Michael Pollak
> ok, on the one hand, it shouldn't matter to a juror that the mother of
> the accuser is irritating.
Waitasecond. The jury didn't not trust her for trivial reasons. They thought, on very reasonable grounds, that there was a substantial chance that she was a crook who was lying -- or even pimping her son -- with the express purpose of shaking MJ down.
http://slate.msn.com/id/2120812/
That's not mindless. That's very material to the issue of reasonable doubt.
Michael
^^^^ CB: Agree , Michael. I was thinking the same thing.
If I might add one more step to your argument: And the jury thereby may not have believed the _boy's_ testimony that Jackson had molested him. The mother's congame conduct contributed to undermining the credibility of the boy's testimony , which is the direct evidence of the crime that Jackson was charged with. If it was a congame, it could have included the boy lying. If they doubt the boy's words, there's reasonable doubt on a fact the prosecution must prove.