The Power of the Jury
It is difficult for most of us, especially me, to really show jubilation or elation over the actual verdict in the Michael Jackson case. Let us not forget, that Mr. Jackson was accused of acts that involve molesting children, and allegations of giving alcohol to minors. Who among us, whether attorneys or otherwise, who are parents, do not take these allegations with some degree of seriousness. Hence, there are no parades or banners outside of my home in celebration. In point of fact, I was genuinely suprised by the jury verdict of acquittal on all ten counts.
What I can comment on, however, with some degree of jubilation, is the power of the jury to speak even in the midst of the court of public opinion, that is the powerful media and Court T.V.
Who among us does not remember how Nancy Grace and her maidens, including Diane Diamond, and the other talking heads, had Mr. Jackson convicted way before the verdict was ever read. To me, that kind of presumption of guilt is equally as heinous and barbaric as the very acts for which Mr. Jackson stood accused. How annoying it was, each and every day, to hear these women spin over and over on the results of conviction, alleviated from court remand, to wearing wigs, to prison food, to skin color and hair dye. The media spoke, but it was deflated at each and every junction. These women, who had Mr. Jackson's cell picked out, were spinning up until the verdict was read. I watched Nancy Grace as she said, 'oh the jurors are not looking at Jackson...you know what that means...The must have found him guilty. " The fact remainds, that dispite her speculation, she was just plain WRONG.
This was a jury who listened to the testimoney and did not speak from a place of personal opinions. Point of fact, this group of jurors, and the jury system, in its infinite wisdom, withstood the test of time, and were able to apply the standards that the court provided and evaluate the evidence as it was presented to them, and not evaluate the case as the media wanted it to be heard. Hurrary to the jurors!
This post is truly about celebrating the power and independence of the jury, and how it works in our criminal and civil justice systems.
Thank you for your judicious minds.
What I can comment on, however, with some degree of jubilation, is the power of the jury to speak even in the midst of the court of public opinion, that is the powerful media and Court T.V.
Who among us does not remember how Nancy Grace and her maidens, including Diane Diamond, and the other talking heads, had Mr. Jackson convicted way before the verdict was ever read. To me, that kind of presumption of guilt is equally as heinous and barbaric as the very acts for which Mr. Jackson stood accused. How annoying it was, each and every day, to hear these women spin over and over on the results of conviction, alleviated from court remand, to wearing wigs, to prison food, to skin color and hair dye. The media spoke, but it was deflated at each and every junction. These women, who had Mr. Jackson's cell picked out, were spinning up until the verdict was read. I watched Nancy Grace as she said, 'oh the jurors are not looking at Jackson...you know what that means...The must have found him guilty. " The fact remainds, that dispite her speculation, she was just plain WRONG.
This was a jury who listened to the testimoney and did not speak from a place of personal opinions. Point of fact, this group of jurors, and the jury system, in its infinite wisdom, withstood the test of time, and were able to apply the standards that the court provided and evaluate the evidence as it was presented to them, and not evaluate the case as the media wanted it to be heard. Hurrary to the jurors!
This post is truly about celebrating the power and independence of the jury, and how it works in our criminal and civil justice systems.
Thank you for your judicious minds.
10 Comments:
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
B,
I absolutely agree with you! I think it's highly likely that Jackson is guilty and deserves punishment, but the fact that the jury decided the case based on the CASE (and not the spin) was heartening. It gave me a little hope for our legal system (notice I didn't say "justice system" LOL!). I wish they had been able to build a real case, but since they weren't, the outcome is reasonable.
I presumed Mr. Jackson was innocent, until proven otherwise.
This does not mean that I did not have my personal opinions about him. That being said, I am delighted that our jury system worked the way it did, which was to apply the presumption of innocence, the standard of reasonable doubt and look at the crediability of each of the witnesses and the weight of the evidence. To me, this truly is justice in session at its finest.
It's important to keep in mind that he was not on trial for being a freak or the verdict would have been different.
Seriously, I'm amazed at the intelligent people who have asked me if I think he's guilty. I did not sit on the jury and hear all of the testimony so how would I know. That said, juries can still make mistakes.
HAHAHAHAHAHA! Take that Nancy Grace you TWIT!
I still think that he probably did something. Like give Jesus Juice to kids. Or maybe a little touching.
But I hope that tomorrow that TWIT on Court TV just keeps her pie hole shut. Oh that would be so nice. But I would not know about it - I do not watch that channel.
Yes, I tend to agree with you, Barbara. The jury probably did its job in this case.
I must admit that when Dave called me and said the verdict would be read in an hour I turned on CNN, continued working, and when it was time I was glued to the TV. All I could think about was what it must be like to be sitting in a court room, knowing that in a few minutes something would be read that could affect the rest of your life. I cannot imagine what must run through a person's mind in that situation.
I do find it disturbing that the media has such control over public opinion. The sensationalism the news media creates scares me. I think it is pretty obvious that any person given exposure of such magnitude can be made to look guilty or not guilty in the public eye. The 'runaway bride' being a case in point.
I would never presume MJ is guilty not being privy to the evidence presented. And it bothers me that I am even here posting about it. But I did watch the coverage this afternoon and that makes me a part of our voyeuristic society.
I agree with m. brandon robbins. There is just something not quite right with a man whose best friends are little boys, regardless of molestation or not. But, as stated by thc, that wasn't the issue on trial.
And as far as the jury discussion goes, it makes me wonder how impartial juries can actually be when they are so highly crafted to suit the needs of the trial lawyers. It's not as if a random group of 12 people is just collected off the street. Or maybe the jury members truly are impartial, but inherently predisposed toward one verdict or another based solely on background and values. What else would jury consultants be for? Is there such thing as complete and utter impartiality?
It's 1 a.m. and I missed all of today's action.
I'm grateful to the jury for taking their time and doing their job. MJ may very well have committed acts of pedophilia, but if the prosecution did not present a compelling case, then the acquittal was in order. Nighty-night!
Being freakish or odd doesn't constitute guilt by any means. If we could lock people up on that basis, we'd need to turn the entire State of California into a mental institution in order to fit them all!
Like others in here, I wasn't sure, from the very beginning, that I could spout off about his guilt or innocence, because I don't have all the facts and I'm not sitting on the jury. I feel the jurors did their job, and much more proficiently perhaps than the prosecution.
Well thought-out post, Barbara.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home