http://www.sbscpublicaccess.org/docs/ctdocs/061305juryreqs.pdf I find it absurd the judge actually refused a request for a convenient index of evidence, including exhibits. This probably caused some time being wasted, hunting for evidence. Another thing, the jurors didn't know (at first) if the charges were exclusively related to Gavin. A week into deliberations, they had to ask about count 6 (alleged molestation). To me, that point should have been made crystal clear *before* the jury began deliberations. Good thing they asked. Apparently, for a whole week of deliberation, some jurors thought they might convict MJ for attempting to molest somebody else (presumably Star). It's also interesting, that on June 13, they sent a note saying they couldn't agree on the lessor counts. So, that must have been a close call.

I'm surprised no one has responded to this post yet. Lincolne, where are you?!? Reading the jury questions made me understand why the judge wouldn't release the questions prior to the verdict. Releasing these questions would have told the world exactly what the verdict would be. Follow along, and let me know if my logic is flawed. Count 1 (Conspiracy) is really the only independent charge. It is directly related to accepting Janet's testimony, which was corroborated by her children and refuted by many others. We all *knew* that it wouldn't fly. Counts 2 & 3 (Committed Lewd Acts) were linked with Count 6 (Attempted Lewd Act) and Counts 7 & 8 (Felony Alcohol or, if felony acquitted, Misdemeanor Alcohol). These counts directly related to Gavin's testimony, and as such were a "package deal". If you accept his testimony, you must accept each of these charges, and if you reject his testimony, you must reject them all. Furthermore, Counts 7 & 8 were specified in the charge to be attached to Counts 2 & 3. Counts 3 & 4 (Committing a Lewd Act on a Minor) were linked with Counts 9 & 10 (Felony Alcohol or, if felony acquitted, Misdemeanor Alcohol) to Star's testimony, both by specification and by evidentiary basis. The same ?package? rule applies; if his testimony was accepted, there would have been a conviction on each of these charges, and if it were rejected there would have to be an acquittal on all of these charges. While it may have been possible for the jury to accept Gavin's testimony and reject Star's testimony, there wasn't a snowball's chance in h*ll that the jury would accept Star's testimony and reject Gavin's. [To be Continued...]

The jury's first request came on Monday, June 6th. They requested an evidence log and the request was denied. We don't learn anything from this. The next request came on Friday, June 10th at 9:30 am. The jury requested that the verbiage on the verdict form for Count 4 be reviewed. This tells that they are ready to complete the verdict form and have discovered an error. The judge forwarded a revised verdict form. At 10:12 on Friday, June 10th, the jury asked which child is referred to in Count 6. By now, anyone who reads the request *must* know which way the wind is blowing. If the jury doesn't know which child the charge refers to, it indicates that Gavin?s testimony probably did not make enough impression to convict. At 11:00 am they request Gavin?s testimony to be read back to them. The real teller comes in on Monday, June 13th at 9:45 am. The jury cannot agree on the lesser counts of 7 & 8. The fact that they are considering the lesser charges indicates that they have ALREADY ACQUITTED on the felony alcohol charges. The primary difference between the felony and the misdemeanor alcohol charges were that the felony charges required that alcohol be used to assist in the commission of a felony. For the jury to have acquitted on the felony alcohol, they MUST have determined that the felonies in Counts 2 & 3 didn?t occur. This means that they have acquitted on Counts 2, 3, and 6. Notice, the jury did not indicate inability to agree on Counts 9 & 10. This is because they had already rejected Gavin?s testimony, so also must have rejected Star?s. Once that request came in, it was clear that the jury had acquitted on Counts 1 through 6, and Counts 9 & 10. It is also clear that they had acquitted the felony charges on Counts 7 & 8. At this point, the judge and the attorneys MUST have known which way the wind was blowing (so to speak), and Jackson?s attorneys must have notified him. When Jackson walked into court on June 13th, he had to have known he was going to be acquitted, at least of the felony counts.

abbyr311, basically you're saying it was June 10th that people could guess the verdict if they knew the jury question? I think you're right they could guess that all but the alcohol had probably been defeated. But, even though the jurors misread their instructions (which were clear), I understand a little of their confusion. It must have seemed odd to the jurors that MJ would be charged with "attempted" molestation *and* "actual" molestation, for the same boy. Normally, one assumes if somebody "succeeds" in an attempt, then there is no longer just an "attempt". It's like if I shoot at somebody, and miss, then shoot again and hit (killing them). You don't charge me with both attempted murder and murder. If your on the jury you might think the attempted murder charge must have been related to another person, who was next to the person who was actually shot. Maybe attempted belonged as a "lessor offence" option? It's odd that the judge tells the jurors, that if the specific physical act didn't take place "all the way" they must acquit on those charges completely. But the "attempt" required no physical contact at all.

