Developments in Michael Jackson Trial
BEGIN VIDEO CLIP - "LARRY KING LIVE," DECEMBER 18, 2003)  MARK GERAGOS, MICHAEL JACKSON`S FORMER ATTORNEY: Michael has spent his entire adult life helping children. If you wanted to design a charge to try to hurt him, if you wanted to go out and try to hurt him in the worst way possible, this would be the charge. If these were true, Michael would be the first person to tell you this is outrageous, because he would never, ever want to see anybody hurt a child, and he never has.</s>GRACE: Mark Geragos, star witness for the defense today. He entered the courthouse with his customary sunglasses and ever-present cell phone. Here you go, Mark. Keep it going, buddy! Nancy Grace calling Mark Geragos. Time to report to court. Another high-profile celebrity defendant! OK. All joking aside, let`s go straight out to Santa Maria, California. Standing by, senior correspondent from "Inside Edition" Jim Moret. But first, to "Celebrity Justice" reporter Jane Velez-Mitchell. Jane, what the hey? Have you ever seen Geragos show up without his shades and his cell?</s>JANE VELEZ-MITCHELL, "CELEBRITY JUSTICE": Oh, he was a rock star today in court. And you know what, Nancy? It really felt like Michael Jackson had two of the world`s most famous attorneys battling for him inside the very same courtroom, one of them, of course, from the witness stand. We`re talking about Mark Geragos, his former attorney, but still very much in Michael Jackson`s corner. And he deftly explained away what the prosecution calls a conspiracy by saying that it was, instead, a justified attempt to prevent a crime -- namely, a shakedown by the family accusing Jackson, saying, yes, he did order surveillance on the family to prevent them from selling their story to the tabloids, which he suspected they were about to do. Now, on cross-examination, something truly wild happened. Geragos suddenly started saying, I can`t answer certain questions, certain questions, because Michael Jackson only gave me a limited waiver of attorney-client privilege. The judge looked like he was just hit by a thunderbolt. He turned to Jackson`s other attorney, Tom Mesereau, and said, You misrepresented this situation to the court. And it was just a shocking scene in court. The judge still has to decide...</s>GRACE: Jane...</s>VELEZ-MITCHELL: ... ultimately, what he`s...</s>GRACE: Jane!</s>VELEZ-MITCHELL: ... going to do about that.</s>GRACE: Jane! Jane! How did the jury respond?</s>VELEZ-MITCHELL: Well, the jury was ordered out of court before the confrontation really got under way between the judge and Mesereau because the judge wanted to prevent the jury from being tainted by this wild development.</s>GRACE: Well, bottom line to Jim Moret. You`ve got Geragos on the stand, who did not just fall off the turnip truck, OK? He knows what he`s doing. We know Michael Jackson is the one who put him on the stand. We know that to do that, Michael Jackson had to waive the attorney-client privilege.</s>JIM MORET, SENIOR CORRESPONDENT, "INSIDE EDITION": Right.</s>GRACE: So exactly what privilege is Geragos going to claim?</s>MORET: Well, Mark Geragos, before he started his testimony, he said, Your Honor, I just want you to know, I`m not allowed to talk until I have a written waiver in my hands, and I don`t have one. And Tom Mesereau stood up and said, Your Honor, I represent that I will give Mr. Geragos and the court and the prosecutor a written waiver. And so on that representation, Mark Geragos was under the impression that he had a knowing waiver from Michael Jackson. Remember, this is Michael Jackson`s privilege to waive, not Mark Geragos`s.</s>GRACE: Right.</s>MORET: And basically, on cross-examination -- not even on direct, but on cross-examination, after a break, Tom Mesereau handed Mark Geragos a document that basically said Michael Jackson waives the attorney-client privilege with respect to the period from February, 2003, to just after his arrest, December, 2003, and that`s it. And the only reason we knew about it is because the prosecutor asked Mark Geragos a question that had to do with this area outside. And the judge was, frankly...</s>GRACE: Well, hold on. Hold on.</s>MORET: ... furious, and he had every right to be.</s>GRACE: Hold on. Joe Episcopo, we`ve just had the wool pulled over our eyes. Because you know what this means? This means that they go in, Joe Episcopo, say, No, we want him to testify, we waive, we waive the attorney-client privilege, Geragos, get on the stand, Geragos gets on the stand, he goes all the way through direct, says everything the defense wants him to say. Then when it`s time for the prosecution to cross-examine him, he goes,</s>EPISCOPO: I don`t think so. I think a limited waiver`s all right. I think it`s going to...</s>GRACE: Well, why didn`t -- why wasn`t that in place at the beginning, when the direct for the defense happened? Why did the prosecution learn only on cross that there would be a limited waiver? That is not fair play!</s>EPISCOPO: Well, you know -- no, let me tell you the mistake that was made here by the prosecution. Most bars require this waiver in writing. It should have been done from the beginning and it should have been exposed from the beginning. But the prosecution...</s>GRACE: Yes, you`re right. You`re right. That`s what we get for trusting the defense lawyers!</s>EPISCOPO: The prosecution screwed up. They made a mistake.</s>GRACE: Yes, they trusted...</s>EPISCOPO: And now they`re going to pay for it.</s>GRACE: ... what an officer of the court said. That is Mesereau and Geragos. That`s where they went wrong. They trusted their representation in open court.</s>EPISCOPO: No.</s>GRACE: Yes.</s>EPISCOPO: He didn`t misrepresent. He didn`t say...</s>GRACE: Jane Velez...</s>EPISCOPO: ... it was unlimited.