Official June 1 2005 Thread

[sistahlamb]

So let me get this straight:

Even if Michael is aquitted on all of the charges, the State can apeal thier case and go after him agian???

I thought that if Michael was totally aquitted, the state and/or the Arvizos can never try that case ever agian.

 

[dangerous]

everyone can appeal their case an unlimited amount of time, unless the court says no more, i think its to the federal court ur only allowed to appeal once. I dont think they would win an appeal though, but also if MJ is convicted (perish the thought) i dont think appeals court will give a shit about him either. Maybe he has a chance with the federal court but defintely not the same court that denied the indictment being thrown out

someone please correct me if im wrong, LOL.

 

[sistahlamb]

The federal court probably would'nt even look at that sham of a case.

 

[Frenchy]

Originally posted by sistahlamb
And is there any proof that Michael gave G alchahol???? Hell NO!!!!!!

Problem is that the persecution does not have to actually PROVE anything. They just need to make the jury believe that there's a good chance MJ did it. A good chance meaning beyond reasonable doubt. That's what is sick.

 

[danaluvsmj]

so even if he is acquitted of molestation, he could still spend a year in jail for giving alcohol to minors? That really scares me :cryptic

 

[KittyCA]

Something interesting I just read...

Question in my mind, as a bright sunny day dawns on Santa Maria, is whether or not Defense Attorney Thomas "Hurricane" Mesereau, Jr., will tell the Jury in his closing arguments, that THIS prosecutor's Office, and Tom Sneddon in particular is guilty of prosecuting other men for molestation of their step-daughters, who later were exonerated in a retrial, but not until AFTER the men had spent collectively about 25 years in California State Prisons for a crime the did NOT commit. If Mr. Mesereau does, at least some of the Jurors will recall the news story about it carried locally by CBS local Ch-12. (continued....Mr. Waneger asked for a copy of this story, apparently to replay on his own show and was refused, even if they were threatened with a subpoenae, which he never threatened to get.)

 

[nowayout11]

Originally posted by sistahlamb
So let me get this straight:

Even if Michael is aquitted on all of the charges, the State can apeal thier case and go after him agian???

I thought that if Michael was totally aquitted, the state and/or the Arvizos can never try that case ever agian.

The appeal process isn't about "is he innocent or guilty" like this case is. The prosecution would have to prove that the judge made serious, reversable errors, or that bias was somehow demonstrated, resulting in the unfavorable decision.

This is a tough cookie to crack. The appeals court may not even decide to hear it. However, IF they do hear it, and the errors or bias are proven, then they would then have a retrial. We don't know what prosecution evidence was omitted, but but I doubt there's a smoking gun anywhere here for an appeal to stick.

 

[got2makeitright]

*Delete*

 

[Thriller2005]

If Michael wins, and the prosecution tries to appeal, they won't win. The judge in this case have award every motion the prosecution has filed, the prosecution threw everything including the kitchen sink at the jury to convince them of Michael's guilt. Trust me, they won't get a second chance.

 

[dangerous]

Originally posted by KittyCA
Something interesting I just read...

Question in my mind, as a bright sunny day dawns on Santa Maria, is whether or not Defense Attorney Thomas "Hurricane" Mesereau, Jr., will tell the Jury in his closing arguments, that THIS prosecutor's Office, and Tom Sneddon in particular is guilty of prosecuting other men for molestation of their step-daughters, who later were exonerated in a retrial, but not until AFTER the men had spent collectively about 25 years in California State Prisons for a crime the did NOT commit. If Mr. Mesereau does, at least some of the Jurors will recall the news story about it carried locally by CBS local Ch-12. (continued....Mr. Waneger asked for a copy of this story, apparently to replay on his own show and was refused, even if they were threatened with a subpoenae, which he never threatened to get.)

THe judge has to permit that. Melville wont have any of the vendetta evidence in, hes not having it. Mez doesnt seem to be going that route. IT would be nice though

 

[Anonymous]

Originally posted by sistahlamb
So let me get this straight:

Even if Michael is aquitted on all of the charges, the State can apeal thier case and go after him agian???

I thought that if Michael was totally aquitted, the state and/or the Arvizos can never try that case ever agian.

No, if he is aquitted the state can NEVER re-try him, unless he is accused of something new.

If they tried to get a new trial that's called double jeopardy and it's not legal.

The defense can appeal if he's convicted.

 

[Anonymous]

Michael Jackson faces a year in jail even if he is cleared of child abuse.

The 46-year-old singer was told by trial judge Rodney Melville that he is to be charged with giving alcohol to a minor.

It is a lesser offence than the one he was originally accused of - plying a young boy with drink in order to sexually abuse him.

That article is trash and it's no wonder it's written in the UK. That charge does not include jail time. It only does if the child that the alcohol was supplied to harmed themselves or someone else while under the influence.

 

[dangerous]

i think nowayout is right about the appeals process of the state appealing

 

[Frenchy]

Originally posted by NevaehDreamz
If they tried to get a new trial that's called double jeopardy and it's not legal.

