No Regrets? Tom Sneddon Responds

This is a partial transcript from "On the Record," June 14, 2005, that has been edited for clarity.

GRETA VAN SUSTEREN: Joining us is Santa Barbara is Santa Barbara County district attorney Tom Sneddon. Welcome, Tom.

TOM SNEDDON, SANTA BARBARA DISTRICT ATTORNEY: How are you?

VAN SUSTEREN: Tom, every good trial lawyer — and I mean this seriously — every good trial lawyer wins cases and loses cases, but nobody likes to lose. Any thoughts on the Jackson trial?

SNEDDON: No, not really. I mean, you know, I think we put on a very good trial. I think we worked very hard. I'm very proud of the team. And I think that we did what we were supposed to do and did a good job at it, of representing the people. And that's about how I feel.

VAN SUSTEREN: Tom Mesereau said in a very recent interview on television that he thought that there were grounds for malicious prosecution. I want you to have a chance to respond to that allegation. What do you think about that statement by Tom Mesereau?

SNEDDON: Well, I hope, if he brings it, he puts his own money behind it. I think it's ludicrous.

VAN SUSTEREN: He also said — and this will give you a fair chance to respond — that he thought that the prosecution was trying to demonize Michael Jackson. Is that what you were trying to do, or were you trying to do something different?

SNEDDON: Demonize him? I don't think we were trying to demonize him. We were presenting the evidence that was found at his own residence. I don't think there's anything wrong with doing that. I think that's what the people expect us to do. We didn't plant that pornography there and we didn't plant the alcohol and we didn't plant all the other stuff. I mean, it was found there. We weren't trying to demonize anybody. We were trying our case the way that any prosecutor would, as you well know, and we did it, I think, professionally and with dignity and I think that with circumspect.

VAN SUSTEREN: Are you surprised, Tom, by the statements from the jury about the accuser's mother? Always, in hindsight, when you look back at a trial and sort of dissect different witnesses — are you surprised by their reaction to her?

SNEDDON: No.

VAN SUSTEREN: How come?

SNEDDON: Well, I mean, you know, you don't spend a year-and-a-half or two years working on a case and getting to know people involved in the case and not realize that Janet is a unique individual. And we knew that there were some problems associated with Janet, but we also knew that just the opposite was true of her son, Gavin. Gavin is a wonderful young man, a courageous young man. Everything that they told us was corroborated. And we believe then and believe now strongly in Gavin. And I don't believe that the sins of somebody else in a family ought to be visited on somebody else. They ought to be able to be judged on their own, on their own performance and their own credibility.

And if that's what happened here, that's too bad. But, no, I mean, everybody knew Janet and didn't expect the jury to buy everything Janet said whole cloth, but we felt that we put on a compelling case with corroboration in many, many respects for the things that Janet was saying.

VAN SUSTEREN: Tom, every time I've tried a case — not every time, but often — a witness has spun me, has taken the stand and said something completely different from what I'd spent weeks talking to the witness about. Did Debbie Rowe, Michael Jackson's ex-wife, spin you?

SNEDDON: No. I think we kind of figured Debbie for what she turned out to be, a little bit of a loose cannon, and that's why her conversation was tape-recorded and that's why we impeached her because as you know — I don't know if you were there during that part of the trial — but we did put the investigator back on with a transcript of her tape-recorded conversation, where she said things different from what she said on the stand. And I'm sure you, as a trial lawyer, have had to do that on many occasions. So no, I think what happened was not unexpected.

VAN SUSTEREN: And so now it's back up on the horse. The lawyers go back to work, prosecutors, and prosecute the other cases in the office, right? We go back to work.

SNEDDON: Oh, yes. Ron's got a death penalty case, and Gordon's got a murder case, and I got an office to run. So we'll be busy. We'll be busy.

VAN SUSTEREN: All right, Tom. Thank you for joining us.

SNEDDON: Thank you.

Watch "On the Record" weeknights at 10 p.m. ET

Content and Programming Copyright 2005 FOX News Network, L.L.C. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. Transcription Copyright 2005 eMediaMillWorks, Inc. (f/k/a Federal Document Clearing House, Inc.), which takes sole responsibility for the accuracy of the transcription. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. No license is granted to the user of this material except for the user's personal or internal use and, in such case, only one copy may be printed, nor shall user use any material for commercial purposes or in any fashion that may infringe upon FOX News Network, L.L.C.'s and eMediaMillWorks, Inc.'s copyrights or other proprietary rights or interests in the material. This is not a legal transcript for purposes of litigation.