Jury Selection Turns Into Merry-go-round

Michael Jackson Forum

JACKSON JURORS OPT OUT

http://static.sky.com/images/pictures/1272153.jpg

Nearly half of the 300 prospective jurors summoned on the opening day of Michael Jackson's trial have been excused after offering reasons why they could not sit through the six-month hearing.

Judge Rodney Melville allowed 125 of the potential panellists to step down.

Most were excused when they pleaded that the trial would cause them undue financial hardship by depriving them of their incomes for at least half the year.

An unemployed young man said he needed to look for a job, rather than judge Jackson:"I think I should worry about myself rather than the defendant," he said.

The issue of race reared its head in the trial of the African-American star on the very first day of the trial when a former convict, who was white, suggested he may be prejudiced following a prison fight with a black man.

http://static.sky.com/images/pictures/1271828.jpg
Courtroom where trial will unfold

Among the more bizarre stories that judge Melville heard from the first two 150-string batches of potential jurors, was one from a rocket scientist working at a US Air Force base.

He said he had two rockets to launch and simply couldn't afford the time away from his job.

The 175 prospective panellists who said they could serve on the jury filled out a seven-page questionnaire on their views on crucial issues in the case that prosecutors and defence layers will pour through to see if there is anything to disqualify them.

Those issues, sealed in the secret questionnaire, are likely to include questions about their experiences and views on race, celebrity, wealth and child abuse.

The "King of Pop" has pleaded not guilty to a 10-count indictment of child abuse.

Judge Melville hopes to have seen all prospective jurors by Wednesday.

- Sky News

If I could I'd stay. it would be interesting, if not a little vomit-inducing to hear the details. But the gag-order would be so hard to adhere to. You'd want to tell everyone. I'd also just be interested to see Jackson close up, what he looks like, and his reactions to all the claims in the court room, etc.

I'll be a juror! Pick Me!!!

Don't they pay people for jury-duty in the USA? Over here you get whatever you would've earned if you had been at work. It takes ages though, but you'll get paid eventually.

only a few bucks, if I remember correctly. Or a percentage of your normal wage...

Something tells me if you went in thre saying "pick me! pick me!" they wouldn't pick you...

I guess I wouldn't mind sitting. For one it'd let me know exactly how much REAL evidence they have on him, and how much BS they have. Also, half a year off work ain't not good.

Being on a jury out here pays you next to nothing. It isnt even close to what you would get at your normal job. Thats why a lot of people make excuses not to serve.

If you get paid a salary wage than it usually can help especially if your office continues to pay...but if you are an hourly employee and you get paid based on your hours, then youre screwed. They cant fire you for missing since you are serving on a jury, but they certainly dont have to pay you while serving. So all that leaves is jury pay, and trust me...its nothing.

I'd love to know how many stealth jurors will get through...for and against him.

Have any of you read all the stuff on the Smoking Gun website? I was checking it out and started reading the articles on this case. I think he was doing something seriously wrong with these kids..the first payoff he made to the one kid said too much about his life in Neverland...what a sicko!

I was picked for a jury pool on a pedophile case about 10 years ago.

There was no way in hell I was going to sit and listen to that....

On my jury questionnaire they asked if there was any reason why I didn't want to sit as a juror.

I wrote: "I don't like cops, don't trust them and never will."

Oops.
so they take me into the judges chambers and I am interrogated at this huge table with the judge and hordes of men in suits.
They hassled me for an hour. I was wondering who was on trial.

Then they let me go.

I am afraid this wacko jacko scenario is going to turn into another OJ trial.

I think it will be worse than the OJ trial.

A guilty man going free....nothing worse than that. Oh, you're right....if this bird goes free, there will be more victims....at least with OJ, he had only one axe to grind.
Actions like this freak produce serial killers and lots of messed up adults....they really have no idea how their freakazoid efforts affect society in the long run.

Forget innocent until proven guilty...that won't wash with me on this one.

Would-be Jackson jurors face 41 questions to check bias

SANTA MARIA, California : Potential jurors in Michael Jackson's child sex trial were quizzed on their positions on key issues in the case ranging from racism to their relationship to the star, a questionnaire showed Wednesday.

