Michael Jackson and acquitted conduct

For those who argue that acquitted conduct is not really "innocent," I wonder what you think of this?

The use of acquitted conduct as a basis for enhancing punishments remains the sentencing issue that won’t go away. A spate of recent decisions and articles once again brings to the fore the controversy over a practice that already once reached the Supreme Court – where, in United States v. Watts, it was approved – at a time when the guidelines were still mandatory. The August edition of the ABA Journal, here, prominently features Doug Berman, who is quoted as stating that the constitutionality of the practice has been called into question anew by the Court’s more recent sentencing decisions. The article discusses United States v. Hurn, a case in which a drug defendant’s guideline exposure was raised from 27-33 months to 16-20 years on the basis of distribution counts of which he was acquitted. The Supreme Court denied the cert petition, which Doug helped draft.

An article in The Washington Times, here, highlighted another recent decision on acquitted conduct, this one before the Eighth Circuit. In United States v. Canania, the defendants were convicted of methamphetamine-related offenses and acquitted of possessing a firearm in furtherance of a drug-trafficking crime. The district court, nevertheless, enhanced their sentences for the gun possession. Judge Myron H. Bright wrote a separate concurring opinion in order to express his “strongly held view that consideration of ‘acquitted conduct’ to enhance a defendant’s sentence is unconstitutional,” and to urge the Supreme Court to promptly re-examine its continued use. Judge Bright asked, rhetorically, “what might the man on the street think” of such a practice? In a footnote, he answered his own question with the remarkable story of a recent trial in Washington, D.C., in which federal prosecutors sought a 40-year sentence against a drug defendant despite the fact that he was acquitted on every charge except a single $600 half-ounce sale of crack cocaine that occurred seven years earlier. When one of the former jurors on the case learned of the prosecutors’ request, he wrote a letter to the judge, asking: “What does it say to our contribution as jurors when we see our verdicts, in my personal view, not given their proper weight. It appears to me that these defendants are being sentenced not on the charges for which they have been found guilty but on the charges for which the {U.S. Attorney’s Office} would have liked them to have been found guilty.”

http://sentencing.typepad.com/sentencing_law_and_policy/2008/08/practitioners-2.html">more (with the internal links)

So what do you think? Should acquitted conduct be used as if guilty? If so in the court of public opinion, why not in a court of law? Don't the courts merely represent The People through the Constitution?

Should acquitted conduct be used as if found guilty or not?

EDIT: I hate ignorant.

because it's about as ignorant as it could possibly be.

So you lose.

I don't know Cali, by the way. I just know a good point when I see one.

Their sentences are enhanced, sometimes considerably, based on acquitted conduct.

And after reading into this thread a bit further, I have a feeling that Cali meant the exact opposite of what I meant. Which makes my agreement quite odd and accidental.

It isn't a statement of outright innocence.

they remain innocent. At least in a court of law.

All it can do is determine whether a certain legal standard has been met.

It is obviously true that guilty people are found "not guilty" every day -- and innocent people are found to be "guilty." The system is far from perfect.

Do you think we should do away with the "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard?

Which is quite horrifying if we value a stable and somewhat peaceful society.

And Michael Jackson's actions speak for themselves.

He has said on video how the greatest act of love is to sleep with a child, and has acknowledged sleeping with numerous children. He's showered children with gifts and developed very close attachments that lasted for years.

Anyone who thinks this is normal behavior for a middle aged man is in serious denial.

Sleeping in bed with a kid is not child molestation. Is it abnormal? Yes. Illegal? No.

I have stated repeatedly that Michael Jackson suffered from a stunted personality. He clearly suffered from a lot of emotional trauma.

Other witnesses testified to actual molestation, including an employee who accidentally witnessed oral sex between Jackson and the boy on whom the large settlement was made (avoiding civil and criminal trials in that case).

from unjust imprisonment. It does mean that some guilty people will avoid guilty verdicts. But I'd much rather that be the case than the other way around.

We have public trials so people can make up their own minds, but it was important to the Founders to keep a check on the government, not for TV ratings. The media convinced almost everyone Iraq had WMD's and was responsible for 9/11 too, but we know that was misleading. Why trust the media with criminal trials and opinions based on a partial hearing of the evidence filtered by the media? True, someone who sat in on the trials and heard all the evidence might disagree with the verdict, but I'm having trouble understanding the acceptance of the "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard on the one hand, as you accept, and the rejection of it on the other hand.

I don't argue that MJ was innocent but only question the public policy of guilt though acquitted. We know it is public policy because the courts can sentence as if the jury found the defendant guilty of all charges even if the jury found the defendant not guilty of some charges, and as long as trial by media prevails over the jury verdict, there is no incentive to change that. Indeed, if the public does not trust the jury, why should a judge? There appears to be some cognitive dissonance going on with no easy answers. In the mean time, many people get a years and years longer sentence based on acquitted conduct. These sentences are to crime and punishment as Iraq's WMDs was to foreign policy. I think it is confirmed that few care, which may be a sin of omission, because most of the comments brush that aside and ignore it.

