Page 126 - REDEMPTION_Flipbook_Final 2025

- REDEMPTION -

takes place while a criminal charge on the same facts is under
consideration. Not granting the defendant the protection un-
der the constitution, they are sacrificing their right to due pro-
cess in the civil action as well as their right to avoid self-in-
crimination in the criminal proceeding.
In Dwyer v. Crocker National Bank, 194 Cal.App.3d 1418,
1432 (1987), it cites Pacers Inc. v. Superior Court, as well, and
implies that where the Stay Motion is brought by a defendant,
Pacers Inc. v. Superior Court correctly states the California law.
The Stay rule has been repeatedly followed in other juris-
dictions such as U.S. v. Certain Real Property, 751 F.Supp. 1060,
1063_1064 (E.D.N.Y. 1989); Paul Harrigan & Sons, Inc. v. En-
terprise Animal Oil Co., 14 F.R.D. 333, 335 (E.D. Pa. 1953) and
in Peden v. U.S., 512 F.2d F.2d 1099, 1103 (Ct. Cl. 1975) It was
believed to have been the practice to freeze civil proceedings
when a criminal prosecution involving the same facts was
warming up or underway.
The District Court in Harrigan also ruled that while a Stay
will undoubtedly cause inconvenience and delay to the plain-
tiff, protection of the defendants' constitutional rights is the
more important consideration.
Even the Supreme Court of Alabama ordered a Stay of the
civil proceedings, ruling that the defendant must not be forced
to choose between a constitutional right and a potential loss in
a state matter. Weighing the defendant's interest in postpon-
ing the civil actions against the prejudice that might result to
the plaintiffs because of the delay, compels a postponement. It
also stated that a defendant facing civil proceedings and crimi-
nal prosecution denies him due
process.
Because of the Court rulings, Michael Jackson was at a dis-
advantage in having to prepare for trial within 120 days in a
case that involved massive witnesses. The police had seized
all of his personal records and would not provide copies nor
even a list of what they took. The District Attorney's office
was operating, with the blessings of the Court, in violation of
Michael Jackson's constitutional rights, and the Court was
weighing heavily in favor of the 13-year old boy.

125