A jury has to be convinced to acquit or convict someone accused in court

[bigtree]

That's the crux of a juried case. That's the crux of the Jackson case. They had to be convinced that Jackson was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. That might irk some but that's our system, that's the law. Anything else is muckraking. That's what we have now after the verdict. Vindictive muckraking.

The prosecution did not present a case that the jury could believe enough to convict Jackson. The jury of peers considered the entire case as presented in court. Fortunately they didn't rely on the gossip and speculation in the media which concluded Jackson was guilty before the case was even tried or presented.

What's the value of an opinion that Jackson is guilty of molestation? Not much without a conviction in court. We can disagree here about Jackson's innocence, but there should be a acknowledgment of his acquittal by a jury after a case was presented that his detractors outside of court thought proved his guilt.

For some, nothing less than judgment by a mob would satisfy their hunger to prosecute him. That may be justified by some version of the truth that wasn't believed by the jury, but it will never substitute for the trial and the evidence presented. If we lowered the standard of conviction to suit our prejudicial fears we'd all be at the mercy of a mob and their decided judgment. I'll take the courts any day. Despite the flaws, their judgments are restrained by laws that protect the innocent from summary judgments and convictions. That system of presentation and deliberation ultimately protects us all.

Can we just imagine the Bush administration, with all of its wild accusations and propaganda, with the power to convict without proper rules of evidence and prosecution? Look at Gitmo, where so many have been held with out charges or trial, and in some cases, eventually released without prosecution after years of detainment. It shouldn't be so easy to convict, and we shouldn't wish that on anyone, lest we get snared in a similar noose.

[BooScout]

1. Very well said! n/t

[bullimiami]

2. no, not to acquit. but a jury has to be convinced, every member...

beyond a reasonable doubt to convict. Everyone whos sat on a jury understands it is not to be taken lightly.

I have to believe that the Jackson jury found the evidence did not meet the burden. And, as it should be in our system, Jackson was innocent until ... and still is.

Unlike some of those poor souls that bushco has tossed in jail assuming they are guilty and punishing them without charges, representation or trial.

[bigtree]

3. yeah

you got it

[TahitiNut]

23. But to acquit, NONE of them can be convinced beyond a reasonable doubt

That's important. The prosecution failed to convince a single juror (of 12) of guilt on any of over a dozen charges, including misdemeanors, that Jackson was guilty of anything!

Zero.

Nada.

Nichts.

[alarimer]

4. How much does fame play into it?

I believe tha famous people get a break because of their fame. That has to play in somewhere, even if the jurors are not aware of it.

[nadinbrzezinski]

5. that is for sociologists not lawyers to judge

the system worked, he was found not guilty as they did not meet the standard of beyond a reasonable doubt.

[bigtree]

7. Then there's the thought that his fame may have sparked the prosecution

and the resulting trashing of his reputation in the media with the half-truths, misrepresentations, and speculation.

The jury may have been less scrupulous if he wsn't famous and that could have worked for the defendant. Hard to tell what evidence they considered and what direction they took from the jury instructions (some 90 pages long).

[Tomee450]

17. Michael Jackson

was tried in the media. They are still beating up on him. Aaron Brown wondered about all those other little boys. I haven't heard that Michael was convicted of molesting any boys. Another pundit said he washed up, another said no one will want to buy his records which is just untrue. The media will not let up in its attempt to destroy Michael Jackson. He should pack up and leave the country.

There is such outrage about the verdict on the forum and in the media. I don't remember such outrage when Robert Blake was acquitted. Michael should not be like OJ he should take his family and leave, as soon as possible.

[RC]

8. How much do facts play into it?

Oh, child molestation? And weird also? Must be guilty. Forget our laws and procedures! Hang'em by popular demand!
Didn't our Congress just pass a resolution apologizing for something that used to happen regularly along these lines?
It is starting to sound as if they may have to apologize all over again.

