There has been a lot of talk about celebrity bias in the aftermath of the Michael Jackson case. While it’s important to keep a close eye on this possibility, I think it is also a good idea to consider whether the prosecution’s case was strong enough to convince beyond a reasonable doubt. Like others, I don’t think the prosecution had enough hard evidence to convict in this case.
Despite the similar outcome and the best efforts of California prosecutors, this trial was not the OJ Simpson trial redux. In my opinion OJ Simpson was a guilty man who was acquitted primarily because of a few major prosecutorial miscues and a defense team headed by Johnnie Cochran who was well up to the task of capitalizing on those mistakes. Simpson’s defense dominated the proceedings, from the predominantly black and female jury selection and the depiction of Mark Furman as a racist with an agenda all the way to the debacle with the bloody glove.
Simpson was acquitted despite the preponderance of hard, physical evidence; the defense team even managed to cast spurious doubt on the DNA evidence, successfully painting the whole trial as an LAPD conspiracy aimed at scapegoating a famous black man with a white wife.
In contrast, the case against Michael Jackson was not nearly as compelling. The prosecutorial evidence consisted primarily of porn and items from Neverland Ranch, along with testimony from a carnival of former employees and past and present accusers. Most of the testimony had no independent corroboration and most, if not all, could be successfully painted (with little effort) by the defense as disgruntled former employees with a grudge or scammers hoping to cash in at Jackson’s expense. The defense could easily summon celebrity character witnesses to refute the prosecution, leaving the prosecution’s case boiled down to a “he said, she said” dispute with a light salting of circumstantial evidence. In such a contest, the crazy mother of the accuser was a real liability.
Given the limitations of the prosecution’s case, it is unsurprising that the jury rendered “not guilty” verdicts on all counts. The only surprise to me is that the jury took so long to come back from deliberations. My guess is that they were diligently comparing notes on the timeline and testimony to fulfill their duty as jurors.
My personal belief is that Michael Jackson has probably had improper sexual relations with young children in the past, which is abhorrent. If sufficient evidence can be found, he should be prosecuted fully for any instances for which a convincing case can be made. But in this case, the prosecution failed in its responsibility to convince the jury beyond a reasonable doubt that this particular instance of molestation took place, and so Michael Jackson was rightly acquitted. Convicting him with this weak case would not have held true to the tenets of American justice.
The system can work as was intended, and in this case it did.