US: Jurors deciding Michael Jackson's fate in Santa Maria, California, are grappling with voluminous and complicated legal instructions, some of which would flummox even a seminar of law students, experts have said, report Stuart Pfeifer and Henry Weinstein
The jurors were handed the highly unusual task of deciding two sets of molestation allegations by very different legal standards. First, they must determine if it is more likely than not that Jackson molested children in the early 1990s. Then they must determine by a much more stringent standard - beyond a reasonable doubt - whether he molested a 13- year-old cancer patient in 2003.
The jury is also supposed to view a videotape of the 13-year- old divulging his alleged molestation to detectives, not to determine if his story is true, but to decide if he had been coached to deliver a false accusation.
The mental gymnastics the court is demanding from jurors strikes some observers as difficult, if not impossible.
"The average person is not used to making the fine distinctions the law is asking them to make," said Craig Smith, a former Santa Barbara County prosecutor who has been following the Jackson trial as a legal analyst.
The jury completed its first full day of deliberations on Monday and resumed discussions yesterday. Jackson is charged with molesting a 13-year-old cancer survivor in 2003, attempting to molest him, plying him with alcohol to seduce him and conspiring to hold his family captive.
Santa Barbara Superior Court judge Rodney Melville charged jurors with 98 pages of legal instructions before they retired to decide the case.
Jackson's jury comes from a varied educational background: three jurors hold graduate degrees, one has a bachelor's degree, two have community college degrees and six hold high-school diplomas with some or no college experience.
Jurors typically are asked to navigate complicated legal theories and fact sets, but the intellectual legerdemain the court is asking of the Jackson jury troubles some experts.
Under a California law, prosecutors were allowed to present evidence that Jackson molested other boys a decade ago in order to show that the singer displayed a pattern of sexually exploiting children.
Jurors were asked to decide whether these previous molestations took place by a "preponderance of the evidence" - a standard ordinarily reserved for civil cases in which money, not a man's liberty, is at stake. Preponderance of the evidence is also defined as more likely than not.
Once they arrive at an answer, jurors were told to apply it to decide "beyond a reasonable doubt" - a higher standard of proof typically used to decide to send someone to prison - whether Jackson sexually abused the 13-year-old cancer survivor after plying him with alcohol.
Loyola University law professor Laurie Levenson, who has followed the case closely, worries that the instruction might lead jurors to apply the more likely-than-not standard to the case before them, as well as to the old accusations.
Veteran Los Angeles defence lawyer Harland Braun also said he found that instruction disturbing. "It makes no logical sense to prove something by a preponderance of the evidence and that becomes the critical evidence to prove a defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt," he said.
On the other hand, Kent Scheidegger, legal director of the Criminal Justice Legal Foundation in Sacramento, saw no problem with the instruction.
He said it was "fairly common" for jurors to consider evidence that has not been proved beyond a reasonable doubt as they move toward an ultimate decision under a higher standard.
In recent years, the California Supreme Court twice has upheld the jury instruction requiring that the sex offenders' prior bad acts be proven by a preponderance of the evidence. In 2003 the court unanimously affirmed the conviction of Rodney D Reliford on charges of forcible rape and sexual penetration by a foreign object. During Reliford's trial, prosecutors in Los Angeles presented evidence that Reliford previously had been convicted of assault with intent to commit rape. Jurors were told if they considered it more likely than not that Reliford committed sexual assault in 1991, they "may, but are not required to, infer that the defendant had a disposition to commit the same or similar offences".
Reliford's defence lawyers contended that the instruction was likely to mislead jurors. The California Supreme Court disagreed.
Justice Marvin Baxter wrote that the "the instruction nowhere tells the jury it may rest a conviction solely on evidence of prior offences".
There is one important distinction between Jackson's case and Reliford's. Jackson has never been convicted of anything, including child molestation. Some experts say the instruction in Jackson's case could be grounds for an appeal.
Santa Rosa defence lawyer Thomas Lundy, who publishes a newsletter on cases involving California jury instructions, said he believed that the California Supreme Court rulings may not be the last word on the issue.
If Jackson is found guilty, a federal appeals court could strike down the conviction if it found that the instruction violated Jackson's right to a fair trial, he said.
The jury was also instructed to consider a videotape of the accuser telling sheriff's deputies about his alleged abuse. However, jurors are to view it not for "the truth of the matter" but rather to assess the boy's demeanour during the interview, specifically whether he appeared to have been coached to falsely accuse Jackson.
The defence contends the boy's mother is a known grifter who scripted her son to go after Jackson so the family could sue him later.
Levenson suggested the distinction the court is drawing is nonsensical. "How do you divorce what he is saying from how he is saying it?" she asked.
Former San Francisco County prosecutor Jim Hammer, a legal analyst for the Jackson trial, agreed. "Once words are out there, it's hard to disregard them," he said. "I'm not sure jurors can do that."
If the jurors are tripped up by the legal instructions, they would not be alone. The state Judicial Council is in the midst of a lengthy process of rewriting jury instructions into simpler, everyday language.
"In my experience, half of the questions [ from deliberating juries] had to do with jury instructions," said Hammer.
"They're cumbersome, complicated and too wordy. A group of law students would have a hard time understanding what they mean."
- (Los Angeles Times-Washington Post service)