[bigtree]

10. Facts?

We don need no stinkin facts

[Donailin]

15. no, what plays into it is money

to buy the best defense lawyers produced in America. And greed of that money by some oppurtunistic mother who probably HOPED Jackson would molest her kid.

[CatWoman]

16. she did make it awful "convenient"

didn't she?

watching CNN Headline News -- Nancy Grace just interviewed the jury foreperson. She tried to beat him up, but he didn't take the bait.

Anyway the guy is Hispanic, as are other members of the jury. The Hispancis came off HATING the mother.

[Donailin]

19. which is really a damn shame

i paid very little attention to this debacle, but fer crying out loud, the prosecutor should never have gone with this accuser if she was that bad. Now, no matter who accuses him in the future, it will just get shrugged off.

And the fact remains that there is no law against a 43 year old man sleeping with adolescent boys at his ranch called Neverland.

It's all good!

[Cleita]

6. Since my CBS station affiliate comes from Santa Maria, the

Michael Jackson trial has been covered thoroughly by them. They interviewed the jury. If anyone wants to compare this to the O. J. jury, this jury was predominantly White and Hispanic, so there could be no African American bias as claimed for O. J.. However, they found MJ not guilty for the same reason, the burden of proof was not met by the prosecution. It seems like the jury also were focused on the mother.

They felt she wasn't a credible witness. So it seems this particular pair of accusers weren't the ones that could stand up under scrutiny as sincere about what allegedly happened to the boy. It was a bad case for the prosecution with questionable evidence and witnesses.

On another note, they also interviewed many of the fans cheering for MJ outside of the courthouse. One fans reaction stood out. He said he was glad Michael was acquitted, but if this happens again then he is going to have to rethink his loyalty.

So, Jacko, if by chance you are reading this, thank your lucky stars and be forewarned that your fans are going to expect that this never happens again.

[bigtree]

9. I wouldn't put anymore of the burden of proof on Jackson though

There's still the prospect of a civil trial, and the risk of someone taking the evidence presented and forming a new case based on one of the other accusers. Clinton had residual litigation despite the dismissal of the Jones case and the irrelevance of the grand jury testimony.

But I agree that Jackson should run from children, form a no-child zone, if he is able . . .

[CatWoman]

11. I will try my best to keep this kicked up

the lynch mob that has taken over GD is repulsive.

[Bluebear]

13. Indeed, CW.

[Bluebear]

12. NOMINATED and the last paragraph should be required reading

[Donailin]

14. Not much to disagree with here but

the freak is what he is -- a grown man who sleeps with young boys in his bed. There oughtta be a law. .

[kster]

18. Yes, but a law that

holds a parent responsible, these parents that let their children sleep over night at a guys house who was tried for child molestation guilty or not, should take equal responsibility for the molestation for doing so. My 2 cents

[dxstone]

20. Sounds like you have a LOT more faith in the system...

...then I EVER will...
I mean, come on... even Michael was surprised by THAT verdict!

[bigtree]

21. More so in the jury of peers than in judges and prosecutors

Rabble on!

[AuntiBush]

22. My Very First Reaction Was As One Had Stated:

They knew the world's eyes were watching their decision.

I firmly believe they had joined together (as one had mentioned) coming from different backgrounds to show the world they would not be partisans to the horrible culture war going on here, now.

Heard a caller say the same thing on Air America, moments ago. And he was from the south.

[OneBlueSky]

24. people who question the verdict ought to take the time . . .

to read this analysis of the Jackson case . . .

http://www.mj-case.net/index2.html

[angee_is_mad]

25. Case was about one boy

not the past. The DA had been after Michael for 10years.

When that boy and his mother walked in the DA was probably like bingo, "I'm finally going to get the SOB." Unfortunately, he got the wrong little boy.

Michael has issues and he needs help and hopefully this will be a wake up call for him. Because of those well publicized issues, it is easy for him to be the victim of grifters and con artists.

That is why he is free today. The jury was able to see through boy's family.