Probably just the difference between different jurisdictions - agree that it likely comes to much the same thing.
That rather surprises me, since the Canadian system that I described above is based on the English criminal procedure. Could you explain when a judge in the English system is allowed to take a case away from the jury, based on the judge’s assessment of one witness’s evidence, before all the case is in?
It is a standard tactic. In fact, failure to move for a directed verdict at the close of the prosecution’s case may mean a waiver of the ability to appeal based on insufficient evidence …
My understanding of the nature of things is that Jackson does fit a pattern common among men who abuse boys–namely the ‘Peter Pan’ like infatuation with juvenilia and the continued association with boys. But the jury may not believe that fitting a pattern is, in itself, adequate grounds for conviction. Even if he is convicted, he might have grounds for appeal on that basis. However, IANAL, so please take my observations with a large grain of salt.
Simply because her being a liar and one of the main prosecution witnesses renders her testimony moot and undermines the whole case.
Based on one statement clipped from a news item, you’ve decided that she is lying, and that that single lie is sufficient to knock out the entire case. How do you know that the jury will agree with your assessment? How do you know that there is no other explanation for that clip?
Perhaps the jury will look at the alleged evidence saying that she was making those purchases and decided it’s been cooked up by the defence, or that she was allowed out but was kept under heavy surveillance at the time. I’m not saying that’s the case, since I’ve not been following the matter. I’m just saying that only those on the jury, who hear all the evidence in person and can assess the credibilty of everyone who testifies, can truly judge this case.
By the way, can you respond to my earlier inquiry as to what procedure exists in English law to allow the judge to intervene part way through the case to take it away from the jury, based on a single piece of evidence relating to the credibility of a witness?
In the US, a criminal is constitutionally guaranteed the right to a trial by jury. The jury is the “finder of fact,” that is, the jury is vested with the right of determining all facts relative to the crime. The judge will tell the jury what the law is, but the jury has to determine what the facts are, apply them to the law, and render a verdict. So, in the US, it’s the jury’s province to determine whether she is a liar and, if so, whether those lies render her testimony incredible and thereby undermine the whole case.
Clearly, there are at least a handful of people who think that she is not a liar and that her testimony is truthful, damning, and ought to be believed. If there were not, the prosecution would not have called her as a witness. Yes, they’re biased, but they still have ethical obligations to the court not to mislead the court or deliberately put on false testimony. In addition, there were at least elements of her testimony that were unquestionably truthful. I offer no opinion as to what those elements were. In addition, parts of her testimony were corroborated by others’ testimony. So at the end of the day, was it reasonable for the judge to permit the jury to hear her testimony? Yes.
If she’s a liar that undermines the whole case, the jury should be able to see that. In fact, they’ll be able to see it better than we, because they actually saw all her testimony, while we have to rely for our opinions on “news” articles written by people who haven’t the faintest clue about criminal procedure or trial strategy, so make nonsensical statements like, “that testimony was so powerful that the prosecution did not even cross-examine the witness.” Sorry, but if the prosecution didn’t cross, it’s because they felt they didn’t get hurt. You don’t just let bad testimony go unrebutted.
A US judge is pretty unlikely to throw out a case based on a credibility issue. If there is testimony that supports all of the elements of the charges the motion will probably be denied. As Campion has pointed out, the standard is not whether any evidence exists, but whether sufficient evidence exists. But a dispute about the credibility of a witness is generally not enough to tip the scales:
*
E.g.,*
http://www.lawskills.com/case/ga/id/26675/
http://courtofappeals.mijud.net/Digest/newHTML/17382021.htm
http://162.114.92.72/coa/2003-CA-000356.pdf
If the rule were otherwise, the judge would be taking the credibility decision from the jury and telling them which witnesses to believe.
On waiver of sufficiency challenge by failure to move for directed verdict, see
BTW, a slightly more cynical, less doctrinal answer to the OP.
Many trial judges are reluctant to grant directed verdicts of acquittal. Why? Because there is little risk in denying the motion. The denial is not immediately appealable, but can be raised in an appeal from the conviction. The grant of a directed verdict of acquittal is never appealable, which actually cuts against granting the motion. If the judge grants the motion, that’s it. And the judge will be subject to criticism. If the judge does not, the jury might acquit, and if the judge still feels like the evidence was iinsufficient, the judge can get the same result through post-verdict orders.
I have not been keeping up up with all of the recent details but I was under the impression that her children were still at the ranch while these outings occurred. As to their “hostage” status I am unaware of the details of her testimony. Much of this case is walking a very fine line between perception of situations and fact. Was someone with her on this shopping trip? Was this person an employee of Jackson? If it was an employee of Jackson, what were his instructions with regard to this task?
If she was free to move about without supervision why didn’t she contact law enforcement? Any decent sized police department understands that situations like this can be messy and could insert an undercover police officer posing as a mom or wire a mom to collect information about verbal exchanges that might take place.
Without the answer to many ugly questions its pretty much a huge case of MJ’s word vs. moms. When multiple families all start telling similar stories you get a pattern of behavior that could indicate criminal activity. Of course scrutinizing the life of someone like MJ who lives behind layer after layer of staff and security systems is difficult under the best of circumstances. It would probably take serious professional work to successfully bug neverland without getting caught or bugs circumvented. Someplace the size of the ranch could also easily conceal countless hidey holes and non obvious rooms that could be missed even by a thorough search and still be used for discussions behind closed doors where the bugs would not be able to pick up.
I will stop with the rambling and conjecture since for all we know…nothing like this exists on his property. If I were in his shoes and messing with little kids I would have just these sorts of things to hide myself, evidence, kids, whatever. Imagine a criminal with the resources of a charachter like Bruce Wayne/Batman and this kind of thing is not hard to imagine.