Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 113

JACKSON V AEG LIVE JULY 11

TH

TH 2013 Please support us to provide you future transcripts Tariano "Taj" Jackson (Michael Jackson's Nephew)

Tariano "Taj" Jackson

(Michael Jackson's Nephew) Plaintiffs' Witness.

Judge: Katherine Jackson versus AEG Live. Good morning.

(Several comments of "good morning" were heard)

Judge: Would counsel make your appearances?

Mr. Panish: Yes. Good morning, your honor. Brian Panish for Plaintiffs.

Ms. Chang: Deborah Chang for the Plaintiffs.

Ms. Stebbins: Jessica Bina Stebbins for the Defendants.

Mr. Putnam: Marvin Putnam for the Defendants.

Ms. Cahan: And Kathryn Cahan for the Defendants. Good morning, your honor.

Judge: Thank you. The Plaintiffs have presented a written brief concerning the admissibility of

handwritten notes as evidence of a relationship between Michael Jackson and his children. Initially that

came up earlier in the trial. I believe there were notes to Paris Jackson; correct?

Ms. Chang: Yes. One was from Paris Jackson, your honor. That's 50-16. And one was a note recorded

by Mr. Jackson about words uttered by his 6-year-old son, Blanket Jackson.

Judge: Okay. Right. Right. The only concern I have about this is, I don't mind reading this and

attempting to analyze this on the fly, but the Defendants didn't get this until this morning --

Mr. Panish: that's true.

Judge: -- and my understanding is -- at least the communication from the clerk is that they haven't had

time to really analyze it. And while I might try to analyze it on the fly, I don't think they want to do that.

At least that's what's been communicated.

Ms. Cahan: Your honor, we've had about 10 minutes with it. But based on that, and what we

understand the one case to say they're going to reply upon, we don't think that there's anything different

than the argument on the 27th when this issue first came up. So we're happy to discuss it now, if that's

your honor's preference.

Judge: Okay. Well, if you feel comfortable.

Ms. Cahan: Sure.

Judge: All right.

Ms. Chang: Your honor, since I brought it up to the court's attention before, and I guess the reason

why I am persisting so strongly on this issue --

Judge: Yes.

Ms. Chang: -- is that I have taken four bar exams and passed them, I want you to know, throughout

the country, and this issue was on two of my bar exams -- one in the multi-state and one in an essay --

and so I feel very strongly about this issue. But what I do know in every jurisdiction that I practice in,

is there is a version of California evidence code section 1250, both in the state and federal courts. And

basically it states that: Evidence of a statement of the declarant's then existing state of mind or emotion

is not made inadmissible by the hearsay rule when the evidence is offered to prove the declarant's state

of mind, emotion or physical sensation at that time or any other time when it is itself an issue in the

action. And in this case, when we argued it before, we all analyzed the words "I love you," and your

honor stated that it does seem like it's being offered for the truth of the matter asserted, not only the "I

love you," but Blanket's name and his age. And in essence, the law is, well settled, that when a person

who's part of a relationship that is at issue in a wrongful-death case makes a direct statement about or

reflecting the nature of their relationship or feelings of affection/emotion, it qualifies under section

1250, even if it is offered for the truth of the matter asserted. And in fact, it has been held to be a

reversible error in wrongful-death cases when statements of the attitudes and feelings of a person who

was part of a relationship at issue are excluded. And that's the Benwell vs. Dean case, 249 Cal.App.2d

345 at 353.

Judge: Is that the one case that you're referring to?

Mr. Panish: Yes.

Ms. Chang: Yes.

Ms. Cahan: It doesn't support that. I'm sorry. Didn't mean to interrupt you.

Ms. Chang: Did you want me to finish? Your honor, I think that what is -- all the cases go back to this

as the case that really forms the basis of the wrongful-death kind of analysis. And it is evidence that is

good or bad in relationships is reflective of the type of relationship when it is reflecting the nature of

the relationship. And often it is the emotions or -- the statements of attitude or the feelings and

emotions are exactly what is admissible in these wrongful-death cases. And any of the other statements

that are contained in there, like such as the date, or whether "I'll see you tomorrow" or whether Blanket

uttered it, it's not received for the truth of the matter asserted, but it is circumstantial evidence of a state

of mind. With respect to the "Blanket document", the very fact that Michael Jackson was the type of

father who, in his busy schedule, made the notation that he thought his son at six, whether he is or not,

was so cute to say something that he wanted to record it for posterity, shows the nature and reflection of

that relationship. Likewise, the fact that Blanket, at whatever age he was, discussed that his -- at such a

young age, that his favorite letters just happened to be in ones that started "God" and "Daddy" is

reflective of his feelings of that relationship, and the fact that he recorded it is something that is typical

in these types of cases. And if the opposite was true -- for example, if Blanket was older and wrote "I

hate my father" or "My father is horrible to me," that would be equally admissible and reflective of

emotion and feelings and the nature of the relationship. So we believe, your honor, that it was

important enough to set this forth in writing and to set forth a record on it, because I think the case law

and section 1250 make it very clear that this is exactly the scenario that --

Judge: Is 1250 the state of mind? Is that what --

Ms. Chang: It's -- the full text is found in 1250, and it is state of mind, but it also states "evidence of

statements of declarant's existing state of mind and emotion," and I'm really emphasizing the "emotion"

part of it, because "I love you" is state of emotion and -- as well as state of mind. And it doesn't matter

if it's offered for the truth of the matter asserted; it is not made inadmissible when it's offered to prove

the declarant's -- whether it be Paris or Michael Jackson -- their state of mind, emotion or physical

sensation at that time when it is itself an issue in the action in a wrongful-death case. What Benwell

stands for is that attitude and feelings of a person in a relationship in a wrongful-death case is always

relevant and that it is prejudicial error to exclude those statements.

Ms. Cahan: May I, your honor?

Judge: Yes.

Ms. Cahan: So as you remember, we last dealt with this issue on June 27th when Mr. Taj Jackson was

on the stand on direct. At that time Ms. Chang said that she would meet and confer with us about

whether there were particular pages of the notes that we would agree to come in. Rather than do that,

the next day in court, she informed me that they had -- Plaintiffs had developed a theory by which they

thought all of the notes could be brought into evidence as a group, and declined to explain that to me.

And in the intervening two weeks, we've not discussed this issue at all, and then we get this brief this

morning.

Judge: Well, if you want time to consider it --

Ms. Cahan: No, that's fine.

Judge: -- I'll give it to you. But that argument you have to set aside if you're not going to take the time

that I'm willing to offer you.

Ms. Cahan: Right, your honor. And where I was going, your honor, is that we discussed sections -- so

the two things, essentially, that are in this brief that are actually involved here today are section 1250

hearsay argument and the Benwell case. And we discussed section 1250 quite extensively when we

argued this issue before, including this theory that it was evidence of the state of mind of Paris, Blanket

and Michael Jackson. And your honor rejected those arguments, and I don't see anything in the brief

that's new, and your honor concluded -- and this is at page 8924 of the transcript: "I think the most

you're going to be able to do without impeachment, it sounds like, is for him to say he found these

notes; that his uncle frequently kept notes and that this is his uncle's handwriting. That's the most you're

going to be able to do without impeachment, which I think is fine, and it's going to be up to you to

argue later what that means." and that's where we left it at that time. I don't see anything new about the

focus of the arguments. I don't think there's any basis for your honor to deviate from her prior ruling in

this regard. And as we said then, we're willing to stipulate that both Paris and Blanket Jackson loved

their father; their father loved them. And these are, importantly, the two notes we're talking about -- the

note that Paris wrote to her father, and the note that Michael wrote recording what Blanket had said to

him -- are both not statements of the decedent, both are Plaintiffs in the case, both could come and

testify. We've certainly not objected to testimony by third parties about their observations of the

relationship between Mr. Jackson, his children, and there's been quite a bit of testimony in that regard.

And, your honor, that brings me to why Benwell is in apposite. Benwell is the case where the Plaintiff

-- it was a wrongful-death case. The Plaintiff was the decedent's wife. And the statements -- the hearsay

statements at issue that were addressed by the appellate court were statements that the decedent had

made in a writing saying he intended to leave his wife. And they were introduced by the Defendant to

rebut the contention that there was a happy, loving relationship to combat the damages and claims

made by Plaintiff. That is a completely different situation. We have consistently said that we should, as

the Defendants, be able to introduce statements of the decedent. And, again, your honor, here we're not

talking about statements of the decedent. So Benwell has no application here whatsoever. And, again,

your honor, you know, the issues raised in this brief are 1250.

Judge: Normally, the Plaintiffs offering the statements of the Plaintiff are hearsay. Your offering your

statements; they're hearsay.

Ms. Cahan: Right.

Judge: But what they're saying is that it's evidence of the state of mind, they loved their father. What

about that?

Ms. Cahan: Right. We have no objection to either stipulating to that or having Mr. Jackson --

Judge: They haven't accepted to -- do they have to accept your stipulation, or can they go on and show

proof to give some sort of context and meaning to that?

Ms. Chang: If I could address that, your honor. I think it's easy to say, "Oh, he loved his children."

Judge: Right.

Ms. Chang: I love my father, and my father loved me. And I can tell your honor with certainty, I never

wrote a letter to my dad like that, and my dad has never noted something that I wrote down. I think it

shows the nature and quality of that love, and I think it was unique and special, and I think we're

entitled to show that. I think it's very generic to say, "Oh, the father loved his daughter, and the

daughter loved her father." It's very different than having evidence such as this.

Judge: Let me ask, because I don't know if this is the case: Do the Plaintiffs have to show somehow

that the declarant is unavailable under this section?

Ms. Chang: No.

Judge: In other words, as part of what the Defendants are saying is, "well, the kids can be called, and

they can testify as to the notes themselves."

Ms. Chang: In the case law, your honor, 1250 is an "equal opportunity" section. It's not only for

Defendants, and it's not only for Plaintiffs. And what's great about it is for both defense and Plaintiffs,

whether the evidence is good or bad, it comes in, when in a wrongful-death lawsuit, to be reflective of

the nature of the relationship. So she is exactly right. In that case, when a wife is a Plaintiff bringing a

wrongful-death case, and they have evidence that the husband was going to leave her, that is bad

evidence that reflects his state of the emotions and the feelings and attitudes towards his wife. This is

the converse. This is "I love you, Daddy. I can't wait to see you again tomorrow." This is "Words of

my son Blanket, age 6. What's your favorite letters?" I mean, this is a very unique kind of relationship

--

Judge: Doesn't matter who is offering it?

