LEGALLY INNOCENT BUT MORALLY GUILTY

Yesterday, as I was listening to my favorite radio station, two news anchors were discussing the "court of public opinion" concerning the dog fighting indictment of Atlanta Falcons quