Michael Jackson innocent as a new born babe

[Spidey]

And "innocent till proven guilty" is just how the system is based. What it means is that the onus is on the state to prove guilt, not on the defendant to prove innocence. In this case, the state didnt prove guilt. No one proved innocence.

Did I miss something? Or am I just plain fucked?!

If you are considered "innocent" when entering a trial and the state has failed to "prove you guilty" upon completion of the trial wouldn't you therefore remain innocent? Innocent UNTIL proven guilty. Isn't that how it works?

S

[kurohinge1]

... If you are considered "innocent" when entering a trail and the state has failed to "prove you guilty" upon completion of the trail, wouldn't you therefore remain innocent? ...

It depends where that trail leads you, Spidey.

[Spidey]

I caught that and have since edited it. Ooops!

But a good one on you anyway. :P

S

[Greji]

The waters certainly muddy, mind you, when you have, as in the OJ Simpson case, a successful civil suit brought subsequent to a criminal acquittal.[/quote]

A definate cause for concern if its you, yourself, before the bar. It didn't matter whether OJ actually committed the crime or not, he had been found guilty in the media and by every joke-telling comedian with a microphone, long before it had ever reached the civil suit. Even if he was in Alaska when his ex was done in, after being found innocent in the criminal trial, he was going to be found guilty in the civil suit because the audience expected it and any other verdict would have adversely affected viewer ratings.

[hakuman]

If someone asks an American lawyer, and finds that I am wrong, I will willingly admit that I was wrong on this point. Until that time, I stand by what I said. Not-guilty does not necessarily mean innocent.

For that matter, I read in the paper today, that one of the jurors figured that he probably had molested the boy (or maybe it was other boys, dont remember the specifics) but that there just wasnt enough evidence to convict beyond a reasonable doubt. Sure doesnt sound innocent to me, even if he wasnt guilty.

[maraboutslim]

In a legal/judicial setting, "innocent" means "not guilty". In this case, it may not satisfy the meaning of "morally pure" or whatever the word means to you in a non-legal context, but in the legal world innocent and not-guilty are the same thing. There is a third option in the American judicial system: no contest. A defendant may plead "no contest". If he does so, he accepts the punishment but does not admit guilt.

I did so myself, once upon a time. A plea agreement was reached for the district attorney to drop harsher charges on me in exchange for me saving the state the time and energy to put me on trial by pleading guilty or no contest to a lesser charge. These days, with the crowded court system, the majority of cases are settled in these type of plea bargains. In my case, I chose "no contest" because i didn't particularly feel i was guilty of the lesser charges either but the penalty was so little (a $500 fine) that it was just easier for me to accept it and get on with my life rather than continue to waste time and money to fight it. Pleading "no contest" is also sometime preferable to "guilty" because one has less exposure to civil judgements against him because he has not admitted that he committed the act in question.

[cliffy]

My understanding of the Jackson case was that the jury found him 'Not gulty' of the charges brought against him based on the evidence submitted. No where was it ever stated "innocent", just not guilty. The prosecution failed to win the case, the defence won. Now can we leave opinion as a personal view, not presented as "Fact".

Opinions are like arseholes, Everybody has one.

[Mulboyne]

My understanding of the Jackson case was that the jury found him 'Not guilty' of the charges brought against him based on the evidence submitted. No where was it ever stated "innocent", just not guilty.

As stated before, a "not guilty" verdict means a defendant is innocent just as "guilty" means he is not innocent. You and hakuman are confusing the general use of the term with its legal meaning.

[Blah Pete]

Somebody correct me if I am wrong on this.
OJ lost the civil trial (had to pay) which was held after the criminal trial. The evidence used in the civil trial was based on the evidence from the criminal trial in which he was aquitted.
If he was aquitted in the criminal trial how could he lose a civil trial

[Mulboyne]

If he was aquitted in the criminal trial how could he lose a civil trial

kurohinge 1 put his finger on it in an earlier post. The standards of evidence in the civil trial are lower than in the criminal trial. The jury was asked whether he was "liable". They only had to agree whether there were a preponderance of evidence, not proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

[Greji]

The rules of admissiability of evidence are entirely different in a civil matter and are no where near as strict as a criminal procedure. The testimony is not as strictly controlled as to hearsay and so forth. The rules on media coverage are different, depending on the judge. The jury's access to damming media coverage toward the respondant is not as controlled in a civil suit as it is in a criminal. OJ's conviction by the media had to be at the forefront of the jury's mind during the deliberations.

I'm not saying he didn't off his ex, or that he did, I just feel he was going to be convicted in the civil suit regardless. The media and the viewers were not going to settle for less. It wouldn't have been a happy ending otherwise.

gb

[Blah Pete]

So is a civil suit expected by the family of the allegedly molested kid?

[nullpointer]

So is a civil suit expected by the family of the allegedly molested kid?

I think they should be sued for attempted extortion, if there is such a thing.