Ms. Chang: It doesn't matter who is offering it, as we can see from the plain language of evidence

code 1250.

Ms. Cahan: And, your honor, it is prejudicial to us here because they've stated their intent. The

Plaintiffs are not being called to testify; they're pressing us very hard not to be called to testify in our

case. And yet they want to have their cake and eat it, too, so to speak, to have these statements come in.

And when we discussed it last time, we discussed the fact that section 1250 is about intent, plans,

motives, feeling pain; it's not about this idea of, you know, generally --

Judge: What it says is: "Evidence of a statement of declarant's then existing state of mind, emotions or

physical sensation, including a statement of intent."

Ms. Cahan: But it's offered to prove the state of mind at the time when that state of mind at that time

is in issue in the action. Now, again, your honor, this brings us back to the point that we don't have any

foundation for when these notes were written. Blanket's is apparently at some point when he was six

years old. You know, this is -- there's really tangential relevance, if any relevance, and there's certainly

been a slew of evidence that's been introduced so far about the nature of the relationship between

parent and children, and there will be additional testimony. Mr. Jackson, as you may remember, lived

with Michael and his children for -- Mr. Taj Jackson lived with Michael and his children for six months

at hayvenhurst, at Neverland. He visited with them when they were living in the bel air hotel in 2008.

He has percipient knowledge about the relationship and he can, and I'm sure will, testify to that on

direct. But that doesn't mean that these notes and statements can be brought in, in lieu of live -- you

know, if they want to have the Plaintiffs testify and come in and say that, that's one thing. But this

hearsay exception is not meant for notes of "I love you, dad." It's meant for physical sensations, you

know, including a statement of intent, plan, motive, design, mental feelings, pain or bodily health. And

importantly, your honor, there's no case cited --

Judge: But it says "including," it's not --

Mr. Panish: Limited to.

Judge: -- limited to only those circumstances.

Ms. Cahan: Right. The Plaintiffs have not cited any case law saying that it's applicable to a general

statement of how you feel about your parent or your child. And I would expect in the two intervening

weeks since we've last dealt with this issue, since it's so important to them, if there was such case law,

that they would have brought it forward. And if your honor wants to give us time to find those cases,

we can. But my suspicion is that they don't exist; otherwise, they would bring them.

Ms. Chang: Well, your honor, because 1250 takes care of the entire issue, and a lot of the cases, it's

self-evident. And Benwell, basically, is making that very clear. And --

Judge: Have you read the use notes? I was tempted to briefly look at the use notes to see if there's

anything in them. Well, they call them "comments"; I call them "use notes."

Ms. Chang: And I just want to state, while we're looking at -- well, Mr. Panish knows the code like

almost by heart. I'm surprised he doesn't have them memorized.

Mr. Panish: There's no use note on this.

Judge: Well, they're called "comments."

Ms. Chang: But just for the record, to respond to what Ms. Cahan was saying about we won't know

when they were written. We all know the date of birth of the children, and he was six when he moved

in in December at Carolwood, and he turned seven in february. So, you know, he was seven when his

father died. It's not so remote in time that it makes it prejudicial or inapplicable or irrelevant. This is

precisely the time period that was there. The family only lived in Carolwood from December to June of

-- December of 2008 to June of 2009, and Taj Jackson was in charge of storage of everything that came

from other places. This is found in the Carolwood house. So I think it's also reflective that even in that

short time period, probably what everyone could agree is it was one of the busiest time periods of Mr.

Jackson's life. These notes were passed and collected, and notations of cute things his son said was

noted. And I think there will be evidence later on from people who may not have collected these notes

as Mr. Jackson did that Mr. Michael Jackson typically loved to say, "We have to write that down,

they're so cute," you know, and he loved to do that. And meanwhile Mr. Panish is researching.

Mr. Panish: There's nothing that I see, your honor, in the comments either way.

Ms. Cahan: And, your honor, hearsay statements are -- the hearsay exceptions are generally construed

fairly narrowly because of the -- they are an exception to the general rule that the statements are

inadmissible. And so absent any authority that they should come in, I don't see why we would stretch

the rule here where there's certainly no prejudice to Plaintiffs. There are plenty of other statements and

observations and information they can bring forth, including the testimony of these Plaintiffs as to the

relationship with their father. And just on the point that Ms. Chang made about the time frame of the

notes being establishable, that's not -- we deposed Taj Jackson. He said he had custody for three storage

facilities of which there were several that Mr. Jackson had. He didn't say he had any involvement with

Mr. Jackson's move from las vegas to los angeles or the move either into the bel air hotel or out of the

bel air hotel into the Carolwood house. So I don't think there's foundation to believe that we can pin

down -- setting aside the year that Blanket was six years old, I don't think there's any foundation to pin

down when these notes were written. And that's -- the two --

Judge: Well, children don't know how to write until they're six or seven.

Ms. Cahan: Right. And Paris Jackson was 11 when her father passed away.

Judge: I mean, in terms of Blanket.

Ms. Cahan: He didn't write it.

Ms. Chang: Right. It's Michael Jackson that's writing it.

Judge: Oh, yeah.

Ms. Chang: But he does know his letters. You know, he's saying G and D are his favorite letters: G for

God and D for Daddy. And I just want to say that the law that I'm citing is California evidence code

section 1250. I don't know anything that is any clearer. The words cannot be more clear. And Benwell

extends that and makes it clear that it is for a -- what Benwell stands for, in a wrongful-death case, is it

is always at issue, the state of mind or the emotion, in this type of situation. You need to assess the

quality of the relationship between, in this case, father and child. And what Benwell stands for is, yes,

in a wrongful-death case, good or bad, it reflects it. And so --

Judge: When reading the note, it looks like what is really what they're concerned about is to make sure

that a statement is not being offered to prove a past event, which I don't think the statements are being

offered to prove a past event. It really is just being offered to prove a state of mind.

Ms. Cahan: Your honor --

Judge: There's no event that they're trying to prove, and that seems to be the -- if you look at the use

notes, or comments, the fourth paragraph where it begins: "Section 1250(b) does not permit a statement

of memory or belief to be used to prove the fact remembered or believed. This limitation is necessary to

preserve the hearsay rule. Any statement of a past event is, of course, a statement of the declarant's

existing state of mind, memory, or belief concerning the past event."

Ms. Cahan: And, your honor, it's our belief, based on what Ms. Chang has argued and Plaintiffs' brief

says, that's exactly what they're trying to do here.

Judge: What event, though? What event?

Ms. Cahan: That Michael Jackson wrote notes of cute things his kids said, and that's indicative of the

love he had for them and the special quality of their relationship and that Paris Jackson would write

love notes to her father to -- as a demonstration of the unique and special relationship and love that she

had for him. And I've read those notes as well, and I've read them as that's exactly what they're trying to

do here.

Ms. Chang: Your honor, that's state of mind and emotion. I think that would be "I love you, Daddy"

more so than "At the tragic collision I experienced yesterday." That would be an event. There is no

event in love or reflection or a reflection of feelings of love or emotion. And 1250 is for the feelings,

and the event is expressing a specific event.

Judge: Okay. Well, all right. I'm going to reverse my decision and allow the notes in.

Ms. Chang: Thank you, your honor.

Mr. Panish: And can I ask a question? I know Neli told us that you weren't prepared to discuss the

Taylor thing today.

Judge: Maybe in the afternoon, I might.

Mr. Panish: Okay. That's fine. I understand that. I -- maybe if you could just tell us when might be a

good time we could do that. Not now, later.

Judge: Maybe this afternoon after lunch.

Mr. Panish: Okay. And there was something else I wanted to ask you. I forgot. I'll remember later.

Ms. Cahan: Your honor, just to make sure the record is clear, your ruling is that these two notes, the

note written by Paris Jackson to her father --

Judge: Right.

Ms. Cahan: -- and the note that Michael Jackson wrote recounting statements that Blanket Jackson

had made are going to be allowed in as a hearsay exception under 1250?

Judge: 1250.

Ms. Cahan: And this is not pertaining to the other 200-odd pages of notes?

Ms. Chang: Your honor, she does raise an excellent point. And that's part two of my brief.

Judge: Oh, all right.

Ms. Chang: I don't know if you want to go through that now. And I do apologize to Ms. Cahan and the

court. And I do recall saying that I would email her and say, can we go through any of these. And so

much as happened during the last couple of weeks that I neglected to do that. So I apologize to both the

court and Ms. Cahan. There was conversation at the table that maybe it wouldn't be that fruitful, but I,

nonetheless, promised I would try. In any event, I apologize for that. I don't want to take up the time to

in front of the jury or go to sidebars --

Judge: Why don't you take the time now?

Ms. Chang: Sure.

Judge: If they're similar, then --

Ms. Cahan: They're not.

Mr. Panish: I mean, you know how they are.

Ms. Chang: Okay. I'm going to show them all to her now.

Judge: I'm getting off the bench.

Ms. Chang: Ms. Cahan is just shaking her head.

Ms. Cahan: Well, your honor, to be honest, I'm just really frustrated, because they were supposed to

do this outside of court hours. And when we came in the following day, I said, "Ms. Chang, I didn't

hear from you. What are we doing?"

Judge: And I was supposed to do the Robert Taylor motion, and I didn't do it. It happens when you're

in trial. Things happen.

Ms. Chang: And I apologize sincerely, and she's fully --

Judge: It happens. Just --

Ms. Chang: She has every right to be frustrated.

Ms. Cahan: We'll talk now. That's fine.

Mr. Putnam: Thank you, your honor.

(A recess was taken)

Judge: Okay.

Ms. Chang: Well, what we're ready for argument on, there's a category of documents that were found

at the house. Mr. Jackson will talk about how Mr. Michael Jackson had a habit and custom of taking

notes that can fit in three categories: One is based on the "law of attraction" inspirational; one is

keepsakes we talked about this morning; and the third is like a business, talking points, to-do list kind

of thing. And we can categorize each document into each category. He can authenticate the

handwriting; having taken part in numerous meetings, receiving letters from his --

Judge: Okay.

Ms. Chang: -- recognizing his uncle's handwriting, and even taking part of doing these types of notes

before. And we believe that all of -- we're just going to show -- there's like 124 documents, but we only

picked a small selection of them. And we believe they all fit under 1250, the purpose, plan, motive,

inspiration, not for the truth of the matter asserted, but he had these aspirations, goals, plans, "No AEG

unless movies," the -- like we can show --

Mr. Boyle: Why don't we talk about one?

