They never say the jury was ignorant even though the prosecution helped pick a jury favorable to them by kicking off people whose relatives were previously charged or convicted of crimes, or other reason why they wouldn’t be “fair” (meaning: they might actually hold the State to their burden).

Maybe I’m the only criminal defense atty reading this but it seems to me the main of this argument is that the celebrities are always guilty and thus any acquittal is the result of scum bag defense attorneys or ignorant juries. It’s more remarkable because Dafydd began his post by noting there were legitimate reasons for the Jackson acquittal.

I’ll give you O.J. That was a joke. No doubt about it. I don’t, however, think it was a because he was a celebrity I think it was because he was black and the jury was going to give him a pass no matter what.

What all the three main CA celebrity trials have in common is less the celebrity nature of the defendant and more the resources they had. OJ was able to hire a team of lawyers that your average defendant would not. Blake too was able not just to hire a good lawyer but a great private investigator who was able to dig up dirt on his wife. Not coincidently, Jackson hired the same PI to dig up the dirt on the mother as well as hiring a team of great lawyers.

The celebrities may be getting off not because a jury won’t convict celebrities but because celebrities are able to hire lawyers and PI’s disproportionate to the average defendant and thus get better legal representation to expose the weaknesses in the State’s case.

When a celebrity is involved, the jury becomes totally uninterested in the facts of the case or any logical argument. Instead it’s all emotion - if the celebrity is successfully demonized a conviction can be secured. If the prosecution plays it straight and the media whitewashes the star the jury will vote not guilty every time.

Evidence? Ha! Any size mountain of evidence will be dismissed. And afterwards the pundits try to find some incident, some turning point, “if it doesn’t fit you must acquit” or the finger shaking or whatever. But even this is an admission that the weeks and weeks of evidence meant nothing and the verdict turns on some catchy slogan or offhand insult - if it wasn’t pre-decided from the first day.

But remove the celebrity, and suddenly the jury gets sensible, even when the evidence is much less that in these cases. Scott Petersen shows that.

Heh, Stu707… first the guest bloggers’ posts are mistaken for Patterico’s — and now Patterico’s comments are mistaken for a guest blogger’s!

It was he, not I, who wrote “misdemeanors,” referring (correctly) to two other cases. I wrote “relatively trivial.”

Here is the demarkation point for me: an offense is relatively trivial, whether misdemeanor or felony, if you can find the accused guilty without finding him evil.

If someone is found guilty of armed robbery, kidnapping, rape, serious arson, molestation, murder, or even attempted murder or mayhem, most folks would say he was evil; finding someone guilty of shoplifting — or even lying to an investigator over an underlying crime that was never even charged — doesn’t cause people to think him evil… just stupid, crazy, addicted, or frightened.

Juries today are not afraid to admit that celebrities are flawed and “need help;” I’ve seen no evidence they’re willing to say any of them is evil. The best example is the OJ trial: anyone would have been charged under that weight of evidence; and in any non-celebrity trial, even Johnny Cochran could not have secured an acquittal.

That result required celebrity.

Dafydd

Might I suggest that the reverse is true in that a celebrity has a greater chance of being charged with a serious crime where a non-celebrity would not. I can’t speak for CA, but here in Chicago I doubt a non-celebrity would’ve been charged based on the evidence in the Kobe Bryant or Michael Jackson.

Kobe’s case would’ve been reviewed by a prosecutor whow would’ve called it a he said - she said and rejected felony charges. The police would’ve filed misdemeanor battery charges against him. That happens quite frequently here. Also, people are less likely to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars on a dream team of lawyers for a simple pot or shoplifting case.

Michael Jackson’s case also based on the evidence would’ve probably not been charged although it’s a closer case.

One of the only reasons R.Kelly was charged here was because it was on videotape. Otherwise, I doubt he’d have been charged.

I wonder if a local DA worries that if they don’t charge a celebrity they’ll be called to account for why the celebrity got a pass. Thus, they take weaker cases than they should.