[Greji]

The mother of the so-called "molested" gaki claimed in a press conference that she was not in it for the money and would not file a civil suit. But, she has a past track record of being dumb in public with priors, so who knows.

BTW, Jay Leno said this morning that Michael was happy at being acquitted, but is not up to appearing in public yet. So, for supper Michael sent out for a little Mexican. His name was Ramon.

gb

[Blah Pete]

I think they should be sued for attempted extortion, if there is such a thing.

Yeah, so do I even though I don't know the details of the trial. I purposely avoid following these blown out media events.

[Mels]

Somebody correct me if I am wrong on this.
OJ lost the civil trial (had to pay) which was held after the criminal trial. The evidence used in the civil trial was based on the evidence from the criminal trial in which he was aquitted.
If he was aquitted in the criminal trial how could he lose a civil trial

that is the question.....What I heard was this, and please correct me if I am wrong: In a Criminal trial, the prosecutor has to prove beyond a benefit of the doubt...no circumstantial evidence will fly.

However, in a Civil Suit, circumstantial evidence is admissilbe.

I just heard that Simpson has not paid the Goldman and Brown family a penny. He lives on his pension from the NFL and refuses to work...noting that what ever he makes would go to the families. His house and pension are protected from the civil suit against him...go figure.

Many think MJ may be taken to civil court...if they is the case, they anticipate he will lose like OJ.

Who knows...

[Spidey]

Question...(hand raised)

If someone is looking to extort some cash from a high profile celeb, why bother with a criminal case when a civil case would be so much easier? Especially in regards to admissible evidence and proof of guilt.

[Blah Pete]

If someone is looking to extort some cash from a high profile celeb, why bother with a criminal case when a civil case would be so much easier? Especially in regards to admissible evidence and proof of guilt. crazy

Didn't that already happen?
MJ settled out of court a few years ago.

[kurohinge1]

Question...(hand raised)

If someone is looking to extort some cash from a high profile celeb, why bother with a criminal case when a civil case would be so much easier? Especially in regards to admissible evidence and proof of guilt...

... let the state do all the expensive preparatory work in the criminal trial and then follow it with a civil suit ...

Also, the state has much better search & seizure powers (at no cost to the client, other than as a tax payer) than those realistically available in a civil claim (which uses the client's own money).

Yet another reason might be to get a free look at your opponent's defence to work out how to attack it in a civil claim and whether a civil suit is in fact viable.

But I wouldn't recommend a civil claim unless you have reasonable prospects of success, particularly against someone with more financial backing, as you will simply end up with a large bill for your legal costs and an even larger one from them for their costs, when you lose.

Finally, the state controls criminal proceedings, not the client. All the client can do is make their complaint to the authorities and then leave it to them. If the information and/or evidence is insufficient, the state may decide not to do anything. Also, if a person provides information that can be proven to be false, they may be charged with an offence themselves.

And you thought the law wasn't fun.

[Mels]

Question...(hand raised)

If someone is looking to extort some cash from a high profile celeb, why bother with a criminal case when a civil case would be so much easier? Especially in regards to admissible evidence and proof of guilt.

Here is why:
Civil vs. Criminal from: http://people.howstuffworks.com/lawsuit1.htm

First, let's start off by understanding that there is a difference in a civil trial and criminal trial. When you sue someone and take him to court, it is usually based on a tort. When someone breaks a criminal law, then the public prosecutor takes him to court for a criminal trial.

Torts are different from criminal laws in that a person may not have broken a law, but may have acted negligently (either intentionally or not) and as a result, someone else was injured physically, emotionally, and/or monetarily. Torts provide grounds for the lawsuit. Specific torts include trespassing, assault, battery, negligence, product liability, and intentional infliction of emotional distress. There are also three general categories that torts fall into: intentional torts (e.g., intentionally hitting someone), negligent torts (e.g., causing an accident because you didn't follow traffic rules), and strict liability torts (e.g., being responsible for damages caused by a product you manufacture and sell).

So, regarding MJ, the prosecution went after him and brought him to a criminal trial.....maybe the family wanted to go through a civil suit, but since they reported the crime to the police, I think it was then decided by the prosecutor....

[inthebubble]

The OJ case cost the government an estimated 9 mil (not including jail time and guarding him while in Jail). This is very high for most cases, but not the most expensive in California.
According to author Vincent Buglios in his book "5 reasons OJ got away with murder" Oj spent upwards of 20 million on his defense. He literally outspent the government on Forensic witnesses and other evidence Experts.

In a quote from the scotsman (news Magazine) "Oj still claims he is innocent but admits he only got off because he had the money to hire the dream team.
In recent years (since the ten year anniversary of the case) lawyer Barry Schenk admits he no longer can say Oj was innocent.

So yes he got off because he had the money to do it.

Obviously the tab isn't in for the Mikes case yet, but most analysts think it will be double what it cost for OJ.