Michael Jackson Verdict

[Maury Beniowski]

I don't know if he did it or not, none of us do...

But a well-picked jury of 8 women & 4 men, screened meticulously and approved by both the prosecution and the defence, working with a lot more solid data than the media hype and speculation that we were pulverized with day in and day out, found him "not guilty". The prosecution's star witnesses were a bunch of proven compulsive liars with records and evidence to prove it. Obviously the jury saw through this and acquitted him on all charges. Had even one charge stuck, we would be justified to suspect him in some way, but all charges? Face it, when you're a pop idol like he is or once was, there are always going to be some vultures around to exploit his good nature. Let's not hang the man folks. After what California's Courts have been through during the past few years, we should at least celebrate some of the good verdicts that have been handed down.

 

[Marvin]

But a well-picked jury of 8 women & 4 men

In the United States, they have jury consulting firms who will do research and will interview potential jurors so that you can stack the jury with sympathisers (i.e. O.J.'s defence targeted and got mainly single African-American women who were more sympathetic to O.J. rather than his white wife Nicole Brown Simpson). U.S. jury selection is no where as random as it is here in Canada.

 

[Discombobbled]

In the United States, they have jury consulting firms who will do research and will interview potential jurors so that you can stack the jury with sympathisers (i.e. O.J.'s defence targeted and got mainly single African-American women who were more sympathetic to O.J. rather than his white wife Nicole Brown Simpson). U.S. jury selection is no where as random as it is here in Canada.

The U.S. and Canada both have what is known as 'voir dire'. Members of the jury pool are questioned by both the prosecution and defence and both parties have the right to object to any proposed jury member whom they believe to be inappropriate to the case or unable to make an impartial decision.

Stop propagating misinformation.

 

[Marvin]

The U.S. and Canada both have what is known as 'voir dire'. Members of the jury pool are questioned by both the prosecution and defence and both parties have the right to object to any proposed jury member whom they believe to be inappropriate to the case or unable to make an impartial decision.

Stop propagating misinformation.

Wrong.

In Canada, maybe with the exception of Quebec, a potential juror is selected at random from the voter list and then is required to attend a jury selection at court. There names are drawn at random amongst those in attendance and then called up for each particular trail. That is when the prosecution and the defence can accept you or dismiss you. Generally they cannot ask you questions but in certain cases a voir dire will be permitted (e.g., when there is potential bias based on religion, then they can ask what your religious background is). They only know your name and profession and what you look like by your appearance in court. And each side is only allowed a limited number of dissmissals.

Misinformation? Where did you get your facts?

 

[mustangjoe]

AWESOME!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

So much for any money gruubin fukks trying to get another free buck out of celebrities.

Meh, he can still be taken to civil court. Criminal court has nothing to do with victims getting money.

Unlike in criminal law where you need guilt beyond a resonable doubt, civil cases can have some reasonable doubt.

 

[eljudo]

AWESOME!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

So much for any money gruubin fukks trying to get another free buck out of celebrities.

in honour of Michael Jackson!

 

[tom2morrow]

jury selection in US

In the United States, they have jury consulting firms who will do research and will interview potential jurors so that you can stack the jury with sympathisers (i.e. O.J.'s defence targeted and got mainly single African-American women who were more sympathetic to O.J. rather than his white wife Nicole Brown Simpson). U.S. jury selection is no where as random as it is here in Canada.

I don't know of any state that allows anyone to interview potential jurors other than the prosecutor and defense at the trial during the jury selection phase. The questions they can ask are asked in open court, so anyone showing any bias is eliminated by the other side. Neither side is given carte blanche to eliminate jurors as they please. They are usually given a specific number of eliminations without cause; after that, they have to give a judge a compelling reason why a juror should be dismissed, e.g., he has been prosecuted by the same prosecutor or is unable to read the English language or is close to the defendant.

Yes, some attorneys employ consultants to help them get the best jury, and if they are clever enough, they can get a slight advantage. Of course, prosecutors can do the same thing. Our Supreme Court just refused to hear the appeal of an African American sentenced for execution who argued racial bias because the prosecutor eliminated 10 of the 11 qualified African American jurors.

Having served on seveal juries and been foreman in two murder trials, I am glad we have the system we do. In general, once people get in the jury room, they do their best to reach a just verdict. I don't know anything about the jurors in this trial, so I will assume they did their best to find justice unless someone shows me evidence otherwise.

 

[Sunset]

AWESOME!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

So much for any money gruubin fukks trying to get another free buck out of celebrities.

Hitrack,

That's exactly what the jury thought also. The lies just didn't add up. The mother had admitted to lying under oath several times, the boys were raised to lie and admitted to lie after lie. It cracks me up that some in this PERB community, of all communities, can be so prejudice against someone for being avant-garde and from that prejudice leap to the conclusion that that avant-garde person is guilty of something illegal.

Some have even stated that the US legal system is the same as the Canadian legal system. What is a credible comparison amongst any legal system, any place in the world, is that the evidence in the Michael Jackson case did not equate to a guilty verdict.

