> ## Content Index > Fetch the complete content index at: https://www.smdp.com/llms.txt > Use this file to discover other available public pages before exploring further. # Jackson jurists not too thrilled - URL: https://www.smdp.com/jackson-jurists-not-too-thrilled/ - Published: 2006-06-29T15:00:00.000Z - Updated: 2026-10-23T18:37:16.000Z - Author: Guest Author - Tags: Crime, Santa Monica, #archive-import *Reluctant jury pool weighs in on Jackson* *By MICHAEL J. TITTINGER Daily Press Staff Writer* SM COURTHOUSE — Finding a dozen people devoid of opinion about Michael Jackson proved a challenge on Wednesday, as jury selection got underway here for a $3.8 million lawsuit brought against the pop singer by a former business associate. But then, seldom are things business-as-usual when they involve the embattled entertainer. “What we will be showing you is a world unfamiliar to most,” warned Superior Court Judge Jacqueline Connor, addressing the pool of 60 potential jurors crammed into the Santa Monica courtroom. What the selected jurors will not see is the performer in person, as Jackson is scheduled to appear solely through videotaped depositions he completed in England. According to his attorney, Thomas C. Mundell, “(Jackson) lives in Bahrain, which is 10 time zones away.” Jackson’s presence still promises to loom large throughout the trial. F. Marc Schaffel is suing Jackson for breach of contract, claiming he is owed money for helping produce television shows that were aimed at rebutting the star’s negative portrayal in the infamous documentary “Living With Michael Jackson,” in which Jackson claimed it was all right to have children sleep in his bed. Schaffel, who appeared in court wearing a black suit, yellow tie and circular glasses, was named by prosecutors as an “unindicted coconspirator” in Jackson’s criminal trial on child molestation charges last year. Prosecutors in Santa Barbara alleged he played a role in surveillance of the alleged victim’s family and aided in keeping them under Jackson’s control. Jackson was exonerated by a jury in June, 2005\. Schaffel’s past work as a producer of gay pornography was cited by Mundell as the reason Jackson severed ties with him, claiming Jackson was unaware of his work in the adult film industry before hiring him to produce the television specials, as well as a record with proceeds its going to charity. “This case is not about Michael Jackson, it is about Marc Schaffel,” Mundell told the pool of potential jurors, before they were whittled down to 12\. “He is a gay pornographer. He has no experience in the record industry to allow him to claim he is a producer.” Judge Connor allowed each of the attorneys the opportunity to make “mini opening statements” on Wednesday prior to jury selection, so as to provide the prospective jurors with an overview of the case. Mundell argued that after meeting Jackson at a dermatologist’s office, Schaffel “insinuated himself” into the life of the singer. When Schaffel’s past ultimately came to light, that was when Jackson moved to distance himself, according to Mundell. Not so, countered Howard King, the attorney representing Schaffel. King con-tends that Schaffel was performing the job he was brought on to do — crisis control — until Jackson ran out of money in 2003, leaving his client “holding the bag.” King alluded to the Martin Brashear documentary “Living With Michael Jackson,” which prompted the hiring of his client in the first place. The controversial film painted the singer as “a compulsive shopper,” a testament to his considerable money woes. Also a point of contention is whether Schaffel profited from the sales of the charity CD in Japan. Mundell claims the evidence will bring out that Schaffel actually owes Jackson money. A jury comprised of seven men and five women will be left to decide, after a group was finally selected late Wednesday afternoon. Manning the jury box in the case, despite its star power and notoriety, was not an opportunity relished by many of the potential jurors, fidgeting in the overcrowded courtroom. “This is dirty business for both sides, because it’s about money,” said one woman, who added the case should have been settled out of court. “I would really hate to judge in this case.” Another woman echoed the sentiments, saying she detested the case. Judge Connor assured the pool that the court had put forth its best efforts to avoid a trial, to no avail. The ensuing trial, with opening statements expected to be heard this morning, is expected to last roughly 10 days. Given the parties involved in the case, Judge Connor was reluctant to excuse potential jurors, explaining that it was difficult to find enough qualified people without prejudice in a case involving such a high-profile entertainer. A woman asking to be excused because her son was having imminent open-heart surgery was ordered to stay on Wednesday. The potential jurors, who filed into the courtroom shortly after 10 a.m. on Wednesday, were a diverse bunch, in terms of ages and occupations, if not race in predominantly white Santa Monica. There was the wife of a record producer, a librarian, an ultrasound technician, a video producer, the son of a federal judge and a retired nurse who actually met Jackson back in January of 2004, after the singer had sustained serious burns to his head while filming a television commercial for Pepsi. The injured Jackson was subsequently taken to Santa Monica UCLA Medical Center, where the woman worked as a RN. The courtroom filled with uneasy laughter when she remarked that Jackson “was wonderful with the kids.” *Originally published in the Santa Monica Daily Press print edition on June 29, 2006.* [Read the original PDF.](https://s3.us-east-1.amazonaws.com/smdp%5Fbackissues/062906.pdf?ref=smdp.com)