Yesterday, I asked TalkLeft’s Jeralyn Merritt, a renowned defense attorney and staunch defender of Michael Jackson, what she thought of the revelations that, as the Daily News put it, “Jury deliberations in Michael Jackson’s child-molestation trial were allegedly tainted by shocking misconduct that included smuggling in videotaped Court TV shows and secretly communicating with the pop star’s mother.”
Here’s Jeralyn’s reply:
No surprise here that these jurors want to write a book. The Judge knew this juror’s grandaughter had signed her up for a book during the trial and left her on. Here’s my opinion: Only guilt, not innocence, sells in America. People don’t want to read about Michael Jackson being innocent. He dropped off the radar screen days after his acquittal. But they will read about guilt. So what else is an acquitting juror who wants to sell books going to do but say she thinks he was guilty and offer a tell-all. It’s sickening.
There ought to be a constitutional way to pass a law prohibiting jurors from writing books profiting off their experiences. Who is going to speak their mind during deliberations knowing their fellow jurors may pen a tell-all afterwards?
What happens inside the jury room should stay in the jury room. It’s none of our business. The verdict is all we need. If something improper happened, like extraneous evidence was introduced, the jurors should tell the lawyers in the case or the Judge who will then decide how to deal with it.
Some very good points—though I’m inclined to focus my concern less on process and more on whether or not a serial molester went free because certain jurors were quite obviously simultaneously star-struck and drunk on their own deliberative powers.
Thanks for the reply, Jeralyn!
****
update The Therapist weighs in.
Is it time to slightly tweak the jury system as it currently exists?
For example, form a pool of professional jurors trained in the concept of reasonable doubt and stuff like that.
Didja hear the real reason Jackson spent that morning in a hospital, and was late to court? Sems he actually did have a bad back, which he got from sleeping on a lumpy 12 year old.
For example, form a pool of professional jurors trained in the concept of reasonable doubt and stuff like that.
Not really sure that would be such a great idea. Put on your libertarian cap and I’m sure you’ll be able to figure out why.
Only guilt, not innocence, sells in America.
Tend to agree with you. Ms. Merritt conveniently leaves out Mr. Jackson’s being an eccentric celebrity.
The problem is it is too easy to get out of jury duty and it seems to me the selection process has gotten out of hand. I don’t know what to do if anything about the selection process, I freely admit to being a bit ignorant of the details. It is painfully obvious when they interview these high profile jurors that Bingo Night has probably been missing a few regulars during the trial.
Personally, I’d rather not read about Michael Jackson at all.
1. It was clear to a majority of people that Michael Jackson molested the child.
2. Unfortunately, the jury did not understand the concept of “beyond reasonable doubt.” For some reason, they expected it to be 200%.
3. Its hard to convict the celebrities, because we live in an age of “celebrity-worship.” Imagine sitting 5 feet away from a billionaire, pop-star, who is a legend? That affects your judgment.
4. People who will buy the book believe that Jackon molested the child, and need to get a reinforcement of their belief.
5 For a complete, concise, and satirical look at Michael Jackson trial – read the following posts. You would laugh (or cry)
[url=”http://satire.myblogsite.com/blog/_archives/2005/6/14/939545.html”]
“JACKSON AND NORTH AMERICAN MEN-BOY LOVE ASSOCIATION JOINTLY CELEBRATE THE LATEST VICTORY”[/url]
It also has the funniest Jackon’ photo ever.
[url=”http://satire.myblogsite.com/blog/_archives/2005/6/18/952182.html”]
“Michael Jackson Wins 4 Official and 1 Unofficial Oscar Verdicts – Part 1″[/url]
[url=”http://satire.myblogsite.com/blog/_archives/2005/6/23/952167.html”]
“Michael Jackson’s Accuser’s Mother Disappoints the Film Critics and Her Lawyers – Part 2″[/url]
[url=”http://satire.myblogsite.com/blog/_archives/2005/6/29/952170.html”]
“Michael Jackson Endorses iJuryBox -Part 3″[/url]
Personally, I can’t understand why anyone would want to read a book written by a Juror. There was a time when the details of a trial might have been a bit interesting -“Helter Skelter” comes to mind – but I just can’t imagine there is much left to tell with all media coverage that goes on in this day and age.
David, why those wierd “url” tags? Why not just link?
I’m still left thinking that maybe Jackson was weird enough to not sleep with pre-adolescent boys during sleepovers. Not that I’m going to accept any invitations on my sons’ behalf (behalves?), but… just saying.
I really can’t say that this one case was very convincing. The accusing family was a verified trainwreck of half-truths and unseemliness. And for the prosecution to base a case on those yahoos makes me question everything I believe about Jackson’s reputation as a child-abuser. It really seems like the DA was out to prove as big a point as possible with the worst case available. And if that was the best case they could put on, then Jackson–even if he’s as guilty as OJ–should thank those prosecutors, not a jury, for his freedom.
Looked like a case of a prosecution going for a spectacular slam dunk when an easy layup would have done the job easier. Reminds me of those cops-beating-the-crap-out-of-Black-motorist trials: the prosecutors go for civil rights and conspiracy convictions when meat-and-potatoes assault cases would be easy to prove and simple to portray. Juries then acquit on the big charges, the prosecution says “We tried the best we could”, and the bad cops go free. If Santa Barbara had gone for indecent exposure and furnishing porn to minors, Jackson would probably be a convict right now. And the district attorney would be working on deciding which of the many other Jackson cases to try next.