Jackson's personal demeanor, his looks and idiosyncrasies were not on trial. But rather the legal charges against him and a jury of men and women from a small town community in California, United States of America, not Canada, of not one Black person, found that Mr. Jackson was not guilty of any of the charges.

 

[mick_eight]

A rcmp officer once quoted said ''we know we couldn't convict them,we just wanted to fr_k up his life'' I guess it works?

 

[Maury Beniowski]

I don't know of any state that allows anyone to interview potential jurors other than the prosecutor and defense at the trial during the jury selection phase. The questions they can ask are asked in open court, so anyone showing any bias is eliminated by the other side. Neither side is given carte blanche to eliminate jurors as they please. They are usually given a specific number of eliminations without cause; after that, they have to give a judge a compelling reason why a juror should be dismissed, e.g., he has been prosecuted by the same prosecutor or is unable to read the English language or is close to the defendant.

Yes, some attorneys employ consultants to help them get the best jury, and if they are clever enough, they can get a slight advantage. Of course, prosecutors can do the same thing. Our Supreme Court just refused to hear the appeal of an African American sentenced for execution who argued racial bias because the prosecutor eliminated 10 of the 11 qualified African American jurors.

Having served on seveal juries and been foreman in two murder trials, I am glad we have the system we do. In general, once people get in the jury room, they do their best to reach a just verdict. I don't know anything about the jurors in this trial, so I will assume they did their best to find justice unless someone shows me evidence otherwise.

I think what we have here is a perfect example of how mis-information and hearsay gets facts twisted beyond recognition eventually developing into Urban Myths. Thanks for lending us your insight tom2morrow...

I just hope Jackson gets his legal costs paid by Sneddon's office after all is said and done, although I doubt it...

I also hope Nancy Grace gets her butt fried... What a piece of work she is!

Jackson's personal demeanor, his looks and idiosyncrasies were not on trial. But rather the legal charges against him and a jury of men and women from a small town community in California, United States of America, not Canada, of not one Black person, found that Mr. Jackson was not guilty of any of the charges.

Ahhh, I don't think Michael Jackson is black now anyway...

 

[samantha_van]

It truly amazes me that someone in the USA can do 5 years for growing pot but a child diddler can walk away from all charges!!

 

[Sunset]

It truly amazes me that someone in the USA can do 5 years for growing pot but a child diddler can walk away from all charges!!

Pretty strong language for someone who was not at the scene and did not hear all of the evidence. Perhaps, someone with your sense of justice will sit as a juror on your trial for something you were not guilty of. I wonder if you'll still feel so strongly about them ignoring the evidence and putting you in jail based on their personal prejudice.

Don't be surprised your time might be coming sooner than your think.

 

[Jonesy]

Jackson's personal demeanor, his looks and idiosyncrasies were not on trial.

No kidding. If he was charged with 10 counts of being weird, he would be going to the gas chamber this evening.

Those who are still calling him a child molestor, while there is no question he is a sick fuck with a monkey as a best friend and lots of confusion about what a real life would be like, 12 people heard all the evidence that you didn't so you are condemning him based upon what? Just because you don't like the sick fuck doesn't mean he is a child molestor.

I don't like his music and certainly not his lifestyle. I am glad, however, that the money grabbing scum didn't get anything and I hope they are brought up on charges for wasting the time of everyone on the planet, taking CNN away from reporting on false progress in Iran and providing too many talk show hosts with lame joke material.

 

[hornydude]

Hmmm

Maybe Jacko can get some tips from OJ on how to search out the real child molestor...I mean in all OJ's searching for the real murderer of Ron and Nicole he must have some sleuthing tips to pass on!

(Note to knobs...note the SARCASM )

 

[Maury Beniowski]

It truly amazes me that someone in the USA can do 5 years for growing pot but a child diddler can walk away from all charges!!

So I can conclude then, you put the word of a "habitual and admitted" perjurer above the word of an "alleged" child molester?

(Think before you say yes!)

 

[chiefwiggum]

On a lighter note...

Just watching Leno, and he says:

"I wonder how Martha Stewart feels...OJ not guilty....Robert Blake goes free. She makes one phone call - 'hello, is this my broker?' - PRISON !!"

He's got a point there....

 

[georgebushmoron]

We still have a race problem in America... Jackson would've got guilty on all 10 counts if he were Black!

 

[georgebushmoron]

what?
The 12 white jurors found him innocent cuz he's white!

 

[eljudo]

We still have a race problem in America... Jackson would've got guilty on all 10 counts if he were Black!

I thought he was black!

 

[samantha_van]

Evidence my A*s

Pretty strong language for someone who was not at the scene and did not hear all of the evidence. Perhaps, someone with your sense of justice will sit as a juror on your trial for something you were not guilty of. I wonder if you'll still feel so strongly about them ignoring the evidence and putting you in jail based on their personal prejudice.

Don't be surprised your time might be coming sooner than your think.

A grown man brings children into his bed and looking at porn with them? Thats more then enough evidence for me thank you very much! Give me a break anyone who thinks this is "ok" behavior is just as sick and f*ck up as MJ

My time will come sooner then i think? LOL Are you threatening me?

Well unless they make escort illegal or 90's rock music then I should be ok