Some 250 prospective panelists had to complete the seven-page document after Jackson's trial formally got underway Monday with the process of selecting the 12 people who will ultimately decide the superstar's fate.

The litany of questions, compiled by prosecutors and defence lawyers, are aimed at detecting possible biases towards or against the star, accused of molesting a 13-year-old boy.

"Do you think your feelings about or experiences with people from different races might affect your ability to serve as a fair an impartial juror in this case?" jurors were asked in the case of the black star.

"Do you or any of your family members or close friends know Michael Jackson?" the residents of California's Santa Barbara County, the site of Jackson's Neverland Ranch, were asked.

In questions aimed at weeding out those with pre-conceived ideas who may be trying to get onto the jury to influence the outcome of the trial, would-be panelists were asked if they had seen or heard "anything" about the current accusations against Jackson or similar ones made in 1993.

They were also asked if they or any relative or close friend had ever been the victim of sexual abuse or "inappropriate sexual behavior" of any kind that could influence their partiality.

One question appeared to be aimed at testing prospevtive jurors' views to what is expected to be the main plank of Jackson's defence: portraying the family of his accuser as financial opportunists trying to extort the star.

"Have you or your family member ever made any claim for money damages?" question 28 asked.

Jackson, 46, has denied 10 charges, including molesting the boy at Neverland in February and March of 2003, plying him with alcohol and conspiracies to kidnap, falsely imprison and extort the boy and his family.

The trial was adjourned Tuesday to allow the rival lawyers to go through the questionnaires ahead of the scheduled grilling of the 250 prospective panelists retained in the case.

Jury selection in the trial, expected to take a total of about six months, is scheduled to take at least one month.

Both prosecutors and Jackson's team are jockeying to empanel jurors who are likely to take their side and have hired specialised jury consultants to help profile prospective panelists likely to help their cases.

- Channel News Asia

I think all these questions about race are kind of irrelevant. When I look at Michael Jackson I don't see a black man, I see white man (maybe a white woman. ). It's almost like I have forgotten that he used to be black.

when did criminal trials become more about proving someone's innocence than proving someone's guilt. Everyone's talking about them not having many arguments to get him off, but no one looks at what exactly is the evidence against him and how solid is it in reality.

Not "oh he paid someone off, so he must be guilty" and not "oh he admitted on tape he sleeps in the same room..." (or bed, I forget) "...with the boy in question". Not "he has some soiled underwear and homosexual and heterosexual porn." None of that really means squat, even when you do put it together. It will, in the end, come down to their word against his.

Anyway, you would think a pedophile would have kiddy porn somewhere. If he had had some, he would have been charged with that crime on top of what he's already on... so, sure, they will say that the accuser is a financial opportunist; but at the same time they'll display the evidence against him as frivolous, which it really seems to be.

I’m not saying my gut doesn’t tell me something’s up there, I’m just saying that the prosecution’s going to have to give their best on this. And with that Sneddon bloke hanging around, it really does just look like a somewhat personal vendetta.

PS. I never think of him as black either.

I have a personal vendetta against pedophiles too...I don't know many people who don't. (Hopefully the freak will learn that in jail the hard way)
I say skip the jury selection, opening statements, testimony, closing statements phases and go straight to the sentencing....give him the maximum penalty on all counts. IMO

The personal vendetta I mentioned is about Jackson not being tried 10 years ago. And it is unfair to call someone a pedophile until they are proved as such. So, yeah, good one, Judge Hathorne...

Too bad so sad.

I would.

I'd feel bad, but I want to go on the jury. I'd be as vague as possible, not neccessary lying, just not telling the whole truth. And that's not because I want to see him found guilty. I just want to hear the evidence and see what happens, that's more my motivation. My final verdict would be based on all the evidence with maybe a teeny bit of bias towards guilty.

PS: I know you weren't actually asking me, but I thought I'd answer anyway.

No, your answer is fair. I'm sure everyone they get on that jury will be already leaning one way or another. I wouldn't lie or omit details... I don't know if they'd actually pick me from that though. I guess as soon as they ask me if I buy his music and I say yes, the prosecution wouldn't want me to serve. As simple as that.

