Jackson's Past In Focus

Michael Jackson's prosecutors have asked the trial judge to keep the courtroom open during hearings on whether to admit into evidence allegations of prior sexual offenses by the singer, according to documents released Tuesday.

The parties are due in court Wednesday to argue the admissibility of the alleged prior offenses and a motion to close the courtroom.

The prosecution motion said the grounds on which the defense seeks to exclude the evidence is that it is "inherently incredible." But the prosecution said that is for the jury, not the judge, to decide.

"Merely labeling the proposed testimony of an adverse witness as 'incredible' doesn't make it so," the motion said.

"This is an effort on the part of the prosecution to introduce evidence of other claims of molestation against Michael Jackson," CBS News legal analyst Trent Copeland told The Early Show co-anchor Julie Chen. "These former boys -- or these young men at this stage -- are probably victims or alleged victims, according to the prosecution, who have also claimed they've been molested by Michael Jackson.

"Now, the prosecution, strangely enough, really only intends to call one of those victims, according to the defense, although they intend to introduce evidence that he molested all of them. So this is a risky strategy.

"I think if it works, clearly it could be a devastating blow to the defense, and I think the results of this ruling will resonate throughout this trial."

Maurren Orth, a special correspondent for Vanity Fair who will be covering the Jackson trial for the magazine, agrees, telling Chen, "It's crucial what happens (Wednesday), because really, the defense strategy is to destroy the credibility of this current accuser and his family. And if the prosecution can show that many of these things were actually part of a pattern, it certainly helps their case."

Orth says prosecution wants to show "there's a real pattern of behavior here, a modis operandi, that there's striking similarities between the 1993 case in which a young boy was paid off, over $25 million when it's all added up, and this current case – plus, there's a lot of special friends in between. So the prosecution wants to show that what this young boy is alleging is not an isolated case -- this is something that's been going on for decades."

Orth says most of these boys who are the subject of Wednesday's hearing "spent tremendous long amounts of time at (Jackson's) Neverland (ranch), as did the two previous boys in the cases we know. Their parents were often paid off very, very lavishly.

"One boy's parents got a new Cadillac, I think almost yearly. Another one that I know of got paid $2 million. He was the son of one of Jackson's maids. And she found him allegedly in a sleeping bag with Michael and he had $300 in his pocket. So there's all kinds of details from different boys going back through the years."

Then again, adds Copeland, "What the defense will point out is that, if the underlying case on which the prosecution is moving forward was so strong, they wouldn't need to bring in these previous, uncharged, unproven allegations.

"But, there's a new law that went into effect back in 1995. It really hasn't been used very much in California. Many regard that law as having gone into effect because of the Michael Jackson case back in 1993. And that law essentially says that the prosecution is allowed to bring in this kind of evidence.

"So I think the judge is primed to really allow the prosecution to bring in this evidence. And the question will remain whether or not the jury buys it, whether or not the jury sees the strength of this case as a result of Michael Jackson having had, according to the prosecution, a propensity or a habit or pattern of doing this kind of thing in the past."

Copeland told Chen a ruling in the prosecution's favor would "create all kinds of problems for this trial. It will be a trial within a trial, because Michael Jackson's defense team is not going to sit idly by and allow these unproven, uncharged acts to go unchallenged. It will lengthen the trial. And we know from the Scott Peterson case that, whenever trials are extended and protracted, it is really rife with problems, from jurors falling out of the case to misconduct and all the like."

Senior Deputy District Attorney Gerald McFranklin said the prosecutor who will argue the motion to admit evidence of prior acts will speak "with discretion" and "is acutely concerned that the right of both parties to a fair-minded and impartial jury not be prejudiced by references to evidence not yet made public."

In a separate motion, a coalition of news media organizations including The Associated Press opposed the closure, saying the motion by Jackson's lawyers flies in the face of a long history of U.S. Supreme Court and California Supreme Court rulings guaranteeing openness in the courts.

"What transpires in the courtroom is public property," the motion said. "Mr. Jackson's celebrity status does not change that fact."

The 46-year-old entertainer has pleaded not guilty to charges of molesting a boy, conspiracy, and administering an intoxicating agent, alcohol, to the alleged victim at his Neverland ranch in Santa Barbara County.

Another just-released document showed that the judge has issued an order for Martin Bashir, the producer of a documentary about Jackson, to come to California to testify in the trial on March 1. Jury selection is scheduled to begin Jan. 31.