Jury Deliberates in Michael Jackson Case
 

Jury Deliberates in Michael Jackson case

By TIM MOLLOY, Associated Press Writer 11 minutes ago

SANTA MARIA, Calif. - A subdued
Michael Jackson sat silently in court on the eve of closing arguments in his child-molestation trial, well aware that within a matter of days his future will be placed in the hands of a jury. Closing arguments in his case were to begin Thursday with jurors expected to get the case sometime Friday.

"It's a very difficult situation to sit in there and know your life is in the balance," Jackson spokeswoman Raymone K. Bain said Wednesday after the entertainer moved quickly and quietly past reporters on his way out of the courthouse.

"He has strong faith in God and in the judicial system," Bain said of Jackson. "He knows his fate is in the hands of 12 jurors."

Jackson sat stone still in court for nearly two hours Wednesday as those jurors were repeatedly reminded of the child molestation charges against him as they were given instructions for their deliberations.

The 46-year-old singer is charged with molesting a 13-year-old cancer survivor in February or March 2003. He is accused of plying him with wine and conspiring to hold his family captive to get them to rebut damaging aspects of the documentary "Living With Michael Jackson," in which Jackson appeared holding hands with the boy as he talked of allowing children into his bed for what he said were innocent sleepovers.

Bain said Jackson's emotions have varied during his 14-week trial.

"He has had anger. He's been happy about some of the information that has come out in court," she said.

Earlier Wednesday, Jackson looked straight ahead as Superior Court Judge Rodney S. Melville, sitting in the witness box to be closer to the jury, read a long list of instructions hammered out during more than a day of discussions with prosecuting and defense attorneys.

Following up on an earlier decision regarding the alcohol allegations, the judge told the jurors they may consider a "lesser charge" of "furnishing alcohol to a minor," a misdemeanor. The instruction means the jury would not have to relate the alcohol to the purpose of molestation.

Melville also told the jury how to use prosecution testimony that alleged Jackson has a history of improper behavior with boys.

The judge said that if jurors determine Jackson has such a history, "you may but are not required to infer that the defendant had a predisposition" to commit the crimes alleged in the current case. But he told the jurors "that is not sufficient in itself to prove he committed the crimes charged."

The judge paused at one point to determine if the jurors were paying attention.

"You know I read to my wife at night so she'll go to sleep. Am I having that effect here?" he said.

___

I think the Jurors got a last minute nudge from the police interview video. I voted guilty and I hope the jury does too. Money shouldnt absolve you from everything....

i love the fact that i wrk from home @ times like these, i love watching court tv & will b tuning in whenever i can on this~ i am hoping they find him guilty, but who knows :shrug: ~

Not guilty.

The prosecution had a very weak case and even though Jackson had an incredibly poor defense, it'll be enough to get him acquitted.

I have to say I agree. I mean every single witness the prosecution put on the stand was tainted by greed and most were directly refuted, some by the person they said they saw groped a la M. Caulkin. So, MJ will walk, regardless of actual guilt, though he may be innocent and just weird, which I doubt.

He's as guilty as the sky is blue.

Did you read that new article in Vanity Fair? :shocked: Jacko allegedly tried to pay off the '93 accuser AGAIN so that he wouldn't testify at the current trial and Jacko's mother, Katherine, wanted $250,000 to appear in one of his silly videos that he made to refute the Bashir documentary.

He's guilty, with a not guilty verdict. :rolleyes:

His mother wanted to be paid to be in the video? That family is so sick, man. :distress: I read a description of the last piece of evidence shown at courttv.com. It's the video of the accuser giving his statement to the police at the very beginning which came accross as sincere and corroborated his testimony on the stand. This could be very powerful and sway the jurors to a guilty verdict as irishgrl said. Since it was the last thing presented it has the effect of remaining in the jurors' memory above all else.

Yep. Just like old O.J. Simpson. :distress:

Not guilty. :distress: Unfortunately all of the witnesses who saw MJ doing nefarious things with children were somehow discredited.
I do think he's guilty though.

I voted guilty but I say it is about a 50/50 chance. The prosecution did suck but with the sharing beds, porn book, and previous charge who knows. :shrug:

I think it will be guilty on the molestation count, not guilty on the conspiracy count.

Is he still being charged with administering alcohol to a minor? I remember reading that the judge had reduced those charges to misdemeanors because there was no evidence to suggest that he had done so with the intent to molest, but I happened to catch that douchebag Dan Abrams on MSRNC last night and his show made no mention of the charges even being reduced when he read off the list of charges.

I think they are still there and he will be guilty of those based on the evidence I saw on the t.v., granted I have not seen it all or daily. So, we shall see.

I say not guilty. :distress:

He is famous and has money. They always get not guilty or a slap on the wrist. Can anyone name a famous/rich type that hadn't got off, or recieved a whimpy sentance?

I say NOT GUILTY simply because I don't think the prosecution had a credible case at all. Sure he's a whacko, but I dont think that necessarily makes him a child molestor. The problem is, no matter what a rich celeb is charged with, if he/she is found NOT GUILTY people will always say "if you have money you can always get off"...

