What will the jury declare?

Discussion in 'Off-Topic Discussions' started by Guest, Jun 11, 2005.

Loading...
?

What will the jury declare in the Michael Jackson case?

Poll closed Jun 16, 2005.
  1. Not guilty

    14 vote(s)
    48.3%
  2. Guilty

    9 vote(s)
    31.0%
  3. Guilty of a lesser charge

    2 vote(s)
    6.9%
  4. Hung jury

    4 vote(s)
    13.8%
  1. Guest

    Guest Guest

    What will the jury declare in the Michael Jackson case?
     
  2. Guest

    Guest Guest

    Based on the composition of the jury--some have been ill, some have ill children, some have been molested, some have had children molested, all are white--I think he will be found guilty of child molestation.

    Even though I personally think he is guilty, I am appalled the composition of the jury is lily white!

    Of course, on the other hand, so is Jackson! :D
     
  3. Ted Heiks

    Ted Heiks Moderator and Distinguished Senior Member

    Hmm.
     
  4. Ted Heiks

    Ted Heiks Moderator and Distinguished Senior Member

    Let's see here. Mommy Dearest lets her little boy sleep with a grown man? Seems like Mommy Dearest ought to be going to jail as well! Instead she'll just end up getting a new house out of the deal, along with junior's college trust fund.
     
  5. Bruce

    Bruce Moderator

    I'm undefeated so far in famous media-driven trials, so I'm staking my perfect record on the prediction that he'll be found guilty. Not even a California jury can screw it up twice in a row.
     
  6. DesElms

    DesElms New Member

    So, then... you're saying that you agree with either of the O.J. or the Robert Blake verdicts?
     
  7. uncle janko

    uncle janko member

    It is NOT white. It's pale mauve.
     
  8. Bruce

    Bruce Moderator

    No, I meant that he (Jackson) already dodged the bullet once. I don't think even he is lucky enough to dodge it again.

    I think that if O.J. were tried again (theoretically) now, he'd be found guilty in record time. Not enough time has passed since the Blake verdict for me to form an opinion of that one.
     
  9. Guest

    Guest Guest

    :D :D :D :D
     
  10. Ted Heiks

    Ted Heiks Moderator and Distinguished Senior Member

    Personally, I think that the worst possible situation in which to submit something to a vote of the people is when someone's life and/or liberty and/or property is on the line. There may have been enough persons with common sense that the jury system made sense to the Founding Fathers, but I for one would far and away prefer to submit my case to a panel of learned jurists who would not be "whipped up" by a slick-talking prosecutor rather than submitting to the judgement of twelve common idiots who will no doubt get "whipped up" by the heinousness of the charges and vote their prejudices rather than the evidence or lack thereof. And if any California jury screwed up, it was the Scott Peterson jury.
     
  11. Guest

    Guest Guest

    If Mommy Dearest did, in fact, allow such behavior, i.e., if she knew it was taking place and willingly went along with the program, then perhaps Ted is on to something here.
     
  12. Bruce

    Bruce Moderator

    Ted, I would venture to say that I've spent more time in court rooms during actual trials than most of the people here, and I can say unequivocally that if anyone is "slick-talking", it's the defense lawyer, not the prosecutor. The reason is simple....in the overwhelming majority of cases, the defendant is guilty of the crimes for which he's charged. The defense has to throw up a smokescreen in an attempt to hide the truth.

    The LAST thing in the world I would want as a defendant is a panel of "professional jurors". The system we have isn't perfect, but I have yet to see one better.

    The Peterson jury not only got the verdict right, but the punishment also.

    If you honestly think that Scott Peterson is innocent, I highly recommend that you read this book.
     
  13. Mr. Engineer

    Mr. Engineer member

    Interesting posting Bruce. I disagree with your assessment that most defendants are guilty. For you to say that shows that you don't understand the fundamental portion of our constitution (don't worry - most cops don't) One thing I have seen in DA's office are true beleivers. Why else would these people work long hours for almost no pay? - its power. Don't elude yourself, the court system has never been about justice, it is about winning for both sides.


    Second thought

    Two donut eaters here in Palo Alto just got what amounts to a traffic citation for illegally pulling a black man out of his car and macing and beating him. These officers, who were basically laid off engineers who I guess couldn't find other work, were rookie officers who had been admonished at least twice before for excessive force.

    They were tried for 242 USC (assault under color of authority) - the jury voted 8-4 to convict -- but alas, the DA decided to pled the officers out for "unlawful fighting in public" (an infraction). A simular thing happened with the Riders in Oakland.