I wonder how many fans will be BSing through the jury selection process though. And how many people who simply hate the man are doing the same. I guess they'll come in equal numbers and balance each other out

Post number 5 simply tells us that you didn't want to sit on a DIFFERENT case, so you said you didn't like cops.

Gabo's query is about whether you would intentionally lie to get on the Michael Jackson jury, solely for the purpose of finding Michael guilty.

Maybe you should read Gabo's signature

Ah, indeed. I did read that yesterday. So it's not exactly luck that you're not on his jury, as you said earlier It'd be a miracle if you were actually on the jury, somehow.

PS. Your signature is a nice quote. It tells me that when everyone's full of crap, to tell the truth is revolutionary. Wonderful. Doesn't tell me squat about you though. Obviously you didn't read my signature either

2+2=4
25,000,000 = 25,000,000

Follow the bread crumbs Hansel....

and point your "brilliant" deductive skills at the man/boy/it/freak with the target on his back....
I sure don't want to steal any of his thunder.

Glad you know Math. What it has to do with anything is beyond any of us, but I'm sure it makes sense somewhere in that mind of yours.

And the breadcrumbs... yes, breadcrumbs. We call that "evidence" that's a very technical name for breadcrumbs, so maybe we'll just stick with calling them crumbs. Unfortunately there aren’t as many crumbs as you would like, and think they'd have, which is unfortunate. Getting to the beyond a shadow of a doubt (which we will call "the gingerbread house" from this point on) point will be quite difficult for the prosecution ("witch"). The fact that it will solely come down to the boy's word against Michael's (who we will call Peter Pan from this point on, for obvious reasons), isn't good for the witch's case. The mother is set to testify, but her image has already been tainted, and I don't think will improve any as the case progresses. So, like I said, the boy vs. Mr. Pan, and if they can find any of the other "lost boys", I guess they'll be testifying against him too. But we'll see about that. Point is, so far, you've just believed everything you're force-fed from the media.

I know it's hard to believe, but you are allowed to think for yourself, and you are entitled to hear all the facts before you make a decision on someone's guilt. If you don't want to hear facts about a pedophile case, that's great, you'll probably live longer for avoid it, really... but that makes you a lesser authority on the subject, and definitely revokes your right to make judgments.

This means I am rolling my eyes at you.

Your whining, complaining, and otherwise crybaby behavior is getting to be over the top

I am here for "intelligent" discussion. You bore me.

These indicate how very bored I am with you and how you put me to sleep with your nonsensical ranting and flaming....that really have no bearing on the thread at hand.

No soup for you....into the black hole you go. (Oh, since I am having to spell everything out for you, "black hole" = ignore

Have a nice day!

All right. Everyone take a deep breath and relax. This subject matter will bring out strong emotions. We all need to respect the other posters rights to have a differing opinion without flaming. Before any of you start pointing fingers, read back and see where it started. I do not want to see any more posts like the last few. Personal attacks will be removed from now on.

someone said I don't give intelligent discussion

Actually, stuff it; I haven't made THAT many personal attacks. Maybe one or two, I forget. If I did, I really didn't mean to and was probably retaliating for something else. So I'm gonna continue, ignored or not. (I like to have the last word, so this makes it easier )

For one, intelligent discussion about a criminal case, to most, constitutes arguing facts or evidence that may or may not be presented, as well as the basic principals of law. I feel I was doing that, only to be met with hostility, and otherwise condescending and demeaning comments.

I don't recall acting like a cry baby at any point. If my over-confidence in the American justice system is a point that makes me seem like a crybaby, that's understandable. I, for some reason, like to believe the "truth" does come out in court, whether a person is guilty or not. But as I said, I don't pre-judge people.

I also got accused of nonsensical ranting. Post 26, yes, I'll agree with that, but I was just following the flow of what the thread seemed to become after posts 24 and 25. Breadcrumbs and mathematics.

yes, rolling eyes back at cha.

If I knew MJ personally, he'd creep me out too I can't stand looking at photos of him even

I know what you mean, so many guilty people get off, perhaps many innocents go to jail too (but maybe less likely). I just think by listening to what comes out in the course of the trial, you'll get a pretty clear picture. Usually

I plan on following this trial, which is something I don't really do often. If you will be too mystic, perhaps you could help me find the best sources for transcripts or whatever; we don't have court TV or anything like it...

