What shocked the newsies about Jackson jury?They followed the law

[alcibiades_mystery]

It was very interesting watching the newsie know-nothings interview the jurors after the trial. They kept asking, "So what do you think Michael was doing in his bed with all those different boys?"

And the jurors I saw said, essentially, we don't know, and it wasn't the question at issue in this trial. period. They were only mandated to pass judgment on the specific charges alleged in the indictments, not on a general feeling about the accused. This is anathema to the cable press, who traffic almost exclusively in general feelings, and despise evidence and specifics of all sorts. The press was primarily angry (and a lot of the anti-juror DUers are angry) because the jury restricted its judgment to the specifics alleged in the indictments, and didn't allow general considerations to factor into it.

So, for example, I'm inclined to believe that Jackson is, in fact, a pedophile. I don't know for sure, but I'm inclined to believe it. But is he guilty of the charges alleged in THIS SPECIFIC CASE? That I don't know, but I certainly have a reason to doubt it (the golddigging propensity of the accuser's mother and the accuser's shifting memory of events). That's a reasonable doubt about the specifics of THIS CASE. Not guilty. Not guilty does NOT mean innocent. It means the state hasn't met its burden. I am not mandated to LEGALLY pass judgment on Mr. Jackson for any other offense or for any possible future offense. That would simply not be my job nor my mandate as a juror sitting this case.

There's been too much of that sort of thing, and it is talked about too flippantly across the culture. Any jury that says "I don't know if the defendant committed THIS illegal act, but the defendant certainly did OTHER stuff, so let's lock him up," or "I don't know if the defendant committed THIS illegal act, but the defendant is dangerous and shouldn't be on the street" is a BAD JURY, and a jury that has no respect for the law. A jury can only make a specific finding about the facts alleged in the indictment. They SHOULD NOT stray from that mandate to dispense general "justice."

The cable news media is in the business of producing generalized judgments - opinions about everything. When they saw a group of citizens restrict their judgments to that range mandated by criminal procedure, they saw a rejection of every instinct they mean to produce.

[OldLeftieLawyer]

1. I saw jurors being interviewed

It's the best system we've got, but, boy, sometimes I just have to wonder.

One woman said (I paraphrase), "When that mother wagged her finger at me, I thought, 'Don't you wag your finger at me, lady,' and I never gave her any credibility after that."

That's hardly a responsible, responsive juror. Any litigator's nightmare.

They did not exonerate Jackson - they voted their dislike for the mother.

[alcibiades_mystery]

3. I took her to be explaining her assessment of the mother's

credibility, and assessing credibility of witnesses IS the jury's job.

[OldLeftieLawyer]

12. Not when she said,

"... and I never gave her any credibility after that."

It's a juror's job to examine ALL the evidence with an open mind. This lady had no qualms - that was the horrifying part to me - about stating in public that she had essentially stopped listening to the mother because of the hand gesture she made.

[mondo joe]

2. These verdicts are judgment calls (of course) - others disasgree with the

judgment.

That's all.

It's not as if it is unusual to disagree with a judgment - Martha Stewart, Michael Jackson, Andrea Yates, Bush in the 2000 election. There was much debate about those outcomes as well.

The real mystery to me is why on DU of all places there is such insistence in THIS case that once the jury has spoken there can be no questioning it.

[alcibiades_mystery]

4. Oh, I think you can question the judgment

But if that questioning reverts, as it did last night, to general considerations instead of the specifics alleged in the indictment, then there's a bigger problem with the culture.

[mondo joe]

5. Well I trust it's not news to you that the culture is troubled.

:-)

[alcibiades_mystery]

7. LOL...no

But it is interesting to see the manifestations of specific troubles, I guess...;-)

[amazona]

6. I think the jury did a great job

They ignored the media B.S. and focused on the "evidence" at hand, which was to my mind completely bogus. I was angry that the judge didn't throw out the case in the first place, but now I'm glad. No one can say it was a paid-off judge, no one can say it was a black jury holding a pity party, all people can do is mutter under their breath that they still think Whacko Jacko is a weirdo. I freely admit he's a weirdo, and I hope he learns from this how to protect himself better. But I don't think Culkin and the other kids who have no profit from saying Jackson is innocent should be dismissed out of hand. Culkin would have profited from saying "oh woe, I'm so screwed up and it's because of my friend Michael Jackson and who wants to make first bid on my new book about it and get all the dirt?" I mean he's in real trouble with drugs. So he could have made up a real story. But what motive would he have to say Jackson is innocent. No motive except truth and friendship. So excuse me if I put his word a little ahead of the word of a gang of proven extortionists.

[MadHound]

8. Good post, thank you

I agree, the jury, from what I saw, kept strictly to the facts of the case, and upon review, came to the only conclusion they could, not guilty.

Once it was proven that the mother was a shake down artist, combined with victim's shifting testimony, the qualification of "beyond a reasonable doubt" went right out the window, and thus the jury was forced to find Jackson not guilty.

I'm also glad that the jury wasn't distracted by the other Jackson case that was being tried by the media and the public at large, is MJ just one waay freaky dude. This whole angle was being pushed both onto the public, and to an extent onto the jury. Thankfully the jury ignored it, and stuck to the case at hand. Sadly, the media and the public at large took this angle and beat it into the ground. Yes, yes, we know, we've known for a long while that MJ is one freaky dude. But that wasn't the case at hand, and thankfully the jury didn't pay attention to it.

The prosecution, IMO is the one who blew this case out of the water. They didn't prep their witnesses well, they didn't shape their case well, and the defense was able to punch all sorts of holes through it. When the mom was outed as a shakedown artist, and nobody besides the so called victim came forward with co-oberation of Jackson's alleged pedophilia, "beyond a reasonable doubt" went right out the window. The media might not like it, the public might not like it, but the jury did the right thing, and came back with the correct decision.

[goclark]

10. I totally agree

The Media wanted to bring him down and paint him in our mines as weird.
They did a fantastic job of that scenerio.

It reminded me of the job that they do on us- the Democrats.

We allow them to paint us as crazy, weird when they are worse thean scum.

Bravo to the jury for sticking to their guns and proving that the system works.

That should be a BIG surprise to the BUSHCO.

[MzShellG]

11. So true..

The same thing some duers were saying about the Michael Jackson jurors and fans are some of the same things the rethugs and 'leftist' media say about us and dems in general. Somehow those anti-Michael duers seem blinded by their hate for MJ, the same way that Sneddon was so blinded by his hate for Michael that he could'nt see he had no case.

[nickinSTL]

9. absolutely

I'm actually amazed that Jackson seems to have gotten a fair trial. Considering public opinion, I was highly doubtful.

I'm not saying whether Jackson is or is not a pedophile.

I'm just saying that the prosecution failed to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that Jackson abused this kid.

I'm actually stunned that the prosecution brought the case without solid evidence. From what was made public...they didn't have much beyond the testimony of people who've admitted to lying under oath in the past.

[OldLeftieLawyer]

13. Since none of the trial was televised,

how can anyone who wasn't there possibly comment on the quality of the trial?

Anyone see anything resembling error?

Everyone's a legal expert today, thanks to OJ and Court TV. I'm glad I don't have to do voir dire any more.