Being a young somewhat experienced trial lawyer myself, I would have to say that it is not because the Michael Jackson trial is important-- It is not because it highlights a religious, political theme of its time -- it does not. It is because Jackson is a criminal defendant unique to American history. Michael Jackson is the most famous person ever to go on trial in an American court. In addition, he is probably the oddest famous person ever to stand trial. No defendant before Michael Jackson ever has had to face jurors who have such wide, deep, and fixed perceptions about him, perceptions that???s very tightly linked directly to the charges against him.
Famous men on trial in those other ???famous??? cases of the past century also transfixed the nation in their own distinctive ways. Their trials also involved pre-trial publicity that was massive, slanted, and often times grotesque. However, none had to face what Jackson has to face, now on a daily d basis. The trial is the culmination, you might say, of decades of Jackson's exposure, or overexposure, as the King of Pop. Jackson now must reap what he sow; now must endure the consequences of his strange physical makeover and his otherwise bizarre behavior and comments.
Judges routinely ask jurors to put aside any preconceived notions they may have about a notable defendant in order to judge him or her without material bias. And, in the main, jurors are able to perform that mental slight-of-hand by separating out what they know of the defendant from what they do not know about what he is accused of doing. That will be impossible in the Jackson trial and everyone involved knows it. What one can hope for is " intelligent, emotional, alert" jurors "who can understand, can comprehend why, and that leaves no field for condemning."
Just because a judge tells them to do so, how are jurors going to forget about "Neverland," Jackson's fortress-like estate where he has entertained his young friends? How are they going to forget about the way he changed his appearance or the way he has talked publicly, on television and elsewhere, about his relationship with young boys? How are they going to block out the fact that Jackson over a decade ago paid a great deal of money to make a similar case go away? Michael Jackson isn't some fleeting figure who shoots across our consciousness like Michael Peterson, Scott Peterson or Andrea Yates. He is a figure who has been on the scene for decade after decade; a icon, a figure America has seen grow up, become a megastar, and turned 360 degrees weird.
Not as weird, perhaps, as Manson, whose "Helter Skelter" murder trial in 1970???s even today a benchmark for courtroom anarchy. And while the Manson family trial widely anticipated and covered in print, on radio and television and it symbolized for many reasons the political and cultural dynamic of its day. Nevertheless, Manson was not a household name before his murderous spree and even during and after his trial he was capable of being marginalized. Moreover, the very nature of Manson's crimes, and the method in which he committed them and had them committed, defied belief and that disbelief allowed Manson's jurors to at least begin their work in the case with a relatively blank slate.
The same goes for Bruno Hauptmann, the man who was tried in 1935 for kidnapping and then the brutal murder of Charles A. Lindbergh, Jr, and for Sam Sheppard, the Cleveland doctor who was tried first in 1954 for murdering his wife, Marilyn. The Hauptmann and Sheppard trials were sensational for the acts charged and the victims involved -- but not because of the defendants themselves. No one outside of his local circle knew who Sheppard was before his case and Hauptmann faded into obscurity shortly after he was executed.
Now , the trial of Nathan Leopold and Richard Loeb was sensational because the boys were bright and wealthy, because they immediately confessed to killing their little friend, Bobby Franks, for the thrill of it, and because Darrow defended them. The 1982 trial of Rhode Island notable Claus von Bulow sensationalized because of the wealth and social status of the defendant and his alleged victim. In neither case were jurors able to form such fully shaped perceptions of the defendants, as Jackson's current jurors will have of him before the first witness is sworn in.
Because they involved Hollywood's star power, the trials of O.J. Simpson and Fatty Arbuckle probably come up to the closest to mirroring what we are likely to see in the Jackson case. But even O.J. did not possess the star power that the King of Pop possess and Arbuckle's alleged crimes -- rape and murder -- were so far removed from the public's perceptions of him that he was able to find jurors who were willing to judge him for what he did (or did not do) and not simply for whom he was. After several trials, Arbuckle ultimately was acquitted, his career in shambles. Likewise for Simpson, who then promptly was found responsible for two deaths in a civil case?
Likewise, the trials of Alger Hiss, John Scopes, Nicola Sacco and Bartholomeo Vanzetti all were huge in their day and, to this day, decades later, historians and legal scholars talk about the impact those court proceedings had in the formation of law and politics. But no one knew John Scopes going into his evolution trial -- in the end it didn't matter anyway -- and Alger Hiss wasn't exactly a household name before his 1949 trial during the heart of the Cold War. The trial of Sacco and Vanzetti was famous but more for its political theatre during the nation's first Red Scare than for the personalities of its defendants. They didn't get a fair trial not because of who they were, but because of what they represented.
The Michael Jackson's trial judge, Judge Rodney Melville, simply had to try his best during the jury selection process to approve jurors who were willing to serve for the right reasons. He needed to approve jurors who are willing to sort out to the fullest extent possible what they know about Jackson going into trial from the elements prosecutors will have to prove against him beyond a reasonable doubt. Judge Melville needed to approve jurors who were willing to say (and believe) that Jackson's odd behavior, even as it relates to young boys, doesn't necessarily or automatically make him a child molester. That was not an easy task, I am sure, and we will all know soon enough.
