'Countdown with Keith Olbermann' for August 5
Read the transcript to the Friday show
Updated: 11:37 a.m. ET Aug. 8, 2005
Guest: Stacy Brown, Jim Moret, Billy Goldberg, Mark Leyner
STEWART: Starstruck jurors with contraband. Are we talking about a do-over? For some reason, the legal perspective, we turn to “Inside Edition”‘s chief correspondent and legal analyst, Jim Moret.
Jim, nice to speak to you again.
JIM MORET, LEGAL ANALYST, “INSIDE EDITION”: Hi, Alison. Good to be back.
STEWART: There was no response from District Attorney Sneddon‘s office when we called this afternoon. Is there anything he can do about this new information?
MORET: No. I mean, there was a verdict by a jury of Michael Jackson‘s peers. That verdict was entered. It was not guilty. Michael Jackson cannot be tried again for this crime. He was found not guilty.
And that‘s fine. And if these jurors felt otherwise at the time, Stacy‘s right, they could have done something then. And frankly, I really respect Stacy coming on the air saying he‘s not part of this book. I read Stacy‘s book that he wrote, and he got some heat for writing it and releasing it during the trial. And Stacy stands by what he wrote, and I respect the fact that he‘s not going forward with this book.
You know, I trust Stacy‘s opinion, and I think his opinion is right on this one. These people may be out just to make a buck.
STEWART: Let‘s talk a little bit about the judge in this case. These two jurors allege the judge knew that these Court TV tapes were smuggled into the jury room. Why wouldn‘t he have done something about that? We should say that the tapes were never viewed.
MORET: Well, and that‘s very important. The fact is, the judge may have done something about it. The judge was very close with this jury, and he did not want a mistrial. And there‘s no reason to believe that if the judge was made aware of these tapes, that he wouldn‘t have called in the jurors as a group or one at a time saying, one, Was a tape brought in? Two, who did so? And three, was it viewed?
And it may be that nobody saw this tape, if, in fact, the tape was brought in. This is simply an allegation, not necessarily a revelation. And I think that the judge would simply admonish the jurors again, Look, this is a high-profile case. You‘re not sequestered. Don‘t watch the news. Don‘t talk to your friends. Don‘t talk to your relatives. Just go by the evidence of this case.
And you have to remember that even after the verdict came out, and we did hear from at least one of the jurors who said, in his heart, he believes that Michael Jackson may have touched inappropriately some kids, but there wasn‘t enough evidence in this case. Well, that‘s what the burden of proof is. Was there enough evidence in this case?
And it really angers me to think that these jurors could now be saying a different tune just to make money. It really gets me frustrated.
STEWART: Well, let get back to those jurors. If these allegations are proven to be true, are any of these jurors who participated in some of this alleged misconduct, could they face any kind of charges or reprimand?
MORET: Well, if I were in the district attorney‘s office, that‘s what I‘d be looking for, because, frankly, there‘s no allegation here that Michael Jackson or his defense team did anything untoward or inappropriate. But these allegations do amount to what could be juror misconduct. And if these people are now trying to profit on that misconduct, as the district attorney, I would sure want to look at them and see if there‘s any charges that I could bring against them.
If, in fact, one of these jurors, as is being alleged, brought in some material, some research material, and said, basically, Michael Jackson fits the definition of a pedophile to a T, you know what? That‘s inappropriate. That doesn‘t belong. And if there was any pressure on any of these jurors to vote a certain way, that‘s wrong, too.
But have we heard that from the other jurors? No. Who are we hearing it from? We‘re hearing it from, allegedly, the two people who are going to come out and make money on a book.
STEWART: Can this information be useful in any way to the accuser or his family in any pending civil litigation?
MORET: I don‘t think so. I think that what we basically have for the civil trial, you have a different standard, a different burden of proof. It‘s not proof beyond a reasonable doubt, it‘s a preponderance of the evidence, much lower threshold. So there‘s an advantage for the civil trial anyway.
And there‘s no reason to think that if they don‘t want to bring this case, that they couldn‘t go forward. They could still bring the civil case. I don‘t think there‘s anything with respect to what these jurors may or may not have done that‘s going to be helpful to them in any way.
STEWART: And this is a purely an opinion question on a Friday night. I asked Stacy the same question. Does this further the argument that celebrities get a different brand of justice than the rest of us?
MORET: Well, look, let‘s look at the defense team. This was a great defense lawyer in Tom Mesereau. He is as good as it gets, the real deal. I sat in there every single day, and many times, I was simply amazed at his abilities. You or I might not be able to afford him.
But let‘s look at this on the other side. Would these two jurors be able to write a book if Michael Jackson wasn‘t a huge celebrity? No. So are celebrities treated differently? Yes. Can it hurt them? Sure it can. Can it help them? Sure. But it‘s also apparently now helping these jurors.
STEWART: It‘s all about the balance of things, it sounds like.
Jim Moret of TV‘s “Inside Edition,” thanks so much.
MORET: Thanks, Alison.
