Michael Jackson Acquittal
From the Desk of Mace

Michael Jackson was acquitted. Was justice done or was there a travesty of justice? What do you think? This was the most celebrated celebrity trial since OJ. Michael Jackson is weird, no question. He sleeps in the same bed as children, creepy, unusual, and downright disturbing. He already paid over 20 million dollars to settle previous allegations of child molestation.

This article is a departure from my usual, from the desk of Mace musings. But I think the lessons are instructive and ultimately should reaffirm our faith in our system of justice. This is not a politically correct viewpoint. But it is mine. You may not agree, but remember diversity is one of the things that makes America great. Ole MJ did several things right. HE never talked to the police. He never took a polygraph, and he hired a top notch team of lawyers.

AS I've said many ti me s previously, sexual assault and especially sexual molestation of children are the worst crimes to defend. Everyone thinks you're guilty and must prove that you are innocent. (No matter what the US constitution says) I always advise people to be aggressive in the beginning and short circuit the process (cut'em off at the pass).Don't talk to the police, don't take a polygraph (lie detector test), Don't do anything before you discuss your situation with an experienced criminal defense lawyer. If handled properly in the beginning, you may be able to avoid the stress, expense and potentially life altering consequences of a sexual assault prosecution. In Nevada the penalties for 1 count of sexual assault with a minor is 20 years to life. IN other words, if convicted, the first time you have the POSSIBLITY, not guaranteed, of walking out of prison is after 20 years.

This see me d like a slam dunk for the prosecution. But it wasn't. Why did that happen? Most people think he was guilty as soon. Many lawyers agree, but it doesn't matter what everyone thinks only the twelve people selected to be jurors. They are charged with following the law. They did so! Proof beyond a reasonable doubt is a high standard and the prosecution just didn't me et it. Did he commit those crimes, who knows? But it was NOT proven in court.

IN a sweeping victory for the defense, Jackson was cleared of every single charge facing him: one count of conspiracy; four counts of committing and attempting to commit a lewd act on a child, then 13; and four counts of plying the alleged victim with wine and alcohol. "Justice is done. The man's innocent. He always was," said defense attorney Thomas Mesereau Jr. in a state me nt. Tommy "the hit man" Mesereau did a masterful job of cross-examining the complaining witness, the so-called victim!

Jackson had faced up to 20 years in prison if convicted of the molestation. The 12- member jury, eight women and four men, one of whom visited Jackson 's Neverland Ranch as a child, spent so me 33 hours deliberating the case over seven days. The panel then reached their decision. In the end, the jurors told reporters in a post-verdict press conference that they just didn't buy the accusations, they just didn't buy the accusers, and they just didn't like the accuser's mother.

"What mother in her right mind would volunteer her child to sleep with so me one?" said a woman identified as Juror No.10. The juror declined to say if she thought the mother was more to be blamed for her son's sleeping arrangements than Jackson .

But it wasn't just the mother's behavior that rankled jurors, it was her demeanor on the stand. An alleged welfare cheat, the 37-year-old woman, the prosecution's chief witness for its conspiracy charge, offered scattered, disjointed and hysterical testimony. Her habit of ignoring Mesereau and talking directly to the jury box didn't win any fans, either.

"I just didn't like when she snapped her fingers at us. [I thought,] don't snap your fingers at me, lady," the grandmotherly Juror No. 5 said. The mother was the defense's chief villain, the ringleader of "con artists, actors and liars," (Notice how he used a trilogy, listing 3 things which make it easier to remember: The good, bad and the ugly, I came I saw, I conquered, Faith Hope and Charity. I always advocate this technique when I train other lawyers) as Jackson attorney Thomas Mesereau Jr. called the accuser's family in his closing argument.

Did jurors accept Mesereau's assess me nt of the clan? "The thought was definitely there," Juror No.10 said. If the prosecution had not tried Jackson on the conspiracy charge, the mother would not have been needed in the courtroom. But even that move might not have changed anything. Mother or no, believable witnesses were hard to come by, jurors said. There is a jury instruction, "Falsus in uno, Falsus in omnibus", that means false in one thing, false in all. In other words if a juror, believes that a witness has been disingenuous (lied) in one instance, they have the right to disbelieve EVERYTHING they said. The jury's disbelief was rampant when it came to the State's witnesses in Michael Jackson's case

"The telephone-company people were very credible," a woman identified as Juror No. 3 said, as her fellow panelists laughed. "That's all." The trial is supposed to be search for truth. It looks like the truth was in short supply in the prosecution's case. TO paraphrase Jack Nicholson from the movie, "A Few Good Men", they couldn't handle the truth!

He was found not guilty, that doesn't mean he was innocent. Many people are appalled that Jackson was found not guilty, but they're sure he is not innocent, and they think that means he is actually guilty. The jurors said they thought so me bad things about Jackson and that he probably was a molester but that this case was not proven He is not guilty, legally, of the crimes he was charged with, end of story!

In a court of law, in America , if so me person is found not guilty, it doesn't me an they are innocent. Innocent is NOT a legal term. Just like crazy is not a legal term. You can be found insane by a court of law. Most of us would call that person crazy, but the law does not recognize this concept. People can think and feel how they want, but the US constitutions states we are a government of laws not men. You may not agree with this particular verdict, but the law is the law. These jurors performed their constitutionally mandated duty and discharged it honorably, conscientiously, and bravely. They may be castigated in the Court of World opinion, but they should hold their heads high!

There is an old axiom that it is better to let 100 guilty men go free, than to convict one innocent man. That is the cornerstone of our system of justice. I know, I know we have a flawed system of justice, but it is still the best in the world. Our system of justice evolved from English common law. But in Great Britain a Defendant is now forced to testify against himself, or the prosecution may comment on this fact

I don't care if Jackson never makes any more money or if he makes 20 million off his next album, or if he writes a tell all book.. I am concerned with the state of the judicial system and did not want him convicted by liars, crooks and children coached to trap him. Jackson was sucked into a legal battle that nearly destroyed him.

Is Jackson innocent? Is he innocent spiritually and ethically and all that jazz? That is for each and every person to decide in their heart. I've said many times, you can't legislate morality I am looking at it from a legal stand point not emotionally. I think he was railroaded and attacked because of who he was. But I also think he is weird as hell and perhaps dangerous. That does not mean he should get an unfair trial because people hate blacks or strange looking people or eccentric nuts. It means Jackson should be and luckily was afforded such concerns and I am glad for it.

IN the immortal words of Sims Luckett, "this country was neither founded nor freed by the well behaved The fact that a weird, strange and perhaps unbalanced individual can receive a fair trial is what makes America great. Justice was done!