Ms. Chang: Let's show 50-1 (indicating). This would fit under the category, what he would call

category 3, which is actually --

Mr. Boyle: It could fit under a couple. Your honor, just for example, Mr. Michael Jackson wrote in the

middle of it "MJ musical now"; right? That shows that he had an intent or a plan, something he wanted

to do in the future. It's obviously not being offered to say, oh, a Michael Jackson musical would have

happened as a matter of fact. It's just the intent, motive, plan, so it's a hearsay exception under 1250.

And then there's a lot of notes like this where he was writing down his intent and plan. And then there's

also things to-do list on the right, "Call Turkle." It's not really -- I mean, it's not really relevant to any

issue in the case, but it's just that he had a plan to call Ms. Faye, because she's "Turkle." So that's what

-- these are kind of like to-do lists, plan lists, motive. That's what these things are.

Ms. Cahan: Your honor, we had this exact discussion last time. And what's happening here, and the

problem with this -- the primary problem with this is Plaintiffs are going to have Taj Jackson, who

wasn't there when these notes were written, offer an interpretation of what they mean.

Ms. Chang: No.

Ms. Cahan: There's no foundation for the date of these. You know, there's been testimony that he first

spoke with -- Mr. Jackson first spoke with AEG or considered AEG back in 2007. You know, these

notes could be from 2007, they could be from 2008, they could be from 2009. It's our understanding

that Taj Jackson was not there when they were written.

Judge: He's not going to interpret them.

Ms. Chang: He will not interpret them.

Mr. Boyle: No.

Ms. Chang: He doesn't have to. He just has to recognize it as his handwriting.

Judge: His handwriting.

Ms. Chang: And he's going to read it because he's familiar --

Judge: He can do that.

Ms. Chang: He's not going to interpret it at all.

Mr. Boyle: Right. No. We think some of them are subject to multiple interpretations, and that's for the

jury to decide. That's just evidence we're putting in.

Ms. Cahan: We don't contest Mr. Taj Jackson's ability to authenticate the handwriting on this

document, but that doesn't make it admissible, because the relevance can't be shown without some

interpretation of what this means, some context being provided for it. And he simply doesn't have any

factual knowledge to give a context for it. And when we discussed this previously, what your honor

ruled -- and I think it was correct -- was they can have him authenticate the handwriting, but it's up to

them to argue in closing what this means --

Ms. Chang: Right.

Ms. Cahan: -- and try to introduce an interpretation. And what they said is they want to have him read

it, to publish it to the jury, read it to the jury, show it to the jury, which would be asserting it as relevant,

which I don't think that they can do with this witness because he wasn't there --

Judge: Well --

Ms. Cahan: -- and can't interpret these notes.

Mr. Boyle: Again, your honor, he is not going to be interpreting them at all.

Judge: He can't interpret them. He can probably say "The note says, 'No AEG unless films are

involved. Develop for a'" --

Ms. Chang: "2 a year for 6 years."

Judge: That's what the note says, but he can't interpret what that means.

Mr. Boyle: Right.

Judge: That's for them to do in closing and then for the jury to decide, and you can have a different

interpretation of what it means.

Ms. Cahan: Your honor, and the only reason that this would be relevant at all, even arguably relevant,

is for their damages claims.

Judge: Okay.

Ms. Cahan: And this is something that I believe Ms. Strong will be addressing with respect to Mr.

Erk's anticipated testimony. But the film issues are entirely speculative, and so we think that would be

kept out. They're not relevant, and even to the extent they would be marginally relevant, they would be

excluded under 352. And, you know, they're going to be categorizing these documents as, you know,

these are "to-do" -- there's this category -- they've shown a category 3 called "to-do topics" to cover

during meetings to have others do. That's -- just putting this into that category and saying this is 1250,

and a note, they prepared a demonstrative about this, that alone is interpreting it.

Ms. Chang: We can delete the categorization.

Mr. Boyle: No. And there's a slide or something? Yeah, that's fine. But the document itself, again, he's

not going to be interpreting it. It's offered for many reasons. Could you put up 50-9, for example?

Ms. Stebbins: Your honor, these are notes found in Michael Jackson's house. They're all hearsay on

their face unless they can be shown to be an exception. This witness doesn't have the ability to show

there's an exception because all he can say is, "I found them in my uncle's house; they are in his

handwriting." Whether they fall into some kind of hearsay exception, it's a legal question. It's not for

the witness to say, "This is a to-do list" and "this is a keepsake" because he doesn't know when they

were created, how they were created, or which category they go into. All he has firsthand knowledge to

say is, "I found them in the house." And even if they get interpreted to the jury in closing depends on

showing what they mean, that they're relevant, that Mr. Jackson created them with intent, as opposed to

just, you know, jotting down daydreams or -- there are many ways these documents can be created.

Ms. Cahan: This is a typical example, your honor, we discussed last time, and you ruled that Mr. Taj

Jackson could authenticate the handwriting only with respect to the document, because it's hearsay, and

he can't interpret it. And it was at page 8924 of the transcript -- I'm sorry, 8923, lines --

Judge: So you can't use the contents of the document itself to prove that it's intent of a future plan?

Ms. Stebbins: There may be some cases where you can do that. I don't think you can do that for all

124 documents. And I don't think this is something --

Judge: I'm agreeing with you. The witness can't say that this means Michael Jackson was intending to

do X, Y and Z.

Mr. Boyle: No, he's not going to say that. He's just going to say, "this is his handwriting. I found these

at his house. And in working with him, he had a custom and habit of writing down notes." I mean, that's

it. For example, this is Randy Phillips. This is arguably, you know, one interpretation, he was writing

this down because he was writing notes for himself for a conversation with Randy Phillips where he

was going to tell Randy he needed representation, an accountant, a lawyer --

Ms. Chang: A manager.

Judge: This is all argument.

Mr. Boyle: Right.

Ms. Chang: Which is not what we're going to use it for.

Judge: Right.

Ms. Chang: He's just going to show it and say "This is my uncle's handwriting," which is all you need

to get it in.

Ms. Stebbins: No.

Ms. Chang: He doesn't need to know the circumstances. He doesn't need to know anything. He just

needs to authenticate the handwriting. And then he can read it to show he knows this thing, but not --

and stop there. No interpretation, nothing.

Ms. Cahan: And --

Ms. Chang: The contrary would mean that no one would ever be able to prove intent, plan, or have an

argument for anything. The code is clear, and the law is clear that all you have to do to get a

handwriting is in four steps, and authentication is one of the four ways.

Ms. Cahan: Your honor, what they're doing here is trying to inflate authentication and admissibility.

We don't dispute that --

Judge: What I'm trying to figure out is, is you're saying it's not relevant, even though it's got the name

"Randy Phillips" on it --

Ms. Stebbins: It's hearsay.

Judge: "Need representation, accountant, lawyer," and it's not relevant?

Ms. Stebbins: Here's the problem, your honor: There's no foundation when this document was created

and how.

Judge: I mean, when would it be created other than --

Mr. Boyle: Before he died.

Judge: Is there some other time frame when he was dealing with Randy Phillips other than this time

frame?

Mr. Boyle: No.

Ms. Stebbins: Certainly, your honor, it was created during this time frame, but hear me out for a

second.

Judge: Okay.

Ms. Stebbins: In order to show that it is intent, plan or motive, normally you have to have someone

who is actually present who heard the statement made. Normally you're not getting hearsay documents

in. So, for instance, if Taj Jackson had been speaking with Mr. Michael Jackson, and Michael Jackson

had told him, "I spoke to Randy Phillips" -- "I'm going to speak to Randy Phillips and tell him I need

an accountant and a lawyer," that might fall into a statement of intent, plan or motive. Here, however,

you have a note. This note could be a reflection of a call that Mr. Jackson had with someone else,

maybe somebody advised him, "Talk to Randy Philips about this." maybe he wrote "Need

representation, accountant, lawyer, invest with Phil" and then called Randy and wrote Randy's name

afterwards. There's no foundation as to what order these words were written on this paper. And Randy

Phillips might have told him, "you need representation and a lawyer and an accountant." there's 10,000

interpretations of that document.

Judge: And one could be that.

Ms. Stebbins: One could be that.

Judge: You have your own interpretation of what it could mean.

Ms. Chang: And they can argue that.

Ms. Stebbins: Hold on a second. Your honor, it's only admissible if it can be shown to be a statement

of intent. They have to lay a foundation that it is that. They can't just say "Here's everything Michael

ever wrote. You interpret it." that's classic hearsay. There has to be a foundation that there's an

exception. A lot of these documents have bits and pieces written at different times. They make very

little sense. They have scrawls here, scrawls there. There may be some of them where foundation can

be laid either through another witness or through the document itself where, if it's more coherent in

some way other than this. But having no foundation when it was created -- we don't know if it was

created in June of 2008 or June of 2009, which makes a big difference. Because this case is about the

hiring of Dr. Conrad Murray. This document on its face has absolutely nothing to do with that. I'm

assuming they're planning on arguing that "Invest with Phil" has something to do with damages. But

it's very nebulous, your honor, and there's no clear indication that this was a statement of plan, intent or

motive, which is the only way it can be shown to the jury. There has to be a foundation that it was that,

not just, here's a handwritten note that the jury could interpret as intent or could interpret as something

else. Otherwise, every hearsay exception that could be -- any hearsay statement that could be subject to

10,000 interpretations but has no foundation could come in.

Mr. Boyle: Your honor, I mean, unfortunately, we can't have Mr. Jackson testify exactly what was

happening when he wrote this note. If an interpretation of it is -- fits within 1250, which it clearly

seems to, it can come in.

Ms. Chang: It can be argued later; not for him to comment on.

Mr. Boyle: Right. He can say, "This is the handwriting." that is it. And, you know, the funny thing is

here, there are two of these notes that they are going to use. Yeah, they're going to use two of these

notes that they want to use also, so --

Ms. Stebbins: Your honor, I suggest this, since we've already wasted a lot of time with the jury. Why

don't we have the witness authenticate the documents without showing them to the jury? And then

since there's 124 of them, we can brief or argue them individually in terms of whether they're

statements of plan, intent, or motive or not. Because some of them are clearly not going to fall into that

category. And that way, they're authenticated; there's no issue with them later being shown in closing if

the court finds that's acceptable. But there's no need to show them to the jury today since Mr. Jackson is

not going to be interpreting them. He can say, "These are all in my uncle's handwriting." they can be

authenticated, and then they can argue later about admissibility rather than wasting more time today.

Ms. Cahan: Right. And since Mr. Taj Jackson doesn't have percipient knowledge to these documents,

he won't have to be called back to testify again about the documents. This would be an efficient way of

handling them.

