RBX ALBUM “HIBERNATION SHIVERS” OUT NOW!!!!
Home
Help
Login
Register
It's June 16, 2024, 11:35:01 PM
Welcome,
Guest
. Please
login
or
register
.
Login
1 Hour
1 Day
1 Week
1 Month
Forever
Login with username, password and session length
West Coast Connection Forum
|
DUBCC - Tha Connection
|
Outbound Connection
(Moderators:
Matty
,
Invincible
,
Duck Duck Doggy
) |
Legal specifications by judge appear to screw Jackson over
« previous
next »
Print
Pages: [
1
]
Go Down
Author
Topic: Legal specifications by judge appear to screw Jackson over (Read 116 times)
Trauma-san
Muthafuckin' Don!
Posts: 16621
Thanked: 3 times
Karma: -231
Legal specifications by judge appear to screw Jackson over
«
on:
June 07, 2005, 06:01:26 AM »
Look at the way the Judge is having the jury decide this trial. Does anybody else see this as FUCKED UP? Kind of shitty to do him like that, imho. They're throwing out the 'beyond a reasonable doubt' standard, and basically trying him on crimes he was never charged with, from 15 years ago. This is insanity.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
LOS ANGELES TIMES
Difficult Task for Jackson Jurors
The panel may find it impossible to follow the complex rules set by the judge, analysts say.
By Stuart Pfeifer and Henry Weinstein
Times Staff Writers
June 7, 2005
Jurors deciding Michael Jackson's fate are grappling with voluminous and complicated legal instructions, some of which would flummox even a seminar of law students, experts said Monday.
The panel was given the highly unusual task of deciding two sets of molestation allegations by very different legal standards. First, they must determine if it is more likely than not that Jackson molested children in the early '90s. Then they must determine by a much more stringent standard — beyond a reasonable doubt — whether he molested a 13-year-old cancer patient in 2003.
The panel also is supposed to view a videotape of the 13-year-old reporting the alleged abuse to detectives, not to determine if his story is true, but to decide whether he had been coached to deliver a false accusation.
The mental gymnastics the court is demanding from jurors strikes some observers as difficult, if not impossible.
"The average person is not used to making the fine distinctions the law is asking them to make," said Craig Smith, a former Santa Barbara County prosecutor who is following the trial.
The panel completed its first full day of deliberations Monday and is scheduled to resume discussions today.
Santa Barbara County Superior Court Judge Rodney S. Melville gave jurors 98 pages of legal instructions before they retired to decide the case.
The jurors have varied educational backgrounds: three hold graduate degrees, one has a bachelor's degree, two have community college degrees and six hold high-school diplomas with some or no college experience.
Jurors typically are asked to navigate complicated legal theories and facts, and for the most part they perform their tasks seriously, legal experts say. Lawyers are often impressed by the fine grasp of legal points that highly diverse jurors display.
But the intellectual dexterity the court is asking of the Jackson jury troubles some experts.
Under a California law, prosecutors were allowed to present evidence that Jackson molested other boys a decade ago in order to show the pop star exhibited a pattern of sexually exploiting children.
Jurors were asked to decide whether these alleged acts took place by a "preponderance of the evidence" — a standard ordinarily reserved for civil cases in which money, not a person's freedom, is at stake.
Once they arrive at an answer, jurors were told to apply it to decide "beyond a reasonable doubt" — a higher standard of proof typically used in deciding whether to send someone to prison — whether Jackson had sexually abused the 13-year-old cancer survivor after plying him with alcohol.
Loyola University law professor Laurie Levenson, who has followed the case closely, worries that the instruction might lead jurors to apply the more-likely-than-not standard to the case before them, as well as to the old accusations.
Veteran Los Angeles defense lawyer Harland Braun also said he found that instruction disturbing. "It makes no logical sense to prove something by a preponderance of the evidence and that becomes the critical evidence to prove a defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt," Braun said.
He also asserted that the instruction "is inconsistent" with another jury instruction regarding circumstantial evidence. That instruction states that "each fact which is essential to complete a set of circumstances necessary to establish the defendant's guilt must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt."
On the other hand, Kent Scheidegger, legal director of the Criminal Justice Legal Foundation in Sacramento, saw no problem with the instruction. He said it was "fairly common" for jurors to consider evidence that has not been proved beyond a reasonable doubt as they move toward an ultimate decision under a higher standard.
