Legal update.

So my husband thinks I'm a delinquent because I've been following the Michael Jackson trial. Being a (former) lawyer, I'm a sucker for trials and stuff like this. I like hearing about the ins and outs and legal wranglings and also watching how Court TV does its best to make them so much more exciting than they really are. This trial happens to be pretty salacious, as it is, though, no matter whether he's guilty or not. He's definitely been shown by a proponderance of the evidence to be a freak.

Anyway, today was a big day in the trial and I can't believe the tactics that some lawyers will use. The defense put Jackson's "former" defense attorney Mark Geragos on the stand to testify about a very specific set of dates in the timeline. I think his testimony was mostly going to the conspiracy charge and to Jackson's character. (I'd like to know the details of his "fee" arrangement after his "firing.") At the start of his testimony, Geragos says that he cannot testify to any of the questions because he doesn't have a written waiver of the attorney-client privilege from Jackson. Mesereau, Jackson's current attorney, jumps in and assures him that they'll get that to him at the break, and proceeds with his questions, all of which of course, let Geragos say many wonderful things about Mr. Freaky.

After Mesereau finishes the direct, the prosecution begins to question Geragos about whatever. Geragos, then, says that he can't answer them because it exceeds the "limited" waiver of the attorney-client privilege that Jackson gave him. The judge is then furious and sends the jury out, saying that they misrepresented the terms of the privilege. In other words, the defense in no way indicated that the privilege was limited until it was time for a cross, a dirty way to get in exactly what they wanted.

So, it may even end up in a mistrial. Dirty tricks. And so ballsy. Not very ethical, either, but it's kind of in that gray area.

And now back to our regularly scheduled programming . . .