Ms. Stebbins: And he can still testify that his uncle had a custom of various things, and that these

notes were found in his house or at his location, which is all the witness can testify to anyway.

Judge:. Okay.

Mr. Boyle: How can we ever show them to the jury?

Judge: You can show them. You can show them to the jury.

Ms. Cahan: Perhaps with the damages expert, or if there's some relevance.

Ms. Stebbins: We'll brief the issue of the 124 individually. We can come to some agreement.

Ms. Chang: I don't want all 124. I've only asked for a selective.

Mr. Boyle: And Mr. Erk, who is our entertainment earnings expert, who is going on this afternoon,

relies on some of these notes, so we're there right now. I don't know what else needs to be briefed on it.

It's either --

Ms. Chang: Either showing intention, plan or purpose, or it doesn't.

Mr. Boyle: And as far as authenticity, I mean, the easiest way for authenticity would be if they just

stipulate to -- in Mr. Taj Jackson's depo, to every one he authenticated in his depo.

Judge: Well, I don't think authenticity is the issue.

Mr. Putnam: No.

Ms. Cahan: And, again, as has been discussed many times now, experts can rely on hearsay, you just

can't publish hearsay because they're experts. And, your honor, I also just want to flag for you, I was

just handed a document that's labeled exhibit 760. This was not previously produced --

Ms. Chang: I said I withdraw it.

Ms. Cahan: It was not -- I'm sorry. This was not previously produced in discovery, and I was told that

Plaintiffs produced about 430 pages in discovery, total. And I was told this by Ms. Chang that this is a

document that is a -- in family lore. It is written by Michael Jackson. It's directly responsive to our

discovery request, something the family has had and cherished for a long time. They were intending, I

guess, as of this morning to use it with Taj Jackson. The fact that this was not produced, and this is like

a treasured family document written by Michael Jackson, which is directly responsive to our discovery

request, is a big problem, and we will be briefing that issue, your honor.

Judge: Well, if they're withdrawing it, why are you briefing it?

Ms. Cahan: The document was never produced in discovery that we claim --

Ms. Chang: Can I answer, because there's some charges? This is -- was on "60 Minutes" recently. This

is when we first found out about it. And I asked Taj about it. We never had it --

Judge: Taj.

Ms. Chang: Jackson. Mr. Jackson. And in fact he didn't have it, but they all knew it. What it is, very

famous story. When Mr. Michael Jackson was 21 years old, he wrote on the back of a touring exhibit

schedule: "at 21 I'm going to be known as MJ. I'm going to be the greatest entertainer. I'm going to not

be known as 'the Jackson 5.' I'm going to be a perfectionist. I'll create magic." and "60 Minutes" just did

a show on this saying, "We just found this in the bowels of storage," and they showed all the cars and

everything he had, and they unearthed this treasure. All the family knew about it, but they never had it

because it's all stored in these humongous storage things.

Judge: Right.

Ms. Chang: But they all know about it because everything on that list came true. He is a true believer,

and he taught Taj the same thing from the "Law of Attraction," Napoleon Hill, "The Secret," all of that

stuff. He's a true believer, and that's why he wrote it all over his mirror and on post-its. It's a prime

example of why he was such a believer of it. If we had it, we would truly have produced it.

Mr. Boyle: The Estate had it.

Ms. Chang: The Estate had it. We did not have it.

Ms. Cahan: Your honor, our discovery request, as is typical, asked that anything that once existed that

they no longer had access to what they knew was responsive to our discovery request be identified.

Judge: What's the issue? Are you offering it?

Ms. Chang: No.

Ms. Cahan: I just wanted to flag for your honor that we're going to be briefing this issue.

Ms. Chang: When she raised this issue, I said, "That's fair, I will withdraw it," when she raised it with

me.

Mr. Boyle: If they want to go down the road of things not produced in discovery, we have a lot we can

talk about for them as well.

Ms. Chang: I thought she raised a good point, and I withdrew it.

Mr. Putnam: Your honor, one final point. Mr. Boyle just mentioned it. It's come to our understanding

that they have obtained the Dileo documents. They have obtained the computer. And what I would like

is, I would like us to have equal access to the material since it's so relevant. I ask that we have equal

access, and not be something they disclose from them to us.

Mr. Boyle: That's already been arranged. Mr. Buckner from their office --

Mr. Putnam: Right.

Mr. Boyle: -- we received his email, and it's all being transferred to him, too.

Mr. Putnam: All right.

Mr. Panish: Just on that issue --

Ms. Chang: A voice from the back.

Mr. Panish: The judge in Ohio has made various rulings on the production to advise the court. Ms.

Dileo, Brenda Dileo and Linda Dileo, were held in contempt of court. They had refused -- this is the

clients of Mr. Putnam.

Mr. Putnam: They're not my clients.

Mr. Panish: They were his clients.

Mr. Putnam: She was never my client. Is this relevant?

Mr. Panish: Yeah. You brought it up. Linda Dileo, Mr. Putnam's client on the issue of the protective

order in Ohio, the motion to quash which he appeared at --

Mr. Putnam: I didn't appear.

Mr. Panish: Can I finish, Mr. --

Mr. Putnam: I was just trying to correct the misstatements.

Mr. Panish: Well, who he represented, and we had the lawyer on the phone who finally told him he no

longer was representing the client. She was held in contempt for refusing to produce the documents that

we had requested from Mr. Putnam initially; the computer, and two phones. That was on July 3rd. She

refused to answer questions at deposition. The judge gave an order to do it. She refused to answer

again. We produced the subpoenaed documents, which, on july -- monday, I believe it was, they were

produced.

Mr. Putnam: The 8th.

Mr. Panish: The 8th, they were produced. The contempt order is still out there. We have a computer

expert --

Judge: The contempt order is still out there because there's something outstanding?

Mr. Panish: Well, there's an issue --

Mr. Boyle: It's going to be determined if there was any tampering done by anyone.

Judge: Oh, I see.

Mr. Boyle: Once we say it's okay, the judge will release them.

Mr. Panish: And so --

Mr. Putnam: What happened, actually, our client was not found in contempt. Her daughter was asked

at her daughter's deposition if she would provide the name of who the computer was provided to, and

apparently she refused to do so, so she was held in contempt for refusing to provide the name. And then

what occurred, your honor, is they went out and got the person to provide the computer. And so that

computer, we understand, has been provided. And what we're asking for is, since this has now been

provided, we would like to have equal access.

Mr. Panish: Well, I believe I have an order here. Are you saying that Mrs. Dileo was not held in

contempt in Ohio?

Ms. Stebbins: I'm not sure whether she was or not, your honor.

Mr. Panish: Well, she was.

Ms. Stebbins: It's a computer that was given away months before we came into our short

representation.

Mr. Panish: That's not true.

Ms. Stebbins: I don't believe it's necessary to talk about it at this point. All we're asking for is, now

that apparently the documents have been provided and produced, both sides should be able to review

them.

Judge: There first should be a determination by somebody that the documents are being preserved or

the computer --

Mr. Putnam: That's what we want.

Ms. Stebbins: It's been sent to a computer expert retained by Plaintiffs who is looking into that issue.

All we want is, as documents are found, that they be produced to both sides, for obvious reasons.

Mr. Panish: Your honor --

Mr. Boyle: We're doing more than that. We are giving them the full mirror image --

Mr. Putnam: That's what we want.

Mr. Boyle: Okay. Separate and apart, the estate has required us to pull out what they say is privileged.

So we're giving you a full mirror image except for what the Estate is --

Ms. Stebbins: Right.

Mr. Panish: Just to clarify the record of what Mr. Putnam said, on July 5th, 2013, in the Court of

Coma Police, Columbiana county, Ohio, Mrs. Linda Dileo was held in contempt of court by the judge

-- I have the order right here, Mr. Putnam, which Mr. Buckner from his office appeared at and has been

representing AEG in the Ohio proceeding. So for Mr. Putnam to say his former client, Ms. Dileo, was

never held in contempt is not, I believe, an accurate representation. Have you read the order?

Mr. Putnam: It is an accurate representation. As you well know, Mr. Panish, despite your repeated

assertions to the contrary that we represented her at this time or at the time of the computer when it was

relevant here, I would have hoped, Mr. Panish, that they had found a document and/or found the

computer, and therefore, you have access to it, you have access to the computer, as well as the

documents, and we would like equal access. My understanding is we're going to get that. That's what's

relevant.

Mr. Panish: It's Judge Scott Washam is the one that held Ms. Dileo in contempt. He just said his client

was never held in contempt. And we believe those documents were requested in the possession and

control of O'Melveny & Myers when they were representing Ms. Dileo, who has now been held in

contempt of court -- and we're going to get to that issue, since they just brought it up -- regarding the

deposition testimony in playing these other testimonies to show the track of what happened with the

documents that were in the possession and control of their client when they represented them. And the

whole proceeding took place in ohio.

Ms. Stebbins: Your honor, I don't think we need to deal with any of this now.

Mr. Panish: Well, he brought it up.

Mr. Putnam: I asked for equal access to the documents they have. That's what I asked for.

Judge: Okay. I'd like to get the jury in here. It's 11:00.

Mr. Panish: Let's go.

Judge: But we need to finish up with this issue.

Ms. Stebbins: For today, your honor, I think it would be fine to have him authenticate it, not show it to

the jury. Allow us an opportunity to brief. While we don't think certain of the documents Ms. Chang

has put forward are covered by the hearsay exception --

Judge: Did you identify which -- are you saying all of them? Because I'm going to allow --

Ms. Chang: That's their position, your honor. All of them.

Ms. Stebbins: No.

Ms. Cahan: Your honor, that's not true. There are specific ones -- so 50-60 and 50-10 we've agreed

can be shown with the phone number redacted of Randy Phillips's contact information. We discussed

that previously. And then there's a number of them we think can be authenticated. We've agreed Taj

Jackson authenticated them at his deposition, but not shown to the jury, and those are the ones we'd like

to brief. And it's just a handful. 50-9 --

Judge: I don't know -- the numbers mean nothing to me. If you can describe what the document is.

Ms. Chang: We can put it up. 50-9. Here's one, 50-2.

Mr. Boyle: Put up 50-2. 50-2 is a great example, your honor.

Ms. Cahan: Rather than one by one, your honor, we can be here all day on this. I think it does make

sense for us --

Mr. Boyle: I'll read this one, your honor: "Tohme away from my money now. No contract. Where is

my house? Phillips is conflict. Where is money for 50 shows?" Seems very relevant.