Abbyr311's comments are substantially correct, except for referring to counts 4 & 5 as counts 3 & 4, of course. :) Also, if you look at the jury forms, they filled out the forms for counts 4, 5, 9, and 10 (and the associated lesser counts on 9 and 10) on Friday. All the rest were on Monday. Thus, the first counts that the decided on were the ones attested to by the brother, which were, as suggested, handled as a package. As they mentioned in the interview, they initially discussed count 1, and then tabled it and returned to it last. Before they could agree on counts 2, 3, 6, 7, and 8, they had to review the accuser's testimony, which was a long process. Apparently before listening to it all, they went on to the next ones, 4, 5, 9, and 10, and quickly reached agreement that nothing was proven. After reviewing the accuser's testimony, they were able to fairly quickly reach consensus except for the lesser charges. Probably the shift from disagreement to agreement came from someone arguing that alcohol served before the date range in question for the molestation was irrelevant. Clearly, there is no support for alcohol being served during the date range other than the testimony of the two witnesses they had already decided they could not believe beyond a reasonable doubt, so the argument was probably over whether any *other* serving of alcohol, *before* the date range, was sufficient for the misdemeanor count. I blame the confusion on count 6 on the prosecutor, personally. If you can reach the jury room without the jury being clear on who the victim is on one of the felony counts, then the prosecutor has not done his job! He's supposed to prove each and every count -- one part of that would certainly be to identify unequivocally what specific crime you are alleging. I think they just expected the jury to assume based on the boy's testimony that he was the alleged victim. But the prosecutor's closing should have reviewed each charge and the evidentiary basis, so they should have known exactly what testimony the prosecutor believed supported the attempted molestation charge.

Abbyr311's comments are substantially correct, except for referring to counts 4 & 5 as counts 3 & 4, of course. ---------------------------------------------------------- OOPS!!!! ?:|

abbyr331, can you explain the tie-in of Count 6 with 2&3. I read the jury instructions, page 9, and see no tie-in. The instruction seem to be pretty "wide open" about dates, *provided* they all happen in the Feb 20 - Mar 12, timeframe. Also, I notice, that unlike Counts 2-5, it makes no mention who testified to count 6. For 2-5, it mentions which boy witnessed it. Page 94 suggests the jury has a choice, in which of several acts, they wish to tie a particular count to. Page 95 makes clear conviction can occur on any or all counts. So, in short, count 6 was tied to nothing, and the jury was free to tie to any act during the time period, provided it fitted. lincolne, I think the judge was wrong about not giving an exhibit index. The jurors can be told not to count an index as evidence. Plus, the terms used to describe each item would be no more "bias" then what was included in the instructions. This is something that should have been ready before deliberations. I blame the judge for what any lack of understanding the jury had. He gave almost no guidance about count 6.

abbyr331, I re-read what you said, and I see you just meant that they were linked by being testified to by Gavin. I thought you were saying they were legally linked (as with alcohol charges). Oops.

The jury instructions should have been clearer about count 6, but then so should the prosecutor. In point of fact, the count was specifically intended to refer to an account by the main accuser of a time that he said "no", which was attested to only by him -- just like counts 2 & 3. While it is true that as a matter of law the only charges which are actually linked are the felony and misdemeanor alcohol charges (they could only rule on each misdemeanor count if they acquitted on the corresponding felony count), in practical terms they were tightly linked. Counts 2, 3, and 6 had the exact same evidentiary basis -- the unsupported word of the accuser. Also, counts 4 & 5 had the exact same evidentiary basis -- the unsupported word of the brother. While the jury had the *option* of choosing to accept one of the counts and not another, they had no real basis for doing so. If they conclude that there is reasonable doubt that one of the counts in one of the groups happened, that introduces an immediate comparable reasonable doubt for the other. If you accept the possibility that one of the boys is lying about one of his stories, how can you assume that he would be telling the truth about the other? The only logical way you could break up those groups would be if you concluded that one of the stories by one of the boys, if true, would not actually constitute the crime. So far as I'm aware, no such suggestion was ever made. The alcohol felonies, while technically separable, also have the same evidentiary basis, and are tied to specific felonies. So in practical terms, they likely stand or fall with the comparable felony. And the misdemeanor charges, since they are supposed to be for the *same* instance of giving alcohol as the associated felony, only without felonious intent, only really make sense if there were independent evidence that the boys were provided alcohol *during those date ranges* to match the accounts provided by the boys. The only evidence during that date range comes from the boys, so if you discount their molestation story... The only really logical way to break up the molestation charges would be by accuser. If you believe the main accuser, but consider it possible that the brother was either lying to back up his brother's story, or misinterpreting what he saw in the darkness, then you could reasonably acquit on 4 & 5, for example.

