Not that I give a flip about Jacko, but . . .

[Floogeldy]

. . . it looks like the judge is letting in all kinds of testimony about past allegations against him. These allegations are unproven and no charges were ever brought against Jacko based on them.

It's not right.

[mondo joe]

1. Per CA law it is right.

Just saying.

[Floogeldy]

2. Yes

But it is never, or seldom, allowed in some states. Especially in criminal trials.

I just think the CA law is too flexible in the area of past conduct.

[AllegroRondo]

3. As my law professor used to say...

"Theres law, and then theres California law."

[dsc]

4. The rules for molestation trials are often different

I agree that the ones where there were no charges and no payoffs should not be admitted. The ones where he paid, I think are a much closer call.

[elehhhhna]

5. The payoffs should be fair game, imho.

[Floogeldy]

6. Good point

But that's not all that is getting in.

[Solomon]

7. What doesn't smell right about it is that the law was specifically made

to catch Jackson. Before he became an issue, California had no such law. They were like other states.

It is wrong to do this. If you got a real case, there's no need to resort to such an obviously prejudicial thing.

The prosecution (and the media) are clearly banking on prejudice to carry the day. I think it will backfire.