Ms. Stebbins: Your honor, there's no foundation as to what this is. We'd like the opportunity to brief it

since Ms. Chang didn't meet and confer with us on this issue which she promised --

Judge: Okay. This is what I'm going to do: The kids' notes or things relating to the kids, that's in.

Ms. Chang: Okay.

Judge: These notes concerning Mr. Jackson's future plans, let's put those aside.

Ms. Chang: Okay. I'll just tell him that he found them, that he saved them, that he produced them at

his deposition, and that he authenticated them --

Judge: Right. Michael Jackson's handwriting.

Ms. Chang: Right.

Judge: Mr. Jackson had a habit of writing down notes. I don't know how you're going to do that, but

you can do that.

Ms. Chang: Okay.

Ms. Stebbins: And then mark them for identification and --

Mr. Boyle: And if they would just stipulate the ones he authenticated in his deposition, if they would

stipulate that those are authentic, then we can save a little bit of time on that.

Ms. Cahan: There were about -- there were a couple hundred pages that were gone through at his

deposition. I'm not sure our list would match up with theirs. There's one, two, three, four, five, six,

seven, eight, nine specific ones Ms. Chang brought up with me this morning we agreed were properly

authenticated in the deposition. I can read those into the record now, we can deal with them as a

package, and that would be probably the most efficient.

Judge: Okay. Ms. Chang, or whoever is going to handle this witness, in terms of authentication, give

him a stack and just say "Look at these" --

Ms. Chang: Can your honor give me a moment to pull them out, and then I will just hand it to him

when the time comes?

Judge: I will. "Is this his handwriting?"

Ms. Chang: Right.

Judge: "Are these documents you found in his personal effects?" Whatever. I mean, I don't know. I

don't want to do the work for you.

Ms. Chang: Right.

Judge: I'm just telling you, you can hand him a stack. That way you don't have to deal with the

authenticity and handwriting issue later.

Ms. Cahan: And the ones Ms. Chang and I discussed off the bench, your honor, we'll stipulate to those

being properly authenticated as Mr. Jackson's handwriting, so we don't have to even go through them

all.

Judge: Well, if you're not stipulating to all of the ones they want, they're going to have to go through

them.

Ms. Cahan: All the ones that we specifically discussed, we are stipulating to the authenticity of

handwriting. We're not stipulating to the packet of 250, because we haven't gone through them one by

one.

Mr. Boyle: And, your honor, just for the record, this is not a new issue, the whole, like -- they're

saying we didn't meet and confer. I mean, they have been objecting to these as hearsay the whole time.

I knew they were going to do this. This is not, like, some new thing springing on them.

Ms. Chang: And as I stated on the record before, we spoke about the documents. We went out in the

hallway before we even did the day before, and I was just hoping I could soften their hearts a little and

give me a few, but it didn't work. So --

Ms. Cahan: Because we didn't meet and confer about it.

Ms. Chang: But I did in the hall --

Mr. Boyle: But the answer is, "no."

Ms. Chang: But the answer has stayed resolute, so -- and I tried to --

Judge: Well, do you need more time to do something?

Ms. Chang: No. I did get it --

Judge: Do you need to talk to Mr. Jackson so he understands how the examination is going to go?

Ms. Chang: I do think I should do that.

Judge: Probably, so he's not surprised what you're going to ask him.

Ms. Chang: Can I be excused?

Judge: Yes. I'm going to step out and go into chambers.

Mr. Putnam: Thank you, your honor.

(A recess was taken)

Judge: Okay. Do we need to talk about anything or are we --

Mr. Panish: No.

Ms. Chang: We're all done.

Judge: Very good. You just need to have a seat. You don't need to be resworn. Let's call the jurors in.

(The jury enters the courtroom)

Judge: Katherine Jackson versus AEG Live. Good morning, everybody.

The jury: Good morning.

Judge: Counsel, will you make your appearances?

Mr. Panish: Good after- -- morning. Sorry. Brian Panish for the Plaintiffs.

Mr. Boyle: Good morning. Kevin Boyle for the Plaintiffs.

Ms. Chang: Good morning. Deborah Chang for the Plaintiffs.

Ms. Stebbins: Good morning. Jessica Bina Stebbins for the Defendants.

Ms. Cahan: Kathryn Cahan for the Defendants.

Mr. Putnam: And Marvin Putnam for the Defendants.

Judge: Okay. Before we get started, I want to apologize for keeping you waiting. I normally don't

keep you waiting that long, but we have issues we need to discuss, and it's not the attorneys' fault you

are waiting, but it's usually me, because I need to grapple with legal issues. And sometimes it takes

time to come to a decision and go back and forth and do research in books and come to decisions to

guide the attorneys. So it's not their fault, it's usually me. They give me their arguments, and I have to

come to a decision. So I just want you to know I'm sorry. I try to keep that to a minimum, but

sometimes I can't. So we have Taj Jackson on the witness stand. And so as you can see, we interrupted

his testimony, and we're bringing him back now so we can finish. He doesn't need to be resworn

because he understands he's still under oath. "Yes"?

The witness: Yes.

Judge: Ms. Chang, you can continue.

Ms. Chang: Thank you, your honor. Tariano "Taj" Jackson, recalled as a witness by the Plaintiffs.

Continued direct examination by Deborah Chang:

Q.

Mr. Jackson, can you move the microphone closer to you, because you're a little soft spoken?

A.

Yes.

Q.

Can you remind us, because it's been a couple of weeks since you've been here, the order of

brothers that you are in age? Are you the oldest?

A. I'm the oldest out of my brothers, yes.

Q. All right. I want to take you to a time before your uncle, Michael Jackson, had his own children.

How would you describe your relationship with him?

A. Uhm, he was definitely a father figure to us, and some people would argue that we were like his

children before he had his children.

Q. All right. And did he take the time to teach and guide you not only in life, but in your own career?

A. Well, I think I expressed earlier, he was definitely our mentor. And everything we did in life, we

kind of geared it towards what he was doing, whether it was music or even just how he was as a person.

Q.

And over the years, have you received handwritten notes from your uncle?

A.

Yes. Various handwritten notes from my uncle, keepsakes, yes.

Q.

And I think we looked over one last time. I just want to show you one now. It's exhibit 50-124.

Ms. Chang: And we can show that with no objection. All right. Why don't we blow that up a little bit.

Q.

And is this one of the notes that you received from your uncle? (indicating)

A.

Yes.

Q.

Can you read that for us?

A.

"Taj, I love you all and am proud of you. P.S. Please rehearse."

Q.

Before we get into what's written there, can you tell us, there's a little logo in the corner, looks like

a little boy bending over.

A.

That's a Neverland stationery. That's one of the various stationeries from Neverland.

Q.

Okay. And can you tell us, what did this note refer to?

A.

This was probably -- he wrote various notes to me like this. And so I know what the "please

rehearse" refers to.

Q. That's the one I was --

A. That refers to -- because when we were younger, we would come home from school, and we would

always want to play, but we also wanted to be just like our uncle. And he would always remind us how

much hard work it took. So that's probably from the nudging of my mom telling him we weren't

rehearsing a lot that he put that in there.

Q. Did you each have musical instruments that each of you played?

A. Yes. At that time I was known as the piano player of the group, and he bought me my first -- well,

it's not really an organ, but a three-layered piano. So kind of like an organ. But our first instruments, he

bought them for us.

Q.

And did he urge each of you to keep practicing?

A.

Always, yes.

Q.

All right. All of the kids in the extended Jackson family, who spent the most time with your uncle?

A.

I would say myself partly because I'm the eldest grandson, but partly because I spent a lot of time

with him, yes.

Q.

Were you present at your uncle's side for many of his big moments in his life?

A.

Yes. I'd like to say a lot of the historical moments we were -- me and my brothers were by his side.

Q.

All right. I'd like to show exhibit 986-2 (indicating). Okay. And first tell us, what is the -- are you

in this photo?

A.

Yes.

Q.

Can you point yourself out?

A.

I am the -- it's -- that's TJ and I, basically.

Q.

Okay.

A.

In our Buckley uniforms.

Q.

Oh, these are the Buckley uniforms?

A.

Those were the Buckley uniforms. They were more conservative back then.

Q.

Did you get the day off that day?

A.

We took the day off that day because it was very important to us.

Q.

Okay. And what is the event that's going on there?

A.

That's when my uncle got his Walk Of Fame. Hollywood Walk Of Fame Star.

Q.

And which handsome fella are you on that picture?

A.

I'm the one all the way to your left.

Q.

And were there any other children there other than you and your brothers?

A.

Not that I remember. I think it was just me and my brothers that were there for our generation.

Q. All right. And just as a reminder, Mr. Jackson, who was the nephew who Michael Jackson turned to

to take care of his own children when his nanny was unavailable?

A.

He asked me to, and I would, yeah.

Q.

All right. And who was the nephew who he turned to to be in charge of all the safekeeping of his

personal belongings and keepsakes?

A.

He asked me to. Entrusted me with that.

Q.

Okay. Now, you indicated that he was your mentor, especially in music. Did he guide you in your

selection of songs to sing?

A. He would always guide us in his music, because we would be foolish not to ask his advice. And he

always let us know that we could ask him anything. Anything about music, whether

It was songwriting or song selection. And we pretty much did ask him everything. Like, he picked out

a lot of our songs. And some songs we didn't like at first, and he told us how important it was to do that

song, and we ended up recording it.

Q.

And, ultimately, was he right?

A.

Yes. He was always right.

Q.

Did he keep up with the trends in music over the years?

A.

He made -- yes. He was a perfectionist when it came to his craft, whatever it was, whether it was

film or music. And he would study, study, study. He always said "Study the greats," "Study what was

before," "Study the classics." And he would always have music that was out now current. Current

music. He would have the top 10 hits from around the world. He would listen to those to see what was

coming up down the pipeline, and how to incorporate that.

Q.

And was that true for all the time that you knew him?

A.

Yes.

Q.

Now, you indicated to us that when you and your brothers were very active in 3T, that sometimes

there were songs you did not want to sing. You recall that?

A.

Yes.

Q.

And your uncle persuaded you to sing?

A.

Yes.

Q.

Was there an example of that?

A.

Our biggest example would be a song called "I Need You."

Q.

And that's one of the songs 3T is known for?

A.

It's one of the three songs that we're best known for, yes.

Q.

Did any of you like it when you first heard it?

A.

Out of my brothers, no, none of us liked it.

Q.

And why not?

A.

The demo of it, it sounded a little old fashioned for our taste. And we loved the classics, but we

couldn't hear what he was hearing.

