LOS ANGELES - Lawyers for Michael Jackson have asked a California judge to conduct behind closed doors a key hearing into accusations of past sex offences by the singer, along with all other proceedings involving evidence in the case.
The unusual request, which came to light in court papers made
public on Tuesday, is in keeping with the extraordinary secrecy imposed in the matter by Santa Barbara Superior Court Judge Rodney Melville and sought by attorneys for both sides.
Defence lawyers argued that all future hearings into evidence against the 46-year-old pop star must be held in the judge's chambers to preserve "the overriding interests of Mr Jackson's rights to due process and a fair trial."
The papers were filed just days before a potentially explosive court session, scheduled for Wednesday, in which prosecutors will ask to introduce at Jackson's child molestation trial evidence of what they describe as his "prior sexual offences."
Jackson's lawyers have asked Melville to bar any such evidence, calling it flimsy, and said in their newly filed papers that media coverage of the hearing could hopelessly prejudice potential jurors.
The current case marks the first time that Jackson has been arrested or charged with a sexual offence. In the mid-1990s a boy accused Jackson of molesting him but an out-of-court civil settlement was reached and no criminal charges were filed.
Though Santa Barbara County District Attorney Tom Sneddon himself has gone to great lengths to shroud the case in secrecy -- at one point moving grand jurors around in unmarked vans to hide them from reporters -- he asked Melville to reject the defence request and conduct Wednesday's hearing in open court.
"There has been no hint of concern by defence counsel that in-court arguments by them in support of their earlier motions to suppress evidence, recuse the district attorney and, notably, to have certain prosecution witnesses ordered to undergo psychiatric evaluation, might prejudice members of the jury pool," Sneddon and his deputies wrote in the motion.
News organisations also filed papers opposing the defence motion, saying that state and federal law do not permit the blanket secrecy lawyers have sought.
- REUTERS
