Santa Maria, Calif. ? A prosecutor told jurors during closing arguments of the Michael Jackson trial Thursday that the pop star targeted a vulnerable cancer survivor, brought the little boy “into the world of the forbidden” in his bedroom and molested him.

Defense attorney Thomas Mesereau countered that the accuser’s family consisted of “con artists, actors and liars.” He said prosecutors revealed the weakness of their case by attacking him during their closing argument.

“Whenever a prosecutor does that, you know they’re in trouble,” Mesereau told the panel, which is expected to get the case today. “This is not a popularity contest between lawyers.”

Prosecutors, he said, engaged in a “nasty attempt, a barbaric attempt” to attack Jackson personally by bringing up his financial problems, collection of adult magazines and “sagging music career.”

Mesereau was to conclude today and the prosecution was to deliver a rebuttal before the case goes to the jury. Jackson, who looked glum 24 hours earlier, said “I’m OK” as he left court Thursday.

Mesereau also showed charts suggesting it was ridiculous to believe that during a time when Jackson was under international scrutiny he would choose to commit a sex crime.

In a methodical closing argument, Senior Deputy Dist. Atty. Ron Zonen berated Jackson and his attorneys, stood by the testimony of the accuser’s mother, and used charts and graphics to show what he said was a pattern of criminal behavior.

Zonen argued for nearly two hours before he even brought up child molestation, focusing first on a complicated conspiracy alleging Jackson sought to hold the accuser’s family members against their will.

He said it was toward the end of a period in which the accuser and his family stayed at Jackson’s Neverland ranch that “the behavior had turned to something terribly illegal.”

Once Jackson began giving the boy alcohol, his mother insisted that her family leave Neverland, Zonen said, even though at that time she was unaware of any molestation.

Mesereau said the real issue was “whether the accuser’s family was credible.” He tore into the prosecutor’s claim the boy’s mother wasn’t out for money, repeatedly returning to the refrain, “Was she asking for money?”