</s>GRACE: ... question to you.</s>EPISCOPO: He did not say it was unlimited.</s>GRACE: Jane...</s>VELEZ-MITCHELL: Well, listen, I...</s>GRACE: ... Velez-Mitchell, what was said?</s>VELEZ-MITCHELL: Look, I think Tom Mesereau is a fine attorney, and I certainly wouldn`t be the one to say that that was anything but what he suggested, an accidental oversight and something that he didn`t plan, because, obviously, to say the contrary would be serious, indeed. It obviously, however, seems, at least on the face of it, to work in the benefit of the defense, as you mentioned. They get through their direct. Geragos says everything he wants to say, lays out to this alternative to the prosecution`s conspiracy theory, and then suddenly refuses to answer the prosecutor`s questions about when did he learn certain things. OK, well, no, that`s after Michael Jackson was arrested. I can`t talk about that. Well, when did you learn about this surreptitious taping? When did you learn about this secretly recorded phone call? Oh, I can`t answer that question. He said it several times, about a half a dozen times. So it really leaves the judge with a huge problem. Geragos is going to come back next Friday, and the judge has said each side has to submit briefs on what...</s>GRACE: Next Friday?</s>VELEZ-MITCHELL: ... they want to -- yes, because he has court on Monday. He has court back in, I believe, Orange County on Monday. So he`s got a trial to go to. And he even said to the judge, Listen, I could be in trouble with two courts. And the judge said, Well, which court do you want to be in trouble with?</s>GRACE: What kind of trial?</s>VELEZ-MITCHELL: It`s -- actually, he said it`s been appealed all the way up to a very, very high court, and this is a very long-running trial and...</s>GRACE: Whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa!</s>VELEZ-MITCHELL: ... there`s a jury present...</s>GRACE: Wait, wait, wait, wait!</s>VELEZ-MITCHELL: ... and it`s a serious situation.</s>GRACE: Appealed all the way to a higher court, but there`s a jury in play? How do you have an appeal going at the same time you`ve got a jury sitting? What kind of case is this? Is this civil or criminal?</s>VELEZ-MITCHELL: Well, Mark Geragos is a criminal defense attorney.</s>GRACE: No! No! No!</s>VELEZ-MITCHELL: My understanding is it`s a criminal proceeding with a jury under way in Orange County, and he has to be there on Monday. And so what happened is that the judge said, Come back here Friday. That gives them time to resolve this issue because they have to submit written briefs, each side, about how they want to handle this. Let`s say the judge decides to throw out all the testimony. Well, that could work to the defense advantage because they`ve heard everything they wanted them to hear. Now the genie`s out of the bottle.</s>GRACE: Well, Jim Moret, regarding where Geragos says he`s going next week -- I was there when he didn`t show up at the Scott Peterson sentencing, after all those...</s>MORET: I know.</s>GRACE: ... months of trial. Oh, yes. You were -- you were right there with me in courtroom. So when Geragos...</s>MORET: And frankly...</s>GRACE: ... says, I got to go, I want to know where you have to go, because Geragos is a criminal lawyer, but he`s also a member of the civil bar, as well. So under the rules of procedure, normally, a criminal case proceeds before and takes precedent over a civil case, such as a divorce jury or child custody case or a contract case. So I`m very interested to find out where Geragos is really headed on Monday morning. Do you have any idea, Jim?</s>MORET: Well, I don`t know if it`s civil or criminal, but he did say it`s a long-running trial. The jury is in place. And look, this judge was mindful of the fact that there are other jurors involved. He wants to accommodate those other jurors, but he`s got people who`ve been sitting here for 10, 11 weeks, and may be looking at another four or five weeks. And I think this judge was really trying to make an accommodation. The reason why they settled on next Friday, frankly, is because this court was originally going to be dark next Friday, and Geragos was available next Friday. So the judge says, I`ll tell you what. Instead of having this court dark -- and the only reason it was dark is to accommodate one of the defense attorneys for another appointment. He said, Why don`t we bring the jurors in, and they can hear the rest of this testimony? It`ll give me time to get the points (ph) and authorities (ph) because this judge really wants to know, What am I supposed to do? He`s never been faced with this, and I suspect that...</s>GRACE: Yes, well...</s>MORET: ... most people have not been faced with this waiver.</s>GRACE: Frankly, Jim...</s>MORET: It`s very unusual.</s>GRACE: Jim, out of all the cases I have ever tried, I`ve never been snookered on this one. It`s new to me, too. I`m going to go on Lexis- Nexis in the commercial break. Quick break, everybody.</s>MORET: Me, too!</s>GRACE: Very quickly, to trial tracking. Death by lethal injection. Convicted serial killer Michael Ross pronounced dead this morning, 2:25 AM. the execution at the prison in Summers (ph), Connecticut, was New England`s first execution in 45 years.</s>DEBBIE DUPRIS, SISTER OF VICTIM ROBIN DAWN STAVINSKY: Finally, justice has been served. Our sister, Robin Dawn Stavinsky, is looking down upon us. She will rest easier knowing that the person who ended her life no longer has the privilege of having his own. I thought I would feel closure, but I felt anger just watching him lay there and sleep after what he did to these women.</s>GRACE: No final words or statement from Ross, who admitted to raping and killing eight innocent women, including two 14-year-old girls murdered on Easter day.