Q. And what did your uncle -- how did your uncle influence you?

A. Once he heard it, he said, "You need songs like that that touch the world." And that was enough for

us to revisit the song and record it.

Q. Now, as it turned out, did he also participate in that song?

A. Well, we were recording literally down the street from where he was recording. Of course, he had

the nicer studio. But we were recording, and he surprised us and popped by when we were recording

the song and said he wanted to be a part of the song and ended up lending his vocals to the very end of

the song.

Q. All right. So could we hear his voice?

A. Yes. He actually was -- he had just recorded a rock song, so his voice was shot. But he said that he

wanted to be a part of it, and in the recording you can actually hear his voice. It's raw, but it's still

probably one of my proudest moments of that album, just because once you hear it, it's like you can

hear the passion behind his voice.

Q. Was the part that he sang written for him or did he ad lib it?

A. It was an ad lib. And I think what was the most amazing about it was that it was all in one take.

There was no -- he didn't try it again or -- what you hear is one take. And that's when I realized that he

was just in another league than we were. Yeah.

Q. What effect did he have on all the musicians and producers that were in that room when he did it in

one take?

A. Well, there were two producers there, and Max Martin and Dennis Pop. And Max Martin has later

gone on to do Katy Perry. He's probably the biggest songwriter currently. And when he heard my uncle

sing, he literally started crying. He said this was a dream come true, and he never thought he would be

producing Michael Jackson.

Q. And how did "I Need You" end up doing?

A. Did very well for us, yes.

Q. All right. I'd like to just show a short video. And before I show it, he is not appearing in the video;

correct?

A.

No. He wanted to be in the video, but the timing, he couldn't be.

Q.

All right. Let me just show exhibit 762. And this is just a portion.

(a video clip of "I Need You" is played)

Q.

Okay. I think it's kind of hard to hear, but that was your uncle in there?

A.

Yes. Yeah.

Q.

Oh, go ahead.

A.

I was just saying, looking back at it, we were always trying to do what our uncle was doing. And I

heard the choir in there, and that was also his input. He also believed in worldly songs, and he also

talked to the producers and told them that there needed to be a choir at the end of that song.

Q.

Okay. And that's how we see the choir there?

A.

Yes. That's how.

Q.

Okay. Did he also teach you about songwriting?

A.

Yes.

Q.

And what did he teach you about that?

A.

He told us the secrets about songwriting. He wanted us to follow in his footsteps. And he would

constantly tell us that we had to carry on the legacy, carry on the torch when he retired.

Q. And so did he tell you how he learned about songwriting?

A. He told us that he learned from studying the greats and studying the great songs, and basically

dissecting them and realizing what makes a great song. And he would -- I have great memories of my

uncle, but it's -- he -- there's a song, Fine Young Cannibals, "She Drives Me Crazy." and he brought this

Fisher Price cassette player at the time, and he said, "This is how a lot of people hear this music." And

he played it over and over for us, and he's like, "Every time you hear it, I want you to listen to a

different instrument and see what that instrument is doing." And he said, "That's what makes up the

song. One instrument is just as important as the other." And so that's -- we would do that throughout --

you know, with different songs. And so that's kind of like -- I don't want to give away too many secrets.

Q.

We won't ask all the secrets.

A.

Yeah.

Q.

Whether it was songwriting, or you indicated your mutual love of film, did he encourage you to

study the topic?

A. It was -- for him it was about studying and mastering that topic before even venturing in, and he --

that's what we learned as well. I mean, we started when we were 12, but we didn't start 3T for -- until I

was pretty much 19. So those seven years were studying and trying to master our form and our art. So

that's how he was. He was always trying to perfect himself and make it better.

Q.

When you were little, did you like to read?

A.

Uhm, there's very few children that like to read when they're little. So, no, I didn't like to read.

Q.

Who got you to read?

A.

My uncle made reading fun, and he stressed how important it was to read and knowledge -- how

much knowledge was in books. And so he would read to us, and then we would have book sessions

where we would start reading on our own.

Q. Now, you talked about how your uncle inputted his wisdom or advice into your music.

A. Yes.

Q. Was the contrary true? Did your uncle share music that he was creating and recording for your

input?

A. He played us a lot of his music ahead of time and would ask us what we thought of it. Would ask

me what I thought of it, which I always thought was interesting because -- but he did. And I would give

my opinion, and he would listen. But it was -- I mean, he knew what he was doing already, so it wasn't

like I was giving advice. But there's a song "Hold My Hand," which akon -- that he did with Akon, and

I remember him playing that song for me ahead of time.

Q.

For those of us who might be older than you, who is Akon?

A.

Akon is a famous singer.

Q.

Currently?

A.

Yes.

Q.

Okay. And did you know whether your uncle continued to create music in the last five years of his

life?

A.

Excuse me?

Q. Did your uncle continue to create music in the last five years of his life?

A. Yes. He was always creating music and writing songs. I know that he wanted an album to come out

as well, and he was working with producers.

A.

Yes.

Q.

What is that?

A.

That was the 25th anniversary of the "Thriller" album, and reimaging or remixing the album where

he had famous or current artists record with him of the big hits.

Q.

When did that come out?

A.

I'd have to do the math.

Q.

Was that 2008?

A.

Yeah.

Q.

Shortly before your uncle died?

A.

It was -- yeah, because I remember it was in Vegas.

Q.

And who were some of the new and fresh artists that participated in singing with the "Thriller"

songs?

A.

Fergie, Will.i.am. My mind is going blank right now.

Q.

Hip-hop artists?

A.

Yeah. Current artists that were doing hits right now.

Q.

Okay. And it was actually a duet?

A.

Yeah. They would sing a part of the song, he would sing a part of the song.

Q.

And you said he was working on an album?

A.

He was working on his own album, yes.

Q.

Okay. In 2009?

A.

Yes.

Q.

And was he working with well-known producers? Music producers?

A.

I know of a couple of well-known producers that he was working with. I know he was working

with Redone who is known in the industry for doing Lady Gaga's first album, and they were working

together. He was constantly working on an album and material.

Q. All right. Now, let's turn to you and your uncle's other mutual love, and that's music and film.

A.

Okay.

Q.

Did you two talk a lot about music and films through the course of your life growing up?

A.

Yes. That was our bond, as I said before. So that was what we shared, was our mutual love for

movies and film.

Q. And how early on did you have this mutual love for movies and film?

A. Since I was a Kid with him. And we would watch classics and dissect them. As we'd watch them --

he had a certain method, you know. Like, he liked to turn off the sound, because the sound was a

distraction to see the visual, the angles and everything like that, first, and then watch it again with the

sound. But he would always -- for some reason, he would always bring up "Raiders of the Lost Ark,"

the scene where Indi is exchanging the statue with the sand. And he knew every shot of that backwards

and forwards, and to the timing. And it was kind of intimidating for me, because I didn't know that

much, like to the extent that he knew about film. And I was -- and I was, like, I have a long way to go if

that's what you have to know to get -- you know, to be a director.

Q. Did he ever take you along with him when he did movies himself?

A. For his music videos. And we were on the set for Captain EO. I was a lot younger back then, and

so in hindsight, I wish I would have paid attention more, because Francis Ford Coppola and George

Lucas was on the set, and I was running around, not paying attention. But then, also, for Moonwalker

we were on the set for that. We were on the set for those as well.

Q.

Did you and your uncle discuss Moonwalker?

A.

Yes.

Q.

And why is that?

A.

It was at Hayvenhurst when he told us that -- he was in the kitchen when he told us that he got the

idea of the transforming robot in Moonwalker from us, because we were such big transformers fans

back in the day, and he was so excited to tell us that.

Q. And what is Moonwalker?

A. It's a feature film, but it's a collection of his music, of his songs, but short films of those, of each

song.

Q.

Was that something your uncle was proud of?

A.

Yes. Very proud of.

Q.

How did it do at the box office?

A.

I know it did well.

Ms. Cahan: Objection. Calls for speculation.

Q.

If you know?

A.

It did very well.

Q.

All right.

Judge: Well, it's not speculation.

The witness: Yeah. It did well. It's fact.

Q.

Did you select two little sections of Moonwalker of your uncle's favorite film to see?

A.

Yes.

Q.

The transformers, you said you liked transformers?

A.

We loved transformers.

Q.

What is transformers?

A.

Transformers were transforming robots. Hasbro, back in the day, we loved the cartoons, and we

would watch that with him all the time. And we --

Q.

They turned people into robots?

A.

No. They transformed from one form of a robot to a car or to a plane.

Q.

Okay. So let's see 761-3.

(A video clip from Moonwalker is played)

Q.

Who is that other actor?

A.

That's Joe Pesci.

Q.

Was he the villain in this one?

A.

Yes.

(The video clip continues to be played)

The witness: That's Sean Lennon.

Q. Sean Lennon is the son of John Lennon?

A. John Lennon.

(The video clip continues to be played)

Q. And did your uncle enjoy making these types of movies?

A. Yes. This was -- he was in his element.

(The video clip continues to be played)

Q. And this was your favorite part?

A. I love this part, yes.

(The video clip continues to be played)

Q. Okay. I think we get the point there. And then the other part, what do we call the next part that you

liked?

A. It was claymation. Speed Demon. It's a music video for Speed Demon.

Ms. Chang:. Okay. Why don't we show 761-2.

(A video clip of Speed Demon from Moonwalker is played)

Q. Did he like special effects?

A. Yes.

(The video clip continues to be played)

Q.

Okay. I think we -- that was one of your favorites there?

A.

Yes.

Q.

Okay. Now, when you and he discussed going into a partnership to work on films, do you know

what he did to prepare for that?

A. Uhm, well, I know that he -- he was constantly studying and reading. He would buy many film

books and -- about directing. And he knew them backwards and forwards, and he would test me on

them, because we -- we had this little vow that whoever found a good film book, buy two copies, one

for each of us. So sometimes I would get things, and then sometimes I would send him things. And then

we would test each other on this.

Q.

Is this how he also told you to prepare for screenwriting?

A.

Yes.

Q.

I'm sorry. Not screenwriting, song writing.

A.

Screenwriting and song writing. Both.

Q.

Both?

A.

Yes.

Q.

He loved both?

A.

He loved both.

Q.

And do you know if he ever hired a specific film professor or took a class?

A.

I was in vegas when I -- I bumped into one of his professors at -- a U.S.C. Professor at Vegas. And

I know that he was -- they were teaching his kids as well in terms of the art of directing, and stuff like

that.

Q.

What specific projects, if any, did you discuss as part of your plan and intention of making films?

Ms. Cahan: Objection. Calls for hearsay.

Ms. Chang: "Plan, intention."

