Page 125 - REDEMPTION_Flipbook_Final 2025

- Geraldine Hughes -

closed in discovery, but to protect Michael Jackson's right to
privacy as well as the privacy of the children involved in the
case and their families. This issue was probably crucial to
Michael Jackson, personally, because he always valued his pri-
vacy. His life was never an open book and he allowed very
few people access to his private life.
The stipulation between counsel, which stated that neither
side would release videotapes, discovery information, infor-
mation regarding Michael Jackson's personal security and
medical or psychiatric records to the media or persons not a
party to the litigation, did help to control the flow of confiden-
tial information from getting into the hands of the press/me-
dia. It did not block the press and public's ability to gain ac-
cess to information concerning the lawsuit as it was unfold-
ing.
Although the District Attorney's office argument was the
strongest in stating that not only the constitutional laws but
also legislative laws were written to prevent any type of ob-
struction of justice, they still never succeeded in indicting
Michael Jackson on the criminal charges. Their presence and
vocal opposition weighed heavily in the civil proceeding, but
still took no effect in the filing of a criminal charge.
It is my opinion, that the District Attorney's office proved
why the Court's decision, in Pacers Inc. v. Superior Court,
should have applied to Michael Jackson's case and should have
prevailed. The Court held in Pacers Inc. v. Superior Court that
the defendant was entitled to a Stay of Discovery in the civil
action until the criminal statute of limitations ran to preserve
the defendant's constitutional rights, and that it would be fun-
damentally unfair for the prosecution to take advantage of the
Civil Discovery to obtain information about the defendant's
case which it could not obtain through Criminal Discovery.
The Court recognized, in Pacers Inc. v. Superior Court, that a
Stay would cause delay and inconvenience to the plaintiff but
that protecting a party's constitutional rights is paramount.
California law mandates a Stay of Civil proceedings pend-
ing the final outcome of the criminal case when a civil trial

124