I do understand your points. But, I think you make a basic assumption which is a person is likely to be truthful about the existence of a broad event, and the details together - or not at all. People can beleive somebody is truthful in general, but beleive exaggeration in details/degree. Even if a set of charges are based on one person's testimony, there is potential for breakage. Surely, some parents out there have had a child come home with a wild story that they partly beleived, but felt was exaggerated. One basic assumption you make is the only issue in the trial is lies vs. truth. You ignore mistakes. Lies tend to beg for acquittal (as in this case). But, if we're talking about scenerios of conviction, then the jury must beleive in truth, but might see mistakes/exaggeration (or more precisely allow for the reasonable doubt to their existence). Anyhow, what I speculated about didn't happen in this case, so it's a moot point. And, I'll never convince you of my idea on this. So, we'll agree to disagree.

Yep, but in practical terms in this case there was no difference between the various accounts to make one more, or less, believable than the other.

Calg => Surely, some parents out there have had a child come home with a wild story that they partly beleived, but felt was exaggerated. ---------------------------------------------------------- Your argument is sound, Calg. There are many occasions when people tell partial truths, or tell a story that is based on truth but not necessarily the whole truth or not necessarily limited to the truth. In most of our daily activities we can take those statements for what they are worth, extract what we believe to be the truth, and act accordingly. However, when someone's life at stake, we hold the story-teller to a higher standard. This is why witnesses in a court of law testify under oath. I've never been a juror. But if someone's life was pending my decision, I would need to be assured that the information I was basing that decision on was the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. If I had any reason to doubt even a portion of a witnesses testimony, I would not be able to comfortably use that testimony in my decision making unless it was heavily corroborated.

By the way, I think the judge's hands may have been legally tied on the evidence index request. If they go into the room with the evidence, and they miss something, it's their own fault. If they are provided with an index, it essentially would become a new piece of evidence, evidence provided to the jurors but never introduced in court. This, in and of itself, might cause legal problems. Also, if it contained inaccuracies which could have led them astray, that fact could form a basis for appeal of the resulting verdict, since it was not a normal courtroom practice.

Just found this - Source: http://www.mjjforum.com/main/content/view/2557/0/ ABRAMS: So, you must have thought that things were looking pretty good when they sent out that first note if they are fighting over misdemeanor alcohol charges? MESEREAU: You bet. It was obvious they had acquitted Mr. Jackson on the serious felony counts.

abbyr311, thanks for the link. Off-topic (sorry): I noticed in the same interview he commented on the 1993 settlment. What he said seems to contradict the brief we previously discussed, which claimed the insurance companies forced a deal. "And basically what he told people to do was hey, just settle this thing, I want to get along with my musical career" I would have expected Mesereau to avoid answering the question.

I noticed the same thing, and thought the same thing. I was always skeptical about the insurance company forcing settlement. I only pointed out that there was a document supporting it. I'm more inclined to believe he settled the civil case because it had the potential to infect the criminal case. He got lucky that once the Chandlers had their money they elected not to cooperate with the criminal case. I can tell you this, the reasoning behind the civil settlements had to involve more than just "I wanted to get back to my musical career". But I guess this is something we will never really know for sure.

abbyr311 => "But I guess this is something we will never really know for sure." Yep, that's probably true. The annoying thing is that either side could have easily proved the matter conclusively by showing banking records to show who paid, the insurance claim filled out, and even have the insurance company people make statements. All of this could be done away from the jury, but settle the issue for the judge. Then, make the decision, on what, if anything, to tell the jury about the settlement. Instead Mesereau merely asserts the insurance theory, shows a bunch of case law, but shows no specific evidence in the settlement in question. $25 million should leave one big paper trail.

I think both sides were content to leave the previous settlements as a big question mark. The prosecution simply wanted it known that there were previous settlements, which leaves an implication of guilt. Once they had that implication of guilt, they didn't want to give the defense the opportunity to explain it away. The defense didn't really want to go there because it wasn't really relevant to the current case, and they didn't want to open the door to any additional 1108 evidence. For both sides it was advantageous to float various unsubstantiated possibilities and let the chips fall where they may.