Page 9 of 10

Official June 1 2005 Thread

Posted: Wed Jun 01, 2005 8:33 pm
by abbymjgirl
Originally posted by sistahlamb
No Frenchy, first the prosecution does thier closing, then the defence, and the prosecution get to have the last word.
Hmm, I have to disagree 'cause doesn't it work like this: they're closing arguments. The prosecution forst, then the defense, then...nothing!! It's closing arguments! Or am I wrong? I dun think I am 'cause that is how it worx for closing arguments.

Official June 1 2005 Thread

Posted: Wed Jun 01, 2005 8:34 pm
by Frenchy
Originally posted by Albamelia
Honey, when they say Michael's guilty of blah-blah, the judge has to be given a reasonable reason!! They cannot just say that! The judge has the last word in the end. If he says "hey, i think that you guys are just wrong and convicting him because you hate Michael and i say he's innocent." It's what the jugde says in the end! :D
Honey, I am truly sorry but I don't think so. I don't think the judge can disregard the jury's verdict as unacceptable. I don't think they have to give any reason either. The jury decides, period. The judge only applies the sentence. Or did I miss something?

Official June 1 2005 Thread

Posted: Wed Jun 01, 2005 8:35 pm
by abbymjgirl
So, the defense has the last word. (good)

Official June 1 2005 Thread

Posted: Wed Jun 01, 2005 8:37 pm
by Cristine87
1108 is prejudicial! I can't believe that law was even passed! Do you know how many innocent people can be convicted on that shit?

Official June 1 2005 Thread

Posted: Wed Jun 01, 2005 8:40 pm
by abbymjgirl
Originally posted by Frenchy
Honey, I am truly sorry but I don't think so. I don't think the judge can disregard the jury's verdict as unacceptable. I don't think they have to give any reason either. The jury decides, period. The judge only applies the sentence. Or did I miss something?
No, no, no, Honey. That's what the judge is there for, to make sure it's justice!


Take this: what if the jury hates Michael, they think like DS, and just say "hey we think he's guilty". the judge has to be given a why, he ain't gonna let it pass, it wouldn't be fair/justice. If he doesn't follow what the jury says or think they're being unfair, he can say that they're not being fair and go on about, w/out their decision. That's what he's there for. Get it?

Official June 1 2005 Thread

Posted: Wed Jun 01, 2005 8:42 pm
by danaluvsmj
Originally posted by whisper
Image
I really love this pic!
aww he looks so scared and serious, poor baby! I just wanna hug him.

Official June 1 2005 Thread

Posted: Wed Jun 01, 2005 9:07 pm
by mjfannn
Originally posted by Frenchy
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.
yes my dear, the persecution does have to PROVE THAT CHARGE, because the burden of proof is on them. they brouht this b.s now they have to prove it. :bs

Official June 1 2005 Thread

Posted: Wed Jun 01, 2005 9:08 pm
by Frenchy
Originally posted by Albamelia
Take this: what if the jury hates Michael, they think like DS, and just say "hey we think he's guilty". the judge has to be given a why, he ain't gonna let it pass, it wouldn't be fair/justice. If he doesn't follow what the jury says or think they're being unfair, he can say that they're not being fair and go on about, w/out their decision. That's what he's there for. Get it?
Honey, I really think you're mistaken but now I'm not even 100% sure any longer... I really do think the judge CANNOT refuse to follow the jury's verdict. And I don't think the jury has to give any explanation as to why they decide what they decide, esp since the deliberations are behind closed doors. Because otherwise, what's the point of having a jury? I think the judge's role is to ensure that the accused gets a fair trial (so far Melville has not done a good job -- rather: arbitrate the debates) and to sentence or acquit the accused according to the jury's verdict.
Can someone else confirm or infirm what I or Albamelia think?

Official June 1 2005 Thread

Posted: Wed Jun 01, 2005 9:09 pm
by Frenchy
Originally posted by mjfannn
yes my dear, the persecution does have to PROVE THAT CHARGE, because the burden of proof is on them. they brouht this b.s now they have to prove it. :bs
No my dear, not PROVE: just induce more than reasonable doubt in the jurors' minds...

My dear... Honey... I love you guys. :lol:

Official June 1 2005 Thread

Posted: Wed Jun 01, 2005 9:17 pm
by nowayout11
The jurors come back with guilty/not guilty on each of the charges. No reasons WHY are given. The reason "why" is simply because they agree with one side more than the other.

Also, a judge CAN throw out a jury's verdict, but that is extremely rare.

Official June 1 2005 Thread

Posted: Wed Jun 01, 2005 9:18 pm
by Frenchy
http://msnbc.msn.com/id/3036652/
At 6:20 Pacific Time, 80% of the people who took the survey thought that Michael was going to be acquitted. It looks good, people, I'm telling you...

Official June 1 2005 Thread

Posted: Wed Jun 01, 2005 9:33 pm
by ~Vicky~
It's funny. They think he will be aquitted, but they will still say he's guilty.

Have you ever seen the way Michael lights up when he talks about Africa? It's one thing to hear him speak about it...but to see him. It's really moving.

Michael should move to a place where he can just get away from all this. It would be so nice if he could just transport Neverland.

Official June 1 2005 Thread

Posted: Wed Jun 01, 2005 9:42 pm
by mjfannn
secutiom
Originally posted by Frenchy
No my dear, not PROVE: just induce more than reasonable doubt in the jurors' minds...

My dear... Honey... I love you guys. :lol:
the BURDEN of proof is on the persecution. :nonono:

Official June 1 2005 Thread

Posted: Wed Jun 01, 2005 9:50 pm
by nowayout11
I think you're confusing the terms Frenchy. :)

It's the prosecution's job to prove guilt. And they must prove it beyond a reasonable doubt. "Maybe he did it" or even "he probably did it" is not sufficient for a guilty verdict. It must be "absolutely yes."

The defense doesn't have to prove anything. They only have to create the reasonable doubt... which they have done in spades, in my personal opinion. :lol:

Official June 1 2005 Thread

Posted: Wed Jun 01, 2005 11:13 pm
by MJ_FAN_FOR_LIFE733
Those damn fools are so ****ing desperate! :thumbsdown I can't wait for mez's closing statements, he'll bring it all the way home! :D