Source: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8871085/
Read the transcript to the Friday show
Updated: 11:37 a.m. ET Aug. 8, 2005
Guest: Stacy Brown, Jim Moret, Billy Goldberg, Mark Leyner
STEWART: Starstruck jurors with contraband. Are we talking about a do-over? For some reason, the legal perspective, we turn to “Inside Edition”‘s chief correspondent and legal analyst, Jim Moret.
Jim, nice to speak to you again.
JIM MORET, LEGAL ANALYST, “INSIDE EDITION”: Hi, Alison. Good to be back.
STEWART: There was no response from District Attorney Sneddon‘s office when we called this afternoon. Is there anything he can do about this new information?
MORET: No. I mean, there was a verdict by a jury of Michael Jackson‘s peers. That verdict was entered. It was not guilty. Michael Jackson cannot be tried again for this crime. He was found not guilty.
And that‘s fine. And if these jurors felt otherwise at the time, Stacy‘s right, they could have done something then. And frankly, I really respect Stacy coming on the air saying he‘s not part of this book. I read Stacy‘s book that he wrote, and he got some heat for writing it and releasing it during the trial. And Stacy stands by what he wrote, and I respect the fact that he‘s not going forward with this book.
You know, I trust Stacy‘s opinion, and I think his opinion is right on this one. These people may be out just to make a buck.
STEWART: Let‘s talk a little bit about the judge in this case. These two jurors allege the judge knew that these Court TV tapes were smuggled into the jury room. Why wouldn‘t he have done something about that? We should say that the tapes were never viewed.
MORET: Well, and that‘s very important. The fact is, the judge may have done something about it. The judge was very close with this jury, and he did not want a mistrial. And there‘s no reason to believe that if the judge was made aware of these tapes, that he wouldn‘t have called in the jurors as a group or one at a time saying, one, Was a tape brought in? Two, who did so? And three, was it viewed?
And it may be that nobody saw this tape, if, in fact, the tape was brought in. This is simply an allegation, not necessarily a revelation. And I think that the judge would simply admonish the jurors again, Look, this is a high-profile case. You‘re not sequestered. Don‘t watch the news. Don‘t talk to your friends. Don‘t talk to your relatives. Just go by the evidence of this case.
And you have to remember that even after the verdict came out, and we did hear from at least one of the jurors who said, in his heart, he believes that Michael Jackson may have touched inappropriately some kids, but there wasn‘t enough evidence in this case. Well, that‘s what the burden of proof is. Was there enough evidence in this case?
And it really angers me to think that these jurors could now be saying a different tune just to make money. It really gets me frustrated.
STEWART: Well, let get back to those jurors. If these allegations are proven to be true, are any of these jurors who participated in some of this alleged misconduct, could they face any kind of charges or reprimand?
MORET: Well, if I were in the district attorney‘s office, that‘s what I‘d be looking for, because, frankly, there‘s no allegation here that Michael Jackson or his defense team did anything untoward or inappropriate. But these allegations do amount to what could be juror misconduct. And if these people are now trying to profit on that misconduct, as the district attorney, I would sure want to look at them and see if there‘s any charges that I could bring against them.
If, in fact, one of these jurors, as is being alleged, brought in some material, some research material, and said, basically, Michael Jackson fits the definition of a pedophile to a T, you know what? That‘s inappropriate. That doesn‘t belong. And if there was any pressure on any of these jurors to vote a certain way, that‘s wrong, too.
But have we heard that from the other jurors? No. Who are we hearing it from? We‘re hearing it from, allegedly, the two people who are going to come out and make money on a book.
STEWART: Can this information be useful in any way to the accuser or his family in any pending civil litigation?
MORET: I don‘t think so. I think that what we basically have for the civil trial, you have a different standard, a different burden of proof. It‘s not proof beyond a reasonable doubt, it‘s a preponderance of the evidence, much lower threshold. So there‘s an advantage for the civil trial anyway.
And there‘s no reason to think that if they don‘t want to bring this case, that they couldn‘t go forward. They could still bring the civil case. I don‘t think there‘s anything with respect to what these jurors may or may not have done that‘s going to be helpful to them in any way.
STEWART: And this is a purely an opinion question on a Friday night. I asked Stacy the same question. Does this further the argument that celebrities get a different brand of justice than the rest of us?
MORET: Well, look, let‘s look at the defense team. This was a great defense lawyer in Tom Mesereau. He is as good as it gets, the real deal. I sat in there every single day, and many times, I was simply amazed at his abilities. You or I might not be able to afford him.
But let‘s look at this on the other side. Would these two jurors be able to write a book if Michael Jackson wasn‘t a huge celebrity? No. So are celebrities treated differently? Yes. Can it hurt them? Sure it can. Can it help them? Sure. But it‘s also apparently now helping these jurors.
STEWART: It‘s all about the balance of things, it sounds like.
Jim Moret of TV‘s “Inside Edition,” thanks so much.
MORET: Thanks, Alison.
Source: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8871085/