In recent years, the California Supreme Court twice has upheld the jury instruction requiring that a sex offender's prior bad acts be proven by a preponderance of the evidence.
In the latest case, in 2003, the California Supreme Court unanimously rejected a defense lawyer's contention that the instruction was likely to mislead jurors. Justice Marvin Baxter wrote that the "instruction nowhere tells the jury it may rest a conviction solely on evidence of prior offenses."
But there is one important distinction between Jackson's case and 2003 case. Jackson has never been convicted of anything, including child molestation. Some experts say the instruction in Jackson's case could be grounds for an appeal.
Santa Rosa defense lawyer Thomas Lundy, who publishes a newsletter on cases involving California jury instructions, said the California Supreme Court rulings may not be the last word on the issue. If Jackson is found guilty, a federal appeals court could strike down the conviction if it found that the instruction violated Jackson's right to a fair trial, he said.
The jury was also instructed to consider a videotape of the accuser telling sheriff's deputies about his alleged abuse. However, jurors are to view it not for "the truth of the matter" but rather to assess the boy's demeanor during the interview, specifically whether he appeared to have been coached to falsely accuse Jackson.
The defense contends the boy's mother is a known grifter who scripted her son to go after Jackson so the family could sue him later.
Levenson suggested the distinction the court is drawing is nonsensical.
"How do you divorce what he is saying from how he is saying it?" she asked.
"It is mind-boggling to me how you can expect a jury to watch a videotape of the boy being interviewed by the police and revealing molestation and have the jury not consider whether the words he is using are true," she added.
Former San Francisco County prosecutor Jim Hammer, a legal analyst for the Jackson trial, agreed.
"Once words are out there, it's hard to disregard them," he said. "I'm not sure jurors can do that."
If the jurors are tripped up by the legal instructions, they would not be alone. The state Judicial Council is in the midst of a lengthy process of rewriting jury instructions into simpler, everyday language.
"In my experience, half of the questions [from deliberating juries] had to do with jury instructions," said Hammer. "They're cumbersome, complicated and too wordy. A group of law students would have a hard time understanding what they mean."
Logged
Rampant
Muthafuckin' Don!
Posts: 831
Karma: -13
Re: Legal specifications by judge appear to screw Jackson over
«
Reply #1 on:
June 07, 2005, 11:12:03 AM »
Now he'll learn his lesson.
Logged
dexter
Muthafuckin' Don!
Posts: 2546
Thanked: 3 times
Karma: -95
I love YaBB 1G - SP1!
Re: Legal specifications by judge appear to screw Jackson over
«
Reply #2 on:
June 07, 2005, 11:45:35 AM »
The Courts ARE Crooked^
Logged
KURUPTION-81
Muthafuckin' Don!
Posts: 8025
Thanked: 3 times
Karma: 832
Re: Legal specifications by judge appear to screw Jackson over
«
Reply #3 on:
June 07, 2005, 11:54:26 AM »
Can someone explain what happens if there is ahung jury. Does it go to a re trial or is MJ basically found innocent ?
Logged
"My greatest challenge is not what's happening at the moment, my greatest challenge was knocking Liverpool right off their fucking perch. And you can print that." Alex Ferguson
Thuglife
Muthafuckin' Don!
Posts: 899
Karma: -78
Well if kurupt gave a fuck about a bitch...
Re: Legal specifications by judge appear to screw Jackson over
«
Reply #4 on:
June 07, 2005, 09:23:45 PM »
haha what a retard
Logged
Garth Brooks
Muthafuckin' OG
Posts: 305
Karma: -7
We Shall Be Free
Re: Legal specifications by judge appear to screw Jackson over
«
Reply #5 on:
June 07, 2005, 09:51:30 PM »
yeah it screw mike a little but im prayin my boy gets no guilty as he isnt anyway
Logged
http://youtube.com/watch?v=7P5ndCOmmIY
Garth Brooks - Rodeo
Print
Pages: [
1
]
Go Up
« previous
next »
West Coast Connection Forum
|
DUBCC - Tha Connection
|
Outbound Connection
(Moderators:
Matty
,
Invincible
,
Duck Duck Doggy
) |
Legal specifications by judge appear to screw Jackson over
There was an error while thanking
Thanking...