I’m feeling a little cranky this morning, because I really wanted to talk about Kobe, what with the playoffs and all, and maybe even Blake this column, but alas, I was waylaid by the district attorney’s clarion cries of “conspiracy.” Yes, folks, “Conspiracy,” he said. The district attorney has convinced the grand jury to charge Michael Jackson with a count of conspiracy alleging that between Feb. 1, 2003 and March 2003, he “conspired” together with (name redacted) and other “uncharged” co-conspirators, and co-conspirators whose identities are “unknown,” to commit the crimes of child abduction, false imprisonment and extortion-all felonies; that pursuant to and for the purpose of carrying out the objectives and purposes of the conspiracy, (name redacted) did commit one or more of the following “overt acts” in the state of California, at least one of them in the county of Santa Barbara. The indictment then sets forth some 28 alleged overt acts (which remain sealed).
Jackson was also charged with nine other serious counts ranging from alleged lewd acts upon a child under the age of 14, an alleged attempt to have a child under the age of 14 commit a lewd act upon Jackson and allegedly administering an intoxicating agent (alcohol) to assist in the commission of child molestation. (More about this in another column.)
I must confess, when I was a prosecutor, nothing pleased me more than to file a conspiracy charge against the defendant. And nothing struck more fear in the defense then that dreaded “C” word. Conspiracy, the darling of the prosecution, allows the prosecutor to get in all sorts of statements and conduct that, standing alone, would be inadmissible because of irrelevancy and immateriality. In the Charles Manson Family cases, we were able to get in many damning statements and shocking conduct committed outside the presence of Manson because they were said to be in pursuance (read, overt acts) of the conspiracy to commit murder. These statements and conduct were used against Manson and his other co-conspirators even though they may have had no specific knowledge of their existence and were committed in their absence and related in part to wanting to kill other people!
A conspiracy requires that two or more persons agree to commit a crime and that at least one “overt act” in pursuance of the object of the conspiracy has been committed. But this is not contract law where the “party of the first part expressly agrees with the party of the second part to enter into a contract to…” A “loose” conspiracy can be established by circumstantial evidence to prove that there was an “agreement” to commit an unlawful act. No words even need be spoken.
Jackson could face the prospect of a former employee testifying that he brought alcohol to his bedroom, nothing more. That is perfectly legal. But it would not be legal if it were done so he could ply a young victim with alcohol. This could be an overt act. The presence of prescription medications in the bedroom might be the basis for an “overt act,” if allegedly given to the minor, even though Jackson may have a perfectly legitimate reason for their presence. Bodyguards placed outside the access to the master bedroom might be alleged as an overt act, though otherwise perfectly legal. The presence of adult videos, Internet sites, sexual paraphernalia may also qualify as individual “overt acts,” though in other contexts is perfectly legal to possess.
The presence of the aforementioned items could also serve to corroborate the testimony of the victim and any other alleged percipient witnesses to the substantive charges. An otherwise innocent phone call to the victim might be, in the context of the charges, an overt act. Jackson, inviting the alleged victim to his room to sleep, might be listed as an overt act. As you can see, all of these “acts” may be innocent conduct, but in the context of a conspiracy charge, very damning and almost impossible to defend against.
The chess match has just begun. Will the defense learn that the “unknown” conspirators are employees or friends of Jackson who are being pressured by the district attorney? The next battleground will be Disclosure and Discovery of the district attorney’s case. Jackson has a very good lawyer in Thomas Mesereau, who got Robert Blake out on bail on an alleged attempted “murder for hire” and murder of his wife. Stay tuned.