accuser, Gavin Arvizo, could not use the same strategy as what the Chandlers did in 1993. He had no choice but to begin a criminal trial first:
“The prosecutor in the Michael Jackson case praised a law that can halt civil lawsuits during related criminal cases, saying it would prevent a scenario where the singer’s accuser accepted a settlement and then refused to testify in the criminal trial. The state law was passed because another child backed out of a 1993 molestation case against Jackson after the singer reportedly paid him a multimillion settlement, Santa Barbara District Attorney Tom Sneddon said. “It is an irony. The history of the law is that the L.A. district attorney’s office carried the legislation as a direct result of the civil settlement in the first investigation,” Sneddon told The Associated Press in an interview.” [4]