Judge: Okay. Overruled.

A. There was "King Tut," there was this movie called "Chicago 7." there was this -- I know that we at

one point wanted to remake the invisible man. So he got me the book on it and wanted me to adapt it,

so --

Q. Did your uncle have an interest in King Tut?

A. He loved king tut. He loved Egypt and Egyptian culture. And it was known that if we went to the

bookstore and he saw anything, you know, about pharaohs or tombs or stuff like that with King Tut,

that he was going to buy every book on that subject.

Q. Do you know if he did anything specifically to prepare for "King Tut"?

A. I know what I saw at his house when I was there. I would see mockups of scenes, story boards. I

would see various notes on it.

Q. All right. And did he ever discuss his plans and intentions with you to create a 3D version of

"Thriller"?

A.

Yes. He was very excited about "Thriller 3D."

Q.

And what did the two of you do to prepare for "Thriller 3D"?

A.

Well, he wanted me to study 3D. And this was before "Avatar" came out and kind of got everyone

excited about 3d again. Because Captain EO was in 3D, so he always loved 3D. And in vegas we went

with his kids to go see a 3D show. It was an ocean -- something about the ocean, or something like that.

But he just loved the technology, and he wanted to do something groundbreaking again.

Q.

And did he ask you to study 3D?

A. To study and learn about it and become a master of it.

Q. All right. And can you tell us, before we go too far -- I forgot to ask you, because I knew it so well.

But what is Captain EO?

A. Captain EO is -- it's a movie -- well, it's a short movie that -- it played at Disneyland. It was

directed by Francis Ford Coppola, produced by George Lucas that starred my uncle and his music.

Q.

Do you know if we went there right now, would we see it?

A.

I don't know if it's still there or not. I'm not 100 percent sure.

Q.

All right. Okay. Did he discuss with you when his plan or intention was to start making movies

with you?

A.

He did discuss, yes. I know it was going to be directly after This Is It.

Q.

All right. Now, I want to talk to you about your uncle's habit and custom of making notes or

documents.

A.

Okay.

Q.

First of all, can you tell us, how often would you stay with your uncle, either at Neverland or

elsewhere, while he was working or traveling? Would you estimate for us?

A. That's a hard question. Weeks at a time throughout our life, we would be staying with our uncle,

whether he was traveling or not. We would go visit him on tour.

Q.

So when you were younger, would you be staying with him for weeks at a time?

A.

Yes.

Q.

All right. And was that on tour and in hotels or while recording?

A.

It was all of the above, yes.

Q.

Okay. And what's the longest period of time you yourself lived at Neverland?

A.

I lived at Neverland -- for me, myself, I lived there for about a year.

Q.

All right. And was part of that time with your uncle?

A.

Yes. The majority of the time was with my uncle.

Q.

Okay. And when you stayed with him, did you have the opportunity to observe his custom and

habit regarding taking and the use of notes to organize his life and achieve any goals?

A.

Yes. But also throughout my life I've witnessed that as well.

Q.

Did he train you to adopt the same type of custom and habit?

A.

He trained me, but I also wanted to -- I saw that it was working for him, so I wanted to adapt that

myself anyway. Yeah.

Q.

Okay. So you learned it?

A.

Yes.

Q.

And do you currently use his methods and customs?

A.

Oh, yeah.

Q.

In your own life?

A.

Yes. Still today.

Q.

And during the times that you either stayed or lived with your uncle, did you have the opportunity

to work with him on various projects?

A.

Yes.

Q.

Did you collaborate with him on projects?

A.

Yes.

Q.

Did you have the opportunity to sit in and participate in meetings that your uncle participated in?

A.

Uhm, yes.

Q.

And were those meetings conducted in person or on the telephone?

A.

They were mainly on -- he liked to conduct meetings usually over the phone. Like, that was -- so

for me, I would see him -- I would -- he would have it on speaker, and -- because he thought it was

important for me to know how business was conducted, and stuff like that. So it was usually over the

phone on speaker that I observed.

Q. Approximately how many phone meetings do you believe you participated in over your life with

your uncle?

A.

Oh, over my life?

Q.

Uh-huh. Estimate.

A.

Over 100.

Q.

Okay. And how about in-person meetings where he brought you to a meeting, and it was conducted

in person?

A. That was probably, I would say, over 20, but that would be -- I wouldn't be comfortable saying

anything much higher than that.

Q. And for those meetings, did you help your uncle prepare or brainstorm for the meetings?

A. Yes.

Q. And how many occasions would you say that would be?

A.

Uhm, if it involved, like, film and stuff like that, a lot of them. Majority of them.

Q.

Okay. Based on what you observed, and what he taught you, can you tell us whether he had a

specific system that he developed regarding documents and notes?

A.

Yes. He definitely had a -- he was very systematic when it came to those kinds of things.

Q.

Okay. And he taught you this system?

A.

He taught me, but I also absorbed -- observed, yes.

Q.

Did you give us a visual aid to describe his categories and system for us so we can all be successful

in our lives?

A.

Well, to help, I guess, yes.

Q.

I'd like to show --

Ms. Cahan: Your honor, we're objecting to this. We discussed this.

Ms. Chang: I'm not categorizing anything. I'm showing a system. Can we have a sidebar, perhaps? Do

you want me to show it to your honor? It is exhibit 763-1. And, your honor, this is not commenting on

anything. This is just the system that he used.

Judge: (reviewing document) okay. Your objection is?

Ms. Cahan: Foundation, your honor. It can be shown if the proper foundation is laid. At this point it

hasn't been.

Judge: As to who created this slide?

Ms. Cahan: No. As to the system, what it was, how the categories were created.

Ms. Chang: I think I laid the foundation.

Judge: I think -- well, the second one, I'm not sure you addressed that -- yeah. Sustained. I mean, the

third one you spent most of the time talking about, the third. But the first two, I don't think you quite

covered that.

Ms. Chang: All right.

Q. First let me ask you: In the systems that you observed with your uncle, did he believe or adhere to

-- that he taught you, did he believe or adhere to a certain law for inspiration?

A. He had a certain belief system in terms of -- of I guess the -- I don't want to give too much away,

but in terms of --

Q. We won't take your secrets.

A. No, it's not my secrets. But it's basically the philosophy of "The Secret" that everyone knows now,

the book "Secret." But it was the Law of Attraction, and what you can conceive and believe, you can

achieve.

Q. All right.

A. And that was the epitome of my uncle. He would constantly write down things, goals and things

that he wanted to achieve in life.

Q. Did he do that in your presence?

A. He did that in my presence, but I saw it firsthand with Thriller as a kid. He had that on his mirror,

"The biggest selling album of all time."

Q. Did that come to pass?

A. And it definitely came to pass. But it wasn't that it came to pass, it was just at that point, that was

unheard of for someone like him to do. And I learned my lesson to never underestimate my uncle in

that aspect. When he put his mind to something, it usually happened.

Q. You indicated that he wrote it on a mirror. Where would he write these types of notes that you

called the Law of Attraction?

A.

He wrote them anywhere that there's paper, basically.

Q.

Okay.

A.

Because he felt like the more he saw it, the more it could come true.

Q.

Did it matter what kind of paper?

A.

I've seen -- throughout my life I've seen him write on anything that can write. I mean, anything that

will sustain writing.

Q. Okay.

A. Yeah.

Q. And this exhibit is already in, exhibit 941.

Ms. Chang: I just want to blow up the little corner in the bathroom.

Q.

And is this typical of the kinds of notes that you're talking about?

A.

Yes.

Q.

All right. Do you recognize your uncle's handwriting there?

A.

Yes.

Q.

All right.

Ms. Chang: You can take it down.

Q. Now, in addition to that, being around your uncle and growing up with him, did he also have a

system of keeping things that were precious to him?

A. My uncle was very sentimental, so he would keep -- well, I know stories of, like, he would tell us

that he had janet's report card. But I know personally he kept -- I ran through a glass window at

Hayvenhurst when I was three years old, and he kept the blanket that I was wrapped in. He kept that as

a memento. And it was important enough for him that he actually -- he had told Prince that same story.

And Prince told me, like, "Yeah, I know my dad has that." So it's, like, he kept things like that because

it was important to him.

Q. In addition to objects, did he keep notes and letters?

A. Memories. Things that happened that he didn't want to forget on that day, he would write down.

And I do the same thing now, but I don't use paper. I use computers and ipads.

Q.

How about notes from people he loved?

A.

Yes.

Q.

Did he keep that?

A.

That was even more sentimental to him.

Q.

All right. And you saw that throughout the time you spent with him?

A.

Yes.

Q.

All right. And are those generally the three categories?

A.

Those are -- yeah, those would.

Ms. Chang: And, your honor, can I show 763-1?

Judge: Yes, you may.

Ms. Chang: All right.

Q. So can you just take us through, again, remind us of the types -- the system that your uncle had in

his life that he passed on to you that you now use?

A. Well, there's the law of attraction, which, basically, he would write down his goals, or what he

wanted to accomplish. And he would write that anywhere he could, because the more he saw it, the

more it could come into fruition. He would also keep keepsakes of whether it was things written to him

that were valuable in terms of sentimental, or memories that he didn't want to forget in terms of, so-

and-so did this on this day. He would keep that as well. And then what I would also experience is that --

which is what I do as well, is the to-do, in terms of, you know, in terms of if he was going to have a

meeting, whether a phone meeting or an in-person meeting, the topics and the points that he wanted to

get across at that meeting.

Q. Now, did he normally have a system of, if he wanted to do the to-do list, if he wanted to do it

himself, how would he indicate the differentiation between himself doing it versus having others do it

for him?

A. If it was himself, he usually would do it, unless it was something that was inspirational that was a

law of attraction thing. But if it was something like "I need da, da, da now," then that was something as

a to-do list.

Q.

For someone else?

A.

For someone else.

Q.

To do for him?

A.

Yeah. Because if he could do it, he would do it.

Q.

And I think you told us that you saw this -- your uncle do it throughout your childhood up to

adulthood; is that correct?

A.

Yes.

Q.

If you had to estimate for us how many times you've seen him write these types of documents or

notes, what would your estimate be?

A.

Well, hundreds of times.

Q.

All right.

A.

Definitely, yeah.

Q.

And while you were living at Neverland for a year, with or without your uncle, did you have

occasion to see these types of notes?

A.

Yes.

Q.

And while you were in charge of the storage of his belongings, did you also have occasion to see

these types of notes?

A.

Yes.

Q.

Now --

Ms. Chang: We can take that down.

Q.

Mr. Jackson, after your uncle died, did you ever go to the house at Carolwood?