I havent been able to follow this trial at all...I kind of depend on Schmiggens' news to find out whats been going on. Ive been so damn busy lately.

I will look around this weekend and see if I can get my hands on the transcripts for ya....if I can..you will have to give me the rundown on whats been going on!!

Michael Jackson jury selection continues

SANTA MARIA, California (Reuters) - Jury selection are set to resume in Michael Jackson's child molestation trial as prosecutors and defence lawyers begin the painstaking process of carefully questioning each prospective juror.

Superior Court Judge Rodney Melville, who two weeks ago settled on a pool of about 240 people able to serve on a six-month trial, was expected to summon 113 of them to the courthouse in Santa Maria for formal jury selection on Monday, known as voir dire.

Melville must swear in 12 jurors to sit through the trial and ultimately decide Jackson's fate. The judge also wants eight alternates who would take over for any jurors dismissed during the sensational trial.

With Jackson watching from the defence table, prosecutors and defence attorneys will take turns questioning members of the jury pool on their familiarity with the 46-year-old pop star and the child molestation charges against him.

The lawyers will be guided in part by a seven-page questionnaire, filled out by all 242 pool members, which revealed that many of the jury candidates have heard about the case and many have friends or family who know Jackson.

Legal experts say jury selection -- which many lawyers believe can often determine if a trial is won or lost -- may be especially critical in the Jackson case and complicated by the singer's worldwide fame.

Both sides must be wary of so-called "stealth" jurors who may have an agenda to convict or acquit Jackson and may be less than candid during voir dire because they want a seat during the trial.

Some legal experts saw red flags when more than half of those summoned to the Jackson trial said they were willing and able to serve, a remarkably high number for a child molestation case that was expected to last six months.

Legal experts say, prosecutors will look for jurors who are older, conservative, less taken with celebrity, willing to accept authority and appalled by child molestation.

Jackson's attorneys may look for more liberal jurors who have advanced degrees, critical thinkers who question authority.

Jackson is charged in a 10-count Santa Barbara County Grand Jury indictment with molesting a boy at his Neverland Valley Ranch and with conspiring to commit child abduction, extortion and false imprisonment. He has pleaded not guilty.

Jurors quizzed by Jacko lawyers

Jury selection has resumed in Michael Jackson's child molestation trial as prosecutors and defense lawyers begin the painstaking process of carefully questioning each prospective juror.

Superior Court Judge Rodney Melville, who two weeks ago settled on a pool of about 240 people able to serve on a six-month trial, was expected to summon 113 of them to the courthouse in Santa Maria for formal jury selection, known as voir dire.

Melville must swear in 12 jurors to sit through the trial and ultimately decide Jackson's fate.

The judge also wants eight alternates who would take over for any jurors dismissed during the sensational trial.

With Jackson watching from the defense table, prosecutors and defense attorneys will take turns questioning members of the jury pool on their familiarity with the 46-year-old pop star and the child molestation charges against him.

Complicated by fame

The lawyers will be guided in part by a seven-page questionnaire, filled out by all 242 pool members, which revealed that many of the jury candidates have heard about the case and many have friends or family who know Jackson.

Legal experts say jury selection - which many lawyers believe can often determine if a trial is won or lost - may be especially critical in the Jackson case and complicated by the singer's worldwide fame.

Both sides must be wary of so-called "stealth" jurors who may have an agenda to convict or acquit Jackson and may be less than candid during voir dire because they want a seat during the trial.

Some legal experts saw red flags when more than half of those summoned to the Jackson trial said they were willing and able to serve, a remarkably high number for a child molestation case that was expected to last six months.

Legal experts say, prosecutors will look for jurors who are older, conservative, less taken with celebrity, willing to accept authority and appalled by child molestation.

Jackson's attorneys may look for more liberal jurors who have advanced degrees, critical thinkers who question authority.

