From the BBC
So she was actually at liberty when she says she was captive. So why is the trial continuing?
For one thing, the kidnapping charge isn’t the only charge against Jackson.
It’s the jury’s job to decide which evidence to credit and which to disbelieve. Why would the case be thrown out?
–Cliffy
Because Jackson is a celebrity, and although it doesn’t appear (so far) as if he has done anything actually illegal, his actions certainly qualify for a high “eeewwww” factor.
The most likely reason that the Jackson case has not been dismissed is the reason Cliffy gave: that weighing the evidence and the credibility of the witnesses is the province of the jury. The judge is not about to take it away from them. Moreover, even if this were a slam-dunk no-brainer that Jackson ought to be acquitted (I offer no opinion on this point), the judge is going to send it to the jury anyway at this point; I’ve seen no basis on which the court could dismiss the case at this juncture. In my opinion, Jackson’s celebrity is not an issue in this calculus; the issue, rather, is the law.
There is the concept of a “directed verdict,” where the judge declares the defendant to be not guilty without the case ever going to the jury. This is only done if the prosecutor’s case is so flimsy that no reasonable jury could ever convict the defendant anyway.
While I personally don’t believe that the child abuse charges have been proven, I can see how some of Jackson’s conduct is so far beyond the pale that a jury might decide otherwise. The charge of kidnapping, however, is so ludicrous that it definitely should have been thrown out by now.
Agreed. The prosicution must first make it’s case agaisnt MJ. Then MJ has his chance to answer the charges. Why would he give up his defense now and not tell his side, espicially if he feels he is innocent? :rolleyes: To have it thrown out now would be admitting that he paid them off, not something MJ wants . . .
Well, I disagree. As Diceman said, the judge can grant a directed verdict after the prosecution presents its case (and before the defense begins) if the prosecution has failed to carry its burden to make a prima facie case. Once the prosecution has done so, however, the case ought to go to the jury. Here, the defense moved for a directed verdict, and the judge denied the motion. (I’m assuming he denied it, rather than take it under submission.) Had the case been “thrown out” after the prosecution’s case, that would have been a clear signal that the prosecution lacked sufficient evidence to show that Jackson acted illegally – precisely the same message that will be sent if the jury acquits him. So, frankly, it would have been to Jackson’s benefit to have a directed verdict granted to him at the end of the prosecution’s case. Even if Jackson were to “pay off” the complaining witness, that would not affect the state’s ability to continue prosecuting Jackson for the purported crime.
Just to clarify. MJ believes that he is not only “not guilty”, but that he is “Innocenct”. He dearly wants to put all of this behind him and does not want to ask the court to throw the case now “at this time” since the prosicution has already made its case. It may may have benifited him earlier in the proceddings, but now he has to ride it out. The medias opion is worth just as much to him (if not more) than a juries verdict. IMHO.
If the jury does convict the judge can still set aside the guilty verdict and enter a not guilty verdict if he finds that jury’s verdict had no basis in law. But the prosecution can appeal that without violating double jeopardy since they’d only be asking the appelate court to reinstate the jury’s original verdict. If the jury finds him not guilty it would be almost impossible for them to appeal.
When did this testimony take place? Wouldn’t a judge wait until cross-examination of any testimony before throwing out a case?
Because, as others have pointed out earlier in this thread, a judge can’t just “throw out” a case. That’s the language the media uses to make it all seem more dramatic, but in a jury trial the judge’s role is clearly defined. The judge can only intervene at certain stages.
First, there’s the pre-trial stages. Exactly how that works will vary from jurisdicition to jurisdiction, but usually there is a preliminary stage where the defence can test the prosecution’s case. If there is a serious deficiency in the case because one of the elements of the case isn’t supported by any evidence, a judge may refuse to allow the case to go to trial - but the test normally is “no evidence on Point A”, rather than “weak evidence”.
So it goes to trial. The prosecution leads its case. The judge may be asked to rule from time to time on procedural points, or on the admissiiblity of evidence, but the judge can’t suddenly say “I’m pitching this case because that witness’s testimony was just not believable.” The prosecution quite reasonably could object, because they haven’t finished their case yet, and they may have another witness to come whose testimony will fit together with the first witness’s testimony and make the case. And in any event, it’s not the judge’s job to assess the credibility of a witness - that’s the exclusive preserve of the jury.
So it’s not until the prosecution closes its case that there’s a role for the judge. The defence can ask for a directected verdict of acquittal. However, the judge still isn’t able to assess witnessess and their credibility. The usual test (YMMV, depending on the law in a particular jurisdiciton) for a directed verdict is that there is no evidence on a particular point that is essential for a conviction. Again, it’s not a test based on the credibility of a particular witness. Maybe a witness looked like a lying scumbag as he fingered the accused while testifying. That’s not enough for a directed verdict, because it’s up to the jury to decide if they should beleive that witness. If there is some evidence in support of each element of the offence, the judge has to let the matter proceed.
So then the defence starts their case. Again, the judge has no power to “throw out” based on the evidence of a single witness, for the same reasons as with the prosecution: the judge has to let the defence lead their full case, because what looks like a weak point initially may get strengthened from the testimony of other witnesses, and in any event, it’s the jury’s job to decide whether or not to believe a particular witness.
So, getting back to the OP, there’s a reference to one piece of testimony from one witness. Taken in isolation, it may seem determinative, but we’re not there in the court room and didn’t see that witness testify. We have no idea how believable that witness was. It may be that her testimony will in fact sway the jury. It could also be that the jurors in their deliberations will unanimously agree that that witness was lying and set her evidence aside. That’s their job, not the judge’s.
Increasingly, this begins to resemble somebody’s blackmail scheme.
I’m sure that the defense did ask for one or more charges to be thrown out when they started their case. Sadly I can’t find a decent link to which charges these were. IIRC they argued that the prosecution had failed to prove at least one of the charges.
IANAL and this could be standard tactics for all I know.
Greta and her ‘panel’ would be out of work. (TIC)
Not to get on my soapbox again, but this is why it is absolutely critical to our system of justice that every person, guilty or innocent, get a vigorous defense.
I agree with Northern Piper, with one qualification: typically, the test for a directed verdict is not “no evidence” on a particular point but “insufficient evidence from which a reasonable jury could find” that particular point. In practice, however, that comes out to be “no evidence.”
(Lord, forgiveme for weighing in on this)
There are indications that he provided alcohol to children. I’m predicting that this is the one charge that will stick.
Thanks - I’m somewhat enlightened. I think that in the U.K., a judge would have thrown the case out.
He charged with giving alcohol to children in order to commit a lewd act. If the jury doesn’t fing he commited a lewd act they can’t find him guilty of the alcohol violation.
I don’t know much about British law. Why do you think the case would have been thrown out?