Jackson jury selected in California civil case

Three people who said they believed entertainer Michael Jackson was guilty of child molestation were among 12 US jurors chosen to hear a lawsuit filed by a former associate over a financial dispute.

Jackson was acquitted of molestation charges in June 2005 in Santa Maria, but the question came up during jury selection in Santa Monica yesterday.

Four people raised their hands when Jackson’s lawyer, Thomas Mundell, asked if they thought the singer was guilty of molestation even though he was acquitted on all counts.

“I have lots of opinions about this man,” said one woman. “How can you not? I read so much and I have tons of opinions.”

She was asked if her opinions would affect her ability to reach a decision in the current civil case.

“It colours it,” she said.

She was accepted on the panel, but a man who raised his hand was dismissed after he said he thought Jackson possibly had a “character flaw” that may relate to the current case.

Marc Schaffel is seeking 3.8 million dollars (£2million) for what he claims were unpaid loans and expenses, unpaid salary for a charity record and a share of proceeds from two TV programmes produced to repair Jackson’s image, damaged by a 2003 British television documentary in which he said he shared his bed in a non-sexual way with children.

Alternate jurors were expected to be selected today, followed by opening statements and witness testimony.

During “mini opening statements,” which were allowed by Superior Court Judge Jacqueline Connor to give prospective jurors an overview of the case in which they may serve, Schaffel’s lawyer told the panel: “I represent the unfamous party in this case. I think everyone knows who Michael Jackson is.”

The lawyer, Howard King, offered prospective jurors a brief history of Schaffel’s association with Jackson. King said Schaffel was paid until Jackson allegedly ran out of money.

“Mr. Schaffel was left holding the bag,” King said.

Mundell said Schaffel was a producer of gay pornography, a fact unknown to Jackson when Schaffel was hired. Schaffel had no expertise in the record industry, Mundell said, and he was supposed to produce a charity record for Jackson.

Jackson severed ties with Schaffel after learning of Schaffel’s past, Mundell said.

There are disputes over whether Schaffel profited from sales of the record in Japan and whether he was ever paid for his services.

Mundell maintained that evidence will show that Schaffel actually owes Jackson money.

Prospective jurors said they were aware of Jackson’s background. But one man, who was ultimately dismissed by lawyers for Schaffel said: “It seems Mr. Jackson is being targeted for lawsuits because they think he has large amounts of money to pay off.”

A young female college student was accepted for the jury despite her statements that she had issues with Jackson for his behaviour and Schaffel for his involvement with adult films.

“I have a hard time finding them credible,” she said. But she insisted she could be fair.

The woman was one of the jurors who said they believed Jackson was guilty of the molestation charges.

Prospective jurors were told by the judge and by Jackson’s lawyer that the pop star would not be present during the trial, but they would see him on videotape giving deposition testimony.

“I’d love for him to be here, but he lives in Bahrain, which is 10 time zones away,” Mundell said.

At least two prospective jurors said the case should have been settled and not brought to trial, with one woman saying, “It’s just about money.”

“We have done everything we could to work it out up until yesterday and we put in our best efforts,” the judge responded. “I assure you we have done everything possible.”

Among those seated at the council table were Londell McMillan, a New York lawyer recently hired by Jackson to restructure his business affairs.

At one point, a retired nurse on the panel said she met Jackson when she worked at the hospital where was treated when his hair caught fire during filming for a commercial in 1984.

As for her impressions of him, she said: “He was wonderful with the kids.”

The entire audience of prospective jurors burst into laughter and the woman was dismissed from the panel.