Jackson is charged in a 10-count Santa Barbara County Grand Jury indictment with molesting a boy at his Neverland Valley Ranch and with conspiring to commit child abduction, extortion and false imprisonment. He has pleaded not guilty

- Daily Mail

Family Life Could Influence Jackson Case

SANTA MARIA, Calif. - Four out of every five prospective jurors in the Michael Jackson (news) trial are parents, a fact that could influence how they view charges that the pop star molested a teenage boy, as well as the accuser's credibility.

Of 242 potential jurors, 189 have children, according to an Associated Press analysis of juror questionnaires.

Legal experts said the large number of parents could cut either way for the singer: Parents with young children might be especially upset by the allegations, but they may also believe, based on their own experiences, that children can be dishonest.

"The ones with younger children may have a gut reaction that this could happen to my children, and that could make the defense very nervous," said Laurie Levenson, a Loyola Law School professor.

Jackson, 46, is charged Santa Barbara County Superior Court with molesting a teenage boy and plying him with alcohol at his Neverland Ranch. He also is accused of conspiring to hold the boy and his family captive.

Defense attorney Thomas Mesereau asked prospective jurors last week whether they believed young witnesses could be encouraged to lie, possibly setting up a defense argument that the accuser's mother is pulling his strings.

Jurors' answers depended largely on their experiences as parents. Some recounted their children's elaborate explanations for missed curfews, while others said children tend to tell the truth.

"If it benefits them, they might twist it a little bit," said Juror No. 80, who has two adult children.

"I was a homemaker, and I spent my time teaching mine not to lie," said Juror No. 89, who has four adult children and said they were honest.

Legal analysts said parenthood will be an important factor because parental instincts are so strong, shining even through the rigid format of juror questionnaires. One woman wrote of her 4-year-old, in response to a question about her children's occupations, "He's my baby."

Another juror expressed concern about Jackson's past behavior, which has included letting children sleep in his room. "Having three children of my own, I am very sensitive to any type of child abuse," Juror No. 40 wrote in her questionnaire.

Of course, parenthood isn't the only characteristic that makes jurors more agreeable to one side or the other in jury selection. Attorneys will scrutinize every aspect of each person's background.

Although her faith in children's honesty might ingratiate Juror No. 89 to prosecutors, the defense might like her because she, like Jackson, is black — especially since the jury pool is mostly white, and polls have found that whites are far more likely than blacks to think Jackson is guilty.

As attorneys try to whittle the jury pool down to 12 jurors and eight alternates, each side can challenge an unlimited number of jurors for any signs of bias and reject 10 jurors without cause. Jury selection was delayed last week when Jackson was hospitalized with the flu but was scheduled to resume Tuesday.

Of the potential jurors who are parents, 98 have children under 18, according to the questionnaires. That's two out of five total prospects.

Fifteen prospective jurors have sons who are either 15, like the accuser, or 13, the accuser's age at the time of the alleged molestation.

With so many parents in the jury pool, Jackson's lawyers will have to accept several on the jury, said Jean Rosenbluth, a University of Southern California law professor. That means they will have to pick jurors who may be favorable to their client in some other way.

"Some of those folks might have had their children go to Neverland on a school trip and might have had a positive experience and a good time," Rosenbluth said. "Or they might be parents who have small children, which might not be a good thing for the defense, but they might be Michael Jackson fans or skeptical of the charges."

Twenty-nine of the 98 prospects with minor children — almost one in three — answered yes on the questionnaire when asked if they have ever known anyone who has met Jackson or been to Neverland.

Jackson's lawyers can also try to connect with parents by reminding them that Jackson is a parent, too. Among the hundreds of people listed as possible defense witnesses last week were Jackson's daughter Paris and son Prince Michael.

- Yahoo News

I think that it's a fair comment to be worried about how parents will view this, obviously parent's are going to find this behaviour an absolute abomination. Even responses from the general public, you'll find that more parents think he is a sicko than don't.

But it raises the question, Michael Jackson is a parent, wouldn't he see child abuse and molestation as an abomination as well?

I think plenty of child abusers/molesters are parents themselves, so I don't think other parents would view Jackson any differently if he weren't a parent. To be honest, they probably wouldn't think about him at all, simply about the victim.

I do also think parents would more readily accept someone as being a child molester; but that's not to say I think they should be excused from the Jury for that reason. However, if every juror was a parent, he'd be doomed. Doomed!