I don't see any EVIDENCE that he molested anyone. It's all he said/she said..and that's just not good enough for the prosecution to convict someone of such a terrible crime.


chris

Two words:

HUNG JURY :thumbsup:

Jacko would quite like that. :laugh:

:lol::lol::lol::lol:

You're the master at this stuff! :nod:

Pun aside, not really because I think they could re-try him, no?

I don't think they would, honestly. Their case stinks enough already, they don't seem like they would try it again.

Okay, just a quick question... (I really can't think of anyone) Name one rich/famous person, who was charged with a crime, who EVER got what a normal person would have recieved for the same crime. Most get off or are slapped on the wrist. Would any other court put up with MJ's antics from a normal Joe? (Try showing up late or in your jammies to a simple traffic ticket case and see where that gets you, let alone something more serious).

ray caruth (*sp) he played football, not sure what team~ i wrk from home & am always having court tv on in the background~ of all the "celebrity" trials they have had on there, he got a good sentence, for hiring a hitman 2 kill his pregnant girlfriend~ but it is a rare case, u r so right on this~ also in the vanity fair article, he said something like people such as tommy motolla & the sony corp, made all this up against him or something like that, so they could get there hands on his sony catalogue~
also a lawyer was on court t.v. yesterday & said he has been investigating michael for over 15 yrs & not only did he pay off 2 accussers here in the us, but he paid out over 75 million in hush money to boys in mexico or south america, i can't remember which, but that in itself freaked me out~ i am hoping guilty, but not sure of the outcome, this is all just awful for every1 involved~the poor boys, not only from anything michael might of done, but if these kids were made 2 lie, that is awful 2, no matter if michael is accquitted, i just don't see him ever being the superstar he once was, yes he will still have his fans but not like he used too~

La Ryder :shrug: - I was preparing for a role :laugh:

Martha Stewart :shrug: (she received the approp. sentence under the Fed. Sentencing guidelines for being guilty of a crime no one could prove :shrug: )

Bibby Brown - though I think he should still be in jail :laugh:

But, I agree that they have more clout in general.

LOL! Usually I ignore your (numerous) typos, but from now on I am SO calling him Bibby Brown. :laugh:

OMG -that is soooooooooooooooo fitting!!!!!!


as for my typos - the Lord gave me great hair, but the inability to type :laugh:

Thank you for making me laugh so hard this morning. :)

:lol: I thought that was on purpose! Bibby Brown! Bwhahahahahahahaaa

That's really not what I'm talking about. I'm not talking about their sentence, or their court antics. What I'm specifically talking about is celebs found NOT GUILTY. Sure I too believe MANY probably got off because of their celebrity, but for some people because they believe ALL celebs get off easy---don't believe it when ANY celebrity is found not guilty--period.

Chris

I have seen worse than that in court :shrug: :laugh:

Usually, judges are somewhat understanding about tardiness and things like that - it really just depends on the judge and what is going on in the case and in court that day. The Judge in MJ's case is a hard ass and did not stand for MJ's crap for one minute when MJ pulled that "I am sick" business. Rather, the judge ordered MJ to be there in one hour or he would issue a bench warrant for MJ's arrest. That is severe, but mostly routine, though if a D claimed an illness most judges would give them a day or two if it was a medically proveable one; I have seen this happen. Also, the jammies thing is a bit of a red herring because there is no rule that says the accused must wear a suit (though they should as the juries like that) - it just says they must be there. As long as the D does not wear something obscene - most judges do not really care.

I do what I can. :D

this is too funny & i agree he does blong in jail still, him & whitney r nuts :shrug: ~

He will be soon. He was supposed to show up here in Mass today for being a deadbeat dad, he didn't show, and they issued an arrest warrant. :laugh:

He is such a moron. The biggest. No, Whitney's a bigger one for marrying him.

:lol: I rest my case. :lol:

Oh sh*t, we're going to see plenty of him on his new show:
http://www.realitytvworld.com/index/....php?s=1003400

Bravo's 'Being Bobby Brown' to feature Whitney Houston's rehab

UPI News Service, 05/25/2005

Bobby Brown says his wife, Whitney Houston, has finished her second stint in rehab and is ready to record a new album.

Brown told TV's "Access Hollywood" Houston was "doing wonderful and everything about her spirit right now is just great."

He said he hoped working on her next album with long-time mentor Clive Davis will keep her upbeat and focused.

"Hopefully I will get to work with her on this album again," he said. "I'm just looking forward to her just being herself."

Brown said some of her struggles may be evident when his upcoming reality show "Being Bobby Brown" debuts on Bravo June 30.

"We were shooting during the time that she started rehab, so you'll see a transformation of just coming out of rehab into full blown-out woman again," he said.

:lol: WHAT A HEADLINE! :lol:

I am literally crying from laughter, Suze. :laugh:

:laugh: I'm happy to amuse. I know you're going to watch this one! I kinda think I have to. It's like the car crash that's coming and you can't turn your head away even though it ain't gonna be pretty!

OOH, next time I go to court I am wearing my bunny jammies with the feeties in them! :laugh: