The Michael Jackson court case starts today, and while I don't want to get bogged down on this case in particular, it raises a few questions about whether anybody in the public eye can ever get a fair trial.
A big part of the process is selecting the jury. Out of a pool of several hundred people, twelve have to be selected who can demonstrate that they'll be impartial. There are questions over whether this is open to fraud, and even when the jury is finally chosen some are concerned that it could be 'nobbled'.
When the "12 men of virtue true" are selected, the defence can actually decide not to include people in that group for any reason they see fit. The defence will naturally pick those people they think will help their defendant's case. Isn't the Ratio Decendii suppposed to be published along with the rest of the trial. Admittedly if anything was added in the obiter dictum then that would be inadmissable as evidence, but a retrial can be called in a higher court surely?
However it seems that many people have already made their minds up. I've heard comments ranging from "oh there's no way he touched those kids" to "it's so obvious he's guilty". And these aren't just from celebrity obsessed nutcases, they're from friends of mine who I thought knew better than to judge someone on the strength of some media reports.
It's guaranteed that once the trial stars there will be unprecedented coverage in the tabloids and gossip magazines, both in the USA and beyond, I wonder what steps will be taken to ensure that none of this opinion reaches the courtroom. The trial is likely to be protracted, so will the jury be properly isolated from the brouhaha which is bound to ensue.
The Jackson case is exceptional because the allegations are so serious, and becuase he's one of the most famous people on the planet; but can anybody (in)famous ever get a truly fair trial?
And can I have a gold star for using the word 'brouhaha' in my post?
No comments:
Post a Comment