 |
16th
June 2005, The Scotsman
WASN'T it dramatic as Sky TV announced that the jury had reached
their verdicts after more than 30 hours of deliberations in
the Michael Jackson trial?
It certainly made good viewing, blighted only by Sky's "maximum
time to verdict clock" which failed to take into account
the speed of the wheels of justice.
Following ten not guilty verdicts, there was of course a media
circus. That is not unique to America and it is not unknown
for those representing the accused in the UK to make comments.
It is, after all, their moment of glory.
The true extent of the differences in our two systems become
abundantly clear when the jurors gave their reasons to the assembled
press for reaching the verdicts - as the practice is alien to
the British systems of justice.
|
|
The
jury of eight women and four men said there had simply not been
enough evidence for a guilty verdict: "We had a closet
full of evidence that always came back to the same thing - it
was not enough."
They talked to reporters about how they had treated Jackson
like any other individual, not as a celebrity, how they spent
a lot of time really seriously studying the evidence and looking
at the testimony and jury instructions, and how no single piece
of evidence stood out above any other.
Just like any jury across the world there were things that annoyed
them. In particular jurors found Janet Arvizo "intimidating"
as she snapped her fingers at them while giving evidence. An
elderly juror said: "She did not take her eyes off us.
That was very intimidating." They didn't like Arvizo, on
whom the prosecution case hinged.
It doesn't matter if you are in the High Court in Glasgow or
a courthouse in California, some things will get a jury's hackles
up. It's just in this country they don't say what they were,
because they can't. The Contempt of Court Act 1981 makes it
a criminal offence to obtain, disclose or solicit any particulars
of statements made, opinions expressed, arguments advanced or
votes cast by members of a jury in the course of their deliberations
in any legal proceedings.
|
|
Perhaps
the best insight we got from the jury was that they "expected
better evidence". They were waiting for a smoking gun which
simply wasn't there.
Even without that better evidence, jury foreman Paul Rodriguez
said jurors were very troubled that Jackson, by his own admission,
had sleep-overs with children. Another said that she was troubled
by the singer's behaviour and one juror, Raymond Hultman, told
CNN he felt "Michael Jackson probably has molested boys"
but the evidence presented was insufficient to convict him.
Would that not amount to a not proven verdict in Scotland? Perhaps
"that bastard verdict" is alive and well in California.
With book deals in the offing, one juror said: "It has
not been easy. My wife says I do not smile any more." I
can't wait for him to raise an action over that.
|
|