Let us also remember something the Constitution does not guarantee every defendant a perfect trial -- it guarantees every defendant a fair trial. Can Michael get a fair trial given what virtually everyone knows about him and his eccentricities and how those eccentricities play into this case? This is not just a factual question that will evolve as the trial proceeds through its many twists and turns. It's also a legal question -- can a public figure like Michael Jackson get a fair trial anywhere in America given the circumstances that have led up to trial? No doubt, the California Supreme Court, and perhaps even the Supreme Court of the United States, will ultimately have to answer that question if Jackson is convicted.?
All too often in the media circus that surrounds high-profile cases, individuals are tried, convicted and sentenced in the court of public opinion, where the defendant is presumed guilty until proven innocent, and even then the accusations are sufficient to smear the individual's re***tion forever. For example, I complained during the Scott Peterson trial that in my mind, the circumstantial evidence did not seem to indicate guilt... yet before the trial even began; many people were convinced of the man's guilt. Yes, Peterson ultimately was found guilty and sentenced to death, so the jury and I clearly had a difference of opinion. However, to presume guilt until innocence is proven runs afoul of the core principles of our judicial system. This morning (likemany other mornings)as I browsed the newspaper over breakfast, I saw this headline from one trashy magazine Jackson 'kept porn magazines and baby photos'. It turns out that Michael Jackson had porn magazines and photos of babies and at least one photo of the boy who is accusing Jackson of molesting him in the same drawer. The drawer is reportedly "next to the star's bed" so presumably it is in a nightstand or similar fixture.
While I read this headline, I thought to myself, "holy crap! I have magazines that could be considered porn and pictures of young children next to my bed as well!" In addition, it is true. I have my old high school annuals mere inches away from a sizable stack of so-called porn magazines (maxim, sports illustrated) but do all the gardening ones too. I do not care for porn. In addition, you know what-- I am an adult! I get to have porn. I can buy porn, and look at porn and do unspeakable, blindness-causing things with the porn.
So, does this mean I have molested kids? Worse, does this mean that if a kid was to accuse me of molesting him or her that I would be, presumed guilty in the court of public opinion? Worse still, does this mean I would be, found guilty in an actual criminal court? The media here is not so subtly deriving a conclusion and getting one-hundred-fifty-thousand.Now it is certainly quite careless and irresponsible of Jackson to leave porn magazines around where a kid in his room could find them. Yet, how many kids in this country have had the experience of rifling through their parent???s drawers and closets and finding semi-hidden porn? This does not make their parents molesters. It makes them a bit careless.
If you don???t already know, the molestation charges against Michael Jackson are very serious business. Despite what he looks like, this type of accusation should not be made or considered lightly. Yet the media is doing its best to turn this trial into a circus and a soap opera. When the charges are as serious as this, the coverage should be equally serious and objective, not becoming extremely angry because the man had some porn.I personally have a problem with cases where starting with a conclusion and supporting it with facts doesn't produce the same path as starting with the facts and attempting to draw a conclusion. If, for example, we are presented with these facts:??? Man has porn. ??? Man has photos of children. ??? Man lets children sleep in his bed.
Would we necessarily conclude that Man is a child molester? From these same facts we could also conceivably conclude that Man is a father or a guardian. Yet throw one accusation from one family out there, and suddenly these facts are assumed by some to mean that Michael Jackson must be guilty of molestation.
Jackson's relationship with kids is certainly unconventional in many ways. Heck, Jackson himself is unconventional in a lot of ways. But this does not make him a child molester, and in a modern, fair society we don't brandish torches and pitchforks because someone's a weirdo.If only the news media understood that.
I just wonder if any upcoming witnesses are Michael's family members? Uhm..
I know LaToya recanted her statements after the 93' accusations but she had some damaging statements to make about her brother. I think they were true. I wish that some of these stations would replay the tapes, of all things she said back then. She said it was her ex who told her to say those things, but I think she got one of those ignorant family speeches"we keep our family business in our house." A while back I read in one of the rags that Michael was helping his nephews to do some music video. He opened their shirts pull down thir pants and exposed their pubic hair. I kinda believed the rag because of the way he grabs his crotch while he performs.
Family loyalty doesn't mean that you condone and excuse child abuse. I read an article that talked about sexual abuse in families and she said that most families don't call the police on a pedophhile family member. What most do is tell the pervert family member not come around their home, or they keep their kids away from them, enabling the pervert to keep molesting other kids.
If every rapper I have ever seen has grabbed their own crotch is a child molester a lot of people are going down. I have seen Madonna grab her crotch on a prime time TV show a week or so ago - "committed" - I saw them depict not only a man grabbing his own crotch while singing the national anthem, but a woman grab his crotch as he sang. I see men in public grab their crotches all the time. Are they all child molesters? Of course not. I get so sick of the remarks about the "crotch grabbing while singing" as if it in any way related to being a child molester
Well! I just want to say that Micheal sure give new meaning to the scriptures "suffer the little children"
I have only one word to summarize Micheal Jackson...FREAK!