On the other hand, as I remember it, the Jackson trial was covered in real-time and "gavel to gavel." (Probably on Court TV.) People who chose to watch saw the same trial that the jurors did -- not snippets filtered by the media.

the "reasonable doubt" standard -- and yet actually be guilty. And it is possible for reasonable public opinion to differ from the jury verdict.

Regardless of what people "think" or "feel" may or may not be true. Courts analyze logical, empirical evidence.


Because if you convict a man based on "gut feelings", it is no different than when people claimed to know that a villager was a witch.

They just KNEW. Which is absolutely absurd.

Sure, the First permits dumb, illogical posts, but it is relevant because of the same disrespect for the jury.

That is the point.

Thus being "acquitted"?

Unless you have filed a lawsuit to make a very important point concerning an issue critical to society at large, it is almost always a good idea to settle out of court. Parties to lawsuits are encouraged and urged to settle their differences even from the very beginning of litigation.

The following points should be carefully considered when you are contemplating settling your lawsuit out of court instead of going to trial:

* Amount the lawsuit is worth;
* Length of trial;
* How long it will take to go to trial;
* Possible delays in getting to trial and/or length of trial;
* Your honest assessment of the chances of winning at trial;
* Whether there are similar cases achieving positive or negative results;
* If there could be unfavorable publicity for either side if there is a trial;
* Potential disclosure of trade secrets or other confidential business information;
* Weaknesses in your evidence;
* Weaknesses in other side's evidence;

http://www.allbusiness.com/legal/litigation/4131-1.html

since there was an employee willing to testify that he'd seen them having oral sex.

After the boy's family received a payment from Jackson in a private settlement (said to be about $20 million) following a civil lawsuit, the boy refused to testify in a criminal trial against him.

A jury did find him not guilty in a second case, but at least two of the jurors in that second case made statements later on regretting their decision.

(A settlement doesn't mean a defendant is acquitted; it means the claim is dropped in exchange for some agreement, often including money.)

Jackson's defense attorney ridiculed the two, who spoke exclusively with MSNBC's Rita Cosby, saying it was “time to move on” from the case.

“The bottom line is it makes no difference what they’re saying,” Tom Mesereau told The Associated Press, pointing out the jurors announced their turnaround Monday as they began publicizing book deals.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1993_child_sexual_abuse_accusations_against_Michael_Jackson#cite_note-campbell_53-2">But...

Under the influence of a controversial sedative administered by Evan Chandler, his son said that Jackson had touched his penis.<1> Evan Chandler was tape-recorded threatening to damage the singer's music career,<2> and engaged Jackson in unsuccessful negotiations to resolve the issue with a financial settlement.

That doesn't sound like a strong case. But the real question is can a jury know better after hearing ALL the evidence up close and personal than a Nancy Grace viewer who only hears what the host wants them to hear? In other words, is condemnation of acquitted conduct based on partial evidence more rational than the jury's decision?

I'm not arguing MJ's guilt or innocence, but am merely asking of The People and courts should respect a jury verdict or not based on media reports.

I did watch the trial in real time, however, since it was covered on television. Did you? Or have you just read about the trial, after the fact?

I'm not even saying that the jury's decision was irrational. There is a certain legal standard that must be met -- beyond a reasonable doubt -- before guilt can be said to be proven. That protects us all, but it does mean some guilty parties will be freed not because they are innocent but because the legal standard hasn't been met. And those of us in the public are free to make our own judgments as to whether a "not guilty" is equivalent in a particular case to "innocent" or if it really means "I have good reasons to think he's guilty, but not beyond a reasonable doubt."

He did settle with the Chandler family in a 1993-94 case, but in the 2005 case, People v. Jackson, Michael Jackson was acquitted of all 10 charges.

to abuse others?

If so, that's AS fucked up as the abuse itself.

a guy who found out his daughter was raped by her uncle. He didn't press charges, Because he didn't want to put her through it. Was he right? That's for him and his daughter to decide.

Their equivalent is "not proven" which means the case could be reopened at a later date.

There is however no equivalent in England where acquitted effectively means innocent as far as I'm aware.

Stuff here : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acquitted

Which bars that "not proven" finding. More than a few people would like to do away with double jeopardy and the presumption of innocence, and the jury verdict itself.

I'd noticed that some of you keep really weird hours. You're 8 hours max. behind me so I make it 2.15am where you are and its 10.15am here.

Time to get some sleep ?

:hi:

I'm a college student. We are basically nocturnal.

:shrug:

live from your neighborhood.

storms won't materialize and screw everything up. http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2009/jun/26/rain-forecast-wimbledon-glastonbury that was yesterday but today is the same

I'm about 14 miles NW of central London and Wimbledon is about the same distance SW. It's really clammy where I am at present.

:hi:

which refers to the Criminal Justice Act 2003 and exceptions to double jeopardy here in the UK.

If by chance you should wonder how come Scotland could differ from England : Scotland uses Roman Law whereas we use Common Law.