A.

Yes.

Q.

And why did you go there?

A.

Uhm, I went there to collect some of his belongings.

Q.

And why did you do that?

A.

Because I wanted to keep them for my cousins, because when my mom passed, we lost a lot of our

belongings that were at her house at that point.

Q. How did you lose them?

A. We lost those at -- from a storage, and then a Vegas auction. They auctioned off all my mom's stuff,

and I didn't want that to happen to my cousins.

Q.

Was that hard for you?

A.

It was devastating to us.

Q.

You did that mostly for your cousins?

A.

Yes. I did it for my cousins, and I didn't want them to go through what we went through.

Q.

As part of that process, did you retrieve a box of documents from the house from your uncle's

bedroom?

A.

Yes.

Q.

And did you produce those documents?

A.

Yes.

Q.

Did you produce those documents to both counsel at the time that your deposition was taken?

A.

Yes.

Q.

And as we established, are you familiar with your uncle's handwriting?

A.

Yes.

Q.

And during the course of the deposition, did you identify for counsel all the documents that you

recognized your uncle's handwriting?

A.

Yes. That were presented to me, yes.

Q.

Let me just show you --

Ms. Chang: I'm just going to read for the record, your honor, 50-1, 50-2, 50-3, 50-4, 50-7, 50-9, 50-

13, 50-65, 50-67, 50-69, 50-77, and 50-115. May I approach, your honor?

Judge: You may.

Q. If you could just take a quick look at those --

Ms. Cahan: And, your honor, we stipulate that Mr. Jackson authenticated those at his deposition as the

handwriting of Michael Jackson.

Ms. Chang: They just made your work so much easier.

Ms. Cahan: Trying to get us to the lunch break.

Ms. Chang: And, your honor, is this a good time to stop?

Judge: Yes, it is. Okay. I'll see you at 1:30. Thank you.

(The jury exits the courtroom)

Judge: 1:30.

The witness: Okay.

Judge: 1:30.

Mr. Putnam: Thank you, your honor.

(Lunch break)

(The following proceedings were held in open court, in the presence of the jurors):

Judge: Katherine Jackson versus AEG Live. Good afternoon, everybody. Let's continue.

Ms. Chang: All right. Your honor, just to save time, I'm going to add two documents to the list of

stipulated authenticated documents. That's 50, dash, 60, and 50, dash, 10. Mr. Jackson, I just have two

little things to ask you.

Continued direct examination by Deborah Chang:

Q. Are you familiar with your cousin Paris's handwriting?

A. Yes, I am.

Q. Can you tell me how you're familiar with her handwriting?

A. Well, I've seen her grow up, and so I would say now I'm more familiar with it because of seeing her

do homework at school. Or just recently I visited her and she wrote down a movie list, of movies for

me to see that I haven't seen; and I wrote one for her for her to see.

Q.

And over the years have you seen her grow up and do her schoolwork?

A.

Yes.

Q.

All right. I'd like to show exhibit 50, dash, 16. And can we blow that up a little bit so we can see

that? Is this -- was this one of the documents that you retrieved from the house on Carolwood?

A.

Yes.

Q.

And can you -- let's scroll down to the bottom so we can see who it's from. This is from Paris?

A.

Yes.

Q.

You saw how she signs her name?

A.

Yes.

Q.

And can we -- can you read it for us at the top?

A.

Sure. "dear daddy, I love you so much and I'm so glad I got a goodnight hug. Sleep well, I love you

and goodnight. I'll see you tomorrow. Goodnight. Lots of love --"

Q. "xox"?

A. Yeah, "xox, Lots of love, Paris Jackson."

Ms. Chang: And I'd also like to show exhibit 50, dash, 23.

Judge: Is it 50, dash, 23?

Ms. Chang: Yes.

Judge: Okay.

Q.

And is this one of the documents that you found at the house on Carolwood?

A.

Yes.

Q.

And is this your uncle's handwriting?

A.

Yes.

Q.

And can you read it for us?

A.

Sure. "Words of Blanket, my son, six years old."

Judge: "Six years young"?

The witness: Yes, "Six years young." Sorry. "What's your favorite letters, Daddy? Mine is G for God

and D for Daddy. Age six, Blanket."

Ms. Chang: I have no further questions.

Judge: Thank you. Cross examination?

Cross examination by Kathryn Cahan:

Q.

Good afternoon, Mr. Jackson.

A.

Good afternoon.

Q.

So you were last here on June 27th, right?

A.

I guess, yeah. I don't remember, but yes, that -- if that's what it says.

Q.

And you were unavailable for the couple of weeks since then to come testify?

A.

Unavailable, and I think that they had to squeeze in other people like Karen and stuff, because of

scheduling.

Q. So I'm going to try not to go over too much what we did before, but I might have to sort of recover

some things a little bit to give context, just because it's been a while since we've heard from you.

A.

Okay.

Q.

So I believe you said today you spent more time with Michael Jackson than anybody else in your

extended family?

A. In my extended family, yes, besides -- when you say "extended," you mean like cousins and all that

stuff, or do you mean --

Q. Right, sort of your generation.

A.

Yes, yes.

Q.

His nieces and nephews.

A.

Yes, for sure.

Q.

And you actually visited your Uncle Michael on every tour he's done, right?

A.

From my memory, yes.

Q.

Okay. So that would be Triumph?

A.

Yeah, the Triumph tour.

Q.

Victory?

A.

Yeah.

Q.

Bad?

A.

Yeah.

Q.

Dangerous?

A.

Whatever tour, yes.

Q.

And History?

A.

Yeah.

Q.

And when you would visit him on tour, you wouldn't just go for one day or to one concert, you'd

stay with him for at least a few days, right?

A.

Yes.

Q.

And during those multi-day visits with your Uncle Michael, and just to give us context, what was --

what was your age during the span of those tours? What was your age range?

A. Gosh. Well, I don't even think it was called the Triumph tour, but that was '79, '81, or -- I think '81.

So I was born in '73, so I was seven years old at that point. The Bad tour --

Q.

All the way to the end, History ended in '97, I think?

A.

Yes.

Q.

And how old were you then?

A.

24, right? Is that -- '73 to --

Q.

Early 20's?

A. Early 20's, yes. But the History tour I didn't see him as much because we were doing 3t stuff at that

point, as well.

Q.

But you did go visit him for some period of time on that tour?

A.

Yeah, because it matched up, yeah.

Q.

And would you stay in the same hotel as Michael when you would visit him?

A.

Yes, most likely, yes.

Q.

And were you ever in his hotel room or his suite at times?

A.

Majority of the time, yes.

Q.

Okay. So during those visits on -- on the tours, did you ever see any signs that Michael was using

drugs?

A.

No.

Q.

Never saw him take drugs?

A.

No.

Q.

Never saw drugs lying around?

A.

No.

Q.

Never saw him seem sort of out of it, or loopy?

A.

From exhaustion?

Q.

No, from -- from something that you interpreted as drugs.

A.

No.

Q.

So jumping forward now to 2008, Michael was living in -- is it okay if I call him Michael just for

purposes of the --

A.

That's fine.

Q.

Just so we don't get confused, because I know you have a lot of uncles.

A.

Yes.

Q.

Okay. So in 2008, Michael was living in Las Vegas, right?

A.

Yes.

Q.

And you saw him fairly regularly in that time period?

A.

For that time period, pretty -- I saw him pretty often, yes.

Q.

And he seemed totally happy and healthy to you in 2008, right?

A.

Towards the later part, I didn't see him as often; but the earlier part in 2008, yes.

Q.

In Las Vegas when you saw him in 2008, he seemed healthy and happy?

A.

He was definitely happy to see me, yes. And he seemed healthy, yes.

Q.

Okay. And he didn't show any signs of drug use, as far as you could tell at that time?

A.

As far as I could tell, no.

Q.

So your Uncle Michael moved from Las Vegas to the Bel Air Hotel in Los Angeles sometime in late

2008?

A.

Uh-huh.

Q.

"Yes"? Sorry. Just for the record, we need a verbal "yes."

A.

Oh. Well, I don't know when he moved; but I know that I visited him at Bel Air at one point; but I

don't know what date he moved because I didn't help him move so I don't know.

Q.

Okay. So at some point in 2008, you saw -- you would visit him in Las Vegas?

A.

Yes.

Q.

And then at some point later in 2008, you visited him at the Bel Air Hotel?

A.

That's correct.

Q.

But you didn't help them move so you don't know exactly when in 2008 --

A.

I don't -- yeah, exactly.

Q.

Okay. Do you know about how long Michael was living at the Bel Air Hotel?

A.

No, I don't know.

Q.

Was 2008 the first time in a long time that Michael had lived in the L.A. area?

A.

That he had stayed in the L.A. --

Q. Yeah.

A. Yeah, I would -- I would say so in terms of -- yeah, because after Neverland, then he went overseas

and then to Vegas, yeah.

Q. Okay. And you saw Michael several times a month during the time he was living in the Bel Air

Hotel?

A.

The Bel Air, not -- not -- more Vegas than Bel Air. Bel Air, I saw him very sporadically, if that.

Q.

Can you estimate how often?

A.

I think twice.

Q.

Okay.

A.

Yeah.

Q.

So after he moved back to Los Angeles, you just saw him --

A.

I saw him less, actually, than I did in Vegas, yes.

Q.

Okay. So just twice during the time that he was at the Bel Air Hotel?

A.

Just as a guest, yeah.

Q.

And the couple times you saw him at the Bel Air Hotel, he seemed happy and healthy and fine,

right?

A.

Yes.

Q.

No signs of drug use then?

A.

Not to my knowledge.

Q.

In fact, you never saw any signs that Michael used drugs at any point in your entire life in all the

time you spent with him, the time you were living with him, the time you would visit him on tour. All

that time you spent with him, you never thought he was on drugs, right?

A.

Correct.

Q.

Correct. So going back to 2008, do you know approximately when in 2008 Michael moved into the

Carolwood house?

A.

No, I don't.

Q.

Late in the year?

A.

I -- I don't know. I didn't -- I didn't even know he had moved to Carolwood.

Q.

Okay.

A.

I heard that from the news afterwards, on his passing.

Q.

Okay. So at some point in 2008, he comes back to the Los Angeles area, and he's staying in the Bel

Air Hotel?

A.

Uh-huh.

Q.

And you see him maybe a couple of times?

A.

Okay.

Q.

And then was the only other time you saw him in person after that before he passed away in may of

2009 at your grandparents' 60th wedding anniversary party?

A.

For the wedding and -- yes, for the party, yes.