|
In Reply to: Re: inaccurate info posted by legally speaking on December 17, 2003 at 11:03:44:
I watched the entire press conference live. Santa Barbara District Attorney Tom Sneddon said:
"The law in California at that time provided that a child victim could not be forced to testify in a child molest proceeding without their permission and consent and cooperation," Sneddon had said. "As a result of the (first) Michael Jackson case, the Legislature changed that law, and that is no longer the law in California."
I just did some news searches since reading your message. Sneddon has since said that is comments were taken out of context and misunderstood. I certainly misunderstood it, and based on some of my searches there are a lot of people who took it the same way I did.
Now, what I'm reading is somewhat different that what you have provided:
"But Sneddon later told the AP he was referring to a change that lets prosecutors intervene in a civil action, removing the monetary incentive for someone to wait for the outcome of a civil case before deciding whether to testify in a criminal trial.
"The practical effect is that they cooperate" with prosecutors in the criminal case, he said.
Sneddon said he was aware that children cannot be forced to testify, and that reporters and other attorneys had misinterpreted his remarks at the news conference. "
Pretty confusing stuff when a D.A. can't even explain it clearly.
