etaka wrote:
> Ernest Schaal wrote:
>
> > The mother's sordid past would be admissible only to the degree that it went
> > to the veracity of the witness. Aspects of her sordid past that do not
> > relate to her veracity would be inadmissible in cross-examination.
>
> You mean they wouldn't be able to dig into her past behavior to the
> same degree to establish how she could be manipulating her son to get
> more out of Jackson?

As a general rule, digging into past behavior of a witness is only okay
if it goes to the question of credibility of the testimony of the
witness. The manipulation of her son could be admissible if it
conflicted with her testimony or otherwise casted doubts as to her
credibility.

>From what little I have seen, the jurors found MJ not guilty because
they didn't find the prosecution witnesses credible sufficently to
believe MJ guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.