    I used to be a cop (got tired of it after 3 years - I make more money and have much better hours-- thank you)- but frankly my respect for the bunch has dwindled greatly in late. Anyone that tells me that cops are more honorable or are more likely to tell the truth is full of crap - officers lie just as much if not more than the general population.

    Its interesting - both Officers are now on Copwatch's monitor list. They will not be able to take a crap without being monitored. If you guys just police your own this wouldn't happen. (and don't tell me about IA - that is more about who you have a beer with).

    I have always wondered Bruce - in the three years I did the job I could never figure this one out - why would you protect someone who beats their wife, drives drunk, breaks the law, lies under oath (and don't tell me you haven't been at least aware of this occurring)?

    Oh - I am just ranting, yes, but my god, I love digital video recorders! :D
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Jun 13, 2005
  14. John Bear

    John Bear Senior Member

    There are two unique aspects of the Scottish jury system that I often think make a lot of sense.

    One is the availability of three verdicts: guilty, not guilty, or not proven. The latter is the jury's way of saying that there was a good case for conviction, but not good enough.

    The other is the notion, as I understand it, of a simple majority being enough to convict . . . but then the penalty is based in part on the vote. A person convicted on a 6-5 vote will likely be penalized very differently from someone convicted on an 11-0 vote.
     
  15. Mr. Engineer

    Mr. Engineer member

    oh - I think he will be convicted.
     
  16. Bruce

    Bruce Moderator

    Actually, most DA's want to gain experience to start their own practice, or they're simply not good enough to join an already established firm. The average tenure of an ADA around here is less than 5 years.

    I highly doubt that you were ever a police officer, and if you were, I suspect that you left on less than favorable terms.

    And you know this because.........????

    There's an old saying, "You get the government you deserve", which is never more true than with police departments. I communicate with officers from all over the country, and the general consensus is that it's becoming much more commonplace for officers to simply hide during their shifts, and only take their radio calls. When answering the calls, they do the absolute bare minimum, then return to their hiding spot. If that's the type of police you want, then you better make friends with the criminals in your area.

    As I mentioned, I don't believe that you were ever a police officer, but to answer your question, I don't protect those people, whether they have a badge or not.

    BTW....I'm sure that "donut eaters' was an oafish attempt on your part at humor, but I consider it to be a personal attack. It's not a good idea to personally attack a moderator, know what I mean?
     
  17. Ted Heiks

    Ted Heiks Moderator and Distinguished Senior Member

    For starters, the defendant is costitutionally presumed innocent until proven guilty. And, yes, the defense attorney is entitled to find technicalities on which to suppress evidence and offer alternative theories of the crime ("put up smokescreens," as you so eloquently charcaterized it). And, yes, prosecutors are supposedly obliged to turn over any exculpatory evidence. But anyone who thinks that prosecuting attorneys are paragons of virtue and always tell the truth is in denial. DAs, like any other lawyers, are into building up, and preserving, their won-lost records. It has happened far too many times that prosecutors have argued to the nth degree over whether a given piece of evidence is exculpatory or have attempted to maintain old convictions even after incontrovertible exoneration by DNA evidence. Moreover, if you honestly believe that prosecutors are not slick-talking, then you obviously have not ever been arrested for being beaten by your wife nor have you ever been subjected to continued prosecution (by a third or fourth or fifth cousin of the maternal lineage, no less) even after your lovely wife openly admitted that you never so much as touched her.

    The one instance in which I would not want professional jurists (by which I mean people who have actually studied law - though they wouldn't actually need those funny-looking wigs) would be if I were arguing that the alleged crime that I'm charged with is a stupid law (i.e., that I'm looking essentially for a jury negation verdict).

    As for Peterson, I think he's guilty of being a gutterslut, but a murderer that does not one make. And why the hell did the prosecutor think it even necessary to spend so much time proving Scott an adulterer? To whip the jury up, that's why.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Jun 13, 2005
  18. Ted Heiks

    Ted Heiks Moderator and Distinguished Senior Member

    Actually, even if we were writing "what-if?" history and the Juice's case were still under investigation, the LAPD would have to make sure that evidence-manufacturing cops with a propensity for using the n-word are kept off the case. And, though the messenger technically should not matter but only the message, the prosecutor's office screwed up by replacing a white woman (same demographic as the victim) prosecutor with a black man (same demographic as the defendant) prosecutor.
     
  19. JLV

    JLV Active Member

    10:47 European Standard Time. No veredict has been released yet. I think he is gonna be convicted, and doing that moonwalking thing for convicts during the next 20 years. :D
     
  20. Revkag

    Revkag New Member

    Any moment now...

    Aren't your hearts racing? Any moment now the verdict will be read and then.................................???:eek:
     

Share This Page