I thought Double Jeopardy meant that you couldn't be SENTENCED twice for the same crime (see the movie with Ashley Judd and Tommy Lee Jones ). A retrial is a different thing... Isn't it?

 

[Anonymous]

Originally posted by KittyCA
Something interesting I just read...

Question in my mind, as a bright sunny day dawns on Santa Maria, is whether or not Defense Attorney Thomas "Hurricane" Mesereau, Jr., will tell the Jury in his closing arguments, that THIS prosecutor's Office, and Tom Sneddon in particular is guilty of prosecuting other men for molestation of their step-daughters, who later were exonerated in a retrial, but not until AFTER the men had spent collectively about 25 years in California State Prisons for a crime the did NOT commit. If Mr. Mesereau does, at least some of the Jurors will recall the news story about it carried locally by CBS local Ch-12. (continued....Mr. Waneger asked for a copy of this story, apparently to replay on his own show and was refused, even if they were threatened with a subpoenae, which he never threatened to get.)

There is a lot of things the jury should know that probably never will. The judge would never allow it.

If it were up to me, I'd give all 12 of those jurors a cd player and headphones, a secluded room, and the HIStory CD.

That CD is so telling, and it's like Michael can't convey those emotions by just talking. So they'd be able to hear is frustrations and sadness and worries and bitterness ..anger.... and a guilty man would not have all those kinds of emotions.


That unrealistic, I know.


But yeah, everything they say has to be cleared with the judge. Otherwise you'll have lawyers screaming 'OBJECTION!' during closing arguements, which I think will lessen their impact because it breaks the focus.


Nice to see you KittyCA.

 

[Anonymous]

Originally posted by Frenchy
I thought Double Jeopardy meant that you couldn't be SENTENCED twice for the same crime (see the movie with Ashley Judd and Tommy Lee Jones ). A retrial is a different thing... Isn't it?

If you can't be retried for the same thing wouldn't that be the exact same thing as what you said? If a prosecution retries a defendant...they are hoping for a conviction.

double jeopardy
n.
The act of putting a person through a second trial for an offense for which he or she has already been prosecuted or convicted.

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=D...e%20Jeopardy%20


Also, you can't compare real life to a fictional movie.

 

[Frenchy]

Oh Ok, my bad, sorry. I thought it meant you couldn't be sentenced again if you had already been convicted. If MJ is acquitted, then I thought he still could be retried...

So if the Arvizos are not happy with the verdict (which we all hope), they can appeal. What's the difference with a retrial then? I'm getting confused...

And about the comparison btw movie and real life, come on dude, it was a little joke... :wink

 

[Anonymous]

Originally posted by Frenchy
Oh Ok, my bad, sorry. I thought it meant you couldn't be sentenced again if you had already been convicted. If MJ is acquitted, then I thought he still could be retried...

So if the Arvizos are not happy with the verdict (which we all hope), they can appeal. What's the difference with a retrial then? I'm getting confused...

And about the comparison btw movie and real life, come on dude, it was a little joke... :wink

They only way the prosecution can appeal is if they can prove that the judge made a serious error that led to a wrongful aquittal.


Now you know in this case, that is never going to happen.

 

[Frenchy]

Any news about the closing arguments?

 

[Frenchy]

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/7981554/
May 25:
'Abrams Report' legal panel predicts a 'not guilty'

Tuesday's edition of 'The Abrams Report,' hsot Dan Abrams, regular guests, and NBC News Correspondent Mike Taibbi dared to make predictions on Michael Jackons’ fate.

Below is what they said:

Former sex crimes prosecutor Bill Fallon: I am convinced they're going to come back not guilty against Jackson. I think they might think there was a conspiracy but it just wasn't proven against Jackson.

I predicted with you before that I thought the guilty verdict would only be over the alcohol. And I think that if we got the Jesus juice in and it ended up coming in through the stewardesses and I'm not even sure they testified to that.

I thought there was going to be a hung jury on the sexual assault case. I said this on your show numerous times. I think the only hope for a guilty here was the 1990 victim who I think is more important than this victim, is more important than the brother and the only hope the prosecution has.

Criminal defense attorney Daniel Horowitz: I would have confidence in a victory [if I were the defense lawyer in this case]. Let me tell you, if it wasn't for the prior bad acts that came in-- the prior molests that really were not challenged that heavily by Mesereau-- this case would be a slam-dunk, two-hour deliberation. The jury would come out the door and hug Michael Jackson. Given the past conduct, I think that may taint this deliberation... but I still say not guilty...

Dan Abrams, Abrams Report host: Let me tell you what I'm going to have to do. I'm going to be going out there for the closing arguments. I don’t think this is not going to be a quick deliberation. I mean I'm basically packing up my life and going out there because I think we're going to be out there for a while as this jury deliberates, but I agree with everyone. I don't expect to see guilty on any of the counts.

NBC News Correspondent Mike Taibbi: I can only say this: The only prediction I'll make is that within two weeks I’ll be working out of my 30 Rock office and walking my dog at night in New York City.