Official June 1 2005 Thread

The"official" threads posted during the trial

Moderator: Global Moderator

~Vicky~

Official June 1 2005 Thread

Post by ~Vicky~ » Wed Jun 01, 2005 2:19 pm

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.

~Vicky~

Official June 1 2005 Thread

Post by ~Vicky~ » Wed Jun 01, 2005 2:27 pm

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
Hero Member
Hero Member
Posts: 2098
Joined: Mon Jul 19, 2004 8:00 am

Official June 1 2005 Thread

Post by dangerous » Wed Jun 01, 2005 2:35 pm

i think nowayout is right about the appeals process of the state appealing
[align=center]Image[/align]

Frenchy
Sr. Member
Sr. Member
Posts: 335
Joined: Wed Mar 16, 2005 3:31 pm

Official June 1 2005 Thread

Post by Frenchy » Wed Jun 01, 2005 2:35 pm

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 :D ). A retrial is a different thing... Isn't it?

~Vicky~

Official June 1 2005 Thread

Post by ~Vicky~ » Wed Jun 01, 2005 2:36 pm

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. :)

~Vicky~

Official June 1 2005 Thread

Post by ~Vicky~ » Wed Jun 01, 2005 2:41 pm

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 :D ). 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? ... eopardy%20


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

Frenchy
Sr. Member
Sr. Member
Posts: 335
Joined: Wed Mar 16, 2005 3:31 pm

Official June 1 2005 Thread

Post by Frenchy » Wed Jun 01, 2005 2:48 pm

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

~Vicky~

Official June 1 2005 Thread

Post by ~Vicky~ » Wed Jun 01, 2005 2:59 pm

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
Sr. Member
Sr. Member
Posts: 335
Joined: Wed Mar 16, 2005 3:31 pm

Official June 1 2005 Thread

Post by Frenchy » Wed Jun 01, 2005 3:07 pm

Any news about the closing arguments?

Frenchy
Sr. Member
Sr. Member
Posts: 335
Joined: Wed Mar 16, 2005 3:31 pm

Official June 1 2005 Thread

Post by Frenchy » Wed Jun 01, 2005 3:11 pm

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.

sistahlamb
Hero Member
Hero Member
Posts: 1445
Joined: Sun Mar 20, 2005 1:00 pm

Official June 1 2005 Thread

Post by sistahlamb » Wed Jun 01, 2005 3:27 pm

Thanx for that Frenchy!!!!

I totally agree with the fact that had that sorry ass judge never allowed that 1108 evidence in, this trial would have been over a long time ago. It should never have been brought in.

Frenchy
Sr. Member
Sr. Member
Posts: 335
Joined: Wed Mar 16, 2005 3:31 pm

Official June 1 2005 Thread

Post by Frenchy » Wed Jun 01, 2005 3:32 pm

Most importantly, these are big names... It means MJ has a good chance... Especially if they actually PUBLISH such comments, they must be pretty sure of themselves. Can someone explain to me Mike Taibbi's comment though? What does he mean? That in 2 weeks, it's all over?

By the way, I'm not sure I'm allowed to say this because we don't like him, but I read that Roger Friedman is certain that MJ won't be convicted: "Too much reasonable doubt". Just thought I'd mention it, since it's one of the only nice things he ever said about MJ!!

sistahlamb
Hero Member
Hero Member
Posts: 1445
Joined: Sun Mar 20, 2005 1:00 pm

Official June 1 2005 Thread

Post by sistahlamb » Wed Jun 01, 2005 3:39 pm

The jury could have a virdict within 2 weeks--I think that was what he meant. I think he could be right personally.

I am soooooo looking forward to the defence's closing statements!!!! I'm not realy that worried about the fact that the prosecution does get to go twice because they haven't proven thier case beond a reasonable doubt.

Just keep in mind that every one of those jurors have to find him guilty beond a reasonable doubt for him to be convicted and nothing less than that.

If a hung jury does happen, then the jury better think twice before going that route because they'll have to pay a hell of alot of money if a retrial does happen.

Mack Dogg
Sr. Member
Sr. Member
Posts: 439
Joined: Fri Sep 17, 2004 12:19 am

Official June 1 2005 Thread

Post by Mack Dogg » Wed Jun 01, 2005 3:45 pm

I think he'll either get acquitted or a hung jury. No conviction, especially since the people that have been in that court room look at the faces of the jury, seem to say good things. Though I heard, friday after that police tape was played and the pros. and def. rested, Michael was sitting alone looking sad and depressed and the jurors saw him. Mesereau and Sanger had to cheer him up.
Image

Frenchy
Sr. Member
Sr. Member
Posts: 335
Joined: Wed Mar 16, 2005 3:31 pm

Official June 1 2005 Thread

Post by Frenchy » Wed Jun 01, 2005 3:46 pm

Originally posted by sistahlambQUOTE (sistahlamb)The jury could have a virdict within 2 weeks--I think that was what he meant. I think he could be right personally.[/b]

I agree also. :thumbsup

sistahlamb

Just keep in mind that every one of those jurors have to find him guilty beyond a reasonable doubt for him to be convicted and nothing less than that.
If a hung jury does happen, then the jury better think twice before going that route because they'll have to pay a hell of alot of money if a retrial does happen.
[/quote]
I wouldn't be surprised if there was a hung jury. Not because I think there's reasonable doubt, but rather because there's always that one a$$hole to mess it all up... Remember, it takes only 1 member of the jury to disagree with the others to have a hung jury.

Still, we don't want a hung jury. In the public opinion's mind, it would be the equivalent of "buying" the 93 accuser's silence: the question of MJ's innoncence or guilt would not be answered. I want clear vindication. I want to see Tom Sneddon cry. I want to see him bitter to have to retire after having lost the case of his life. I want to see Michael get out of the courtroom and wave at his fans with a huge smile on his face and thank them for their support. I want to see Nancy Disgrace pissed off live on TV. I want to see Diane Demon's career ruined. I want to see the media say that the persecution's job was not up to par. I want to see them scramble to try and find apologies to Michael for running shady stories. I want to see Tom Mesereau become the new symbol of US law.

Most of all, I want to see Michael dance right in front of the courthouse on "DS" the way he did it on top of his van when the trial began. Dom Sheldon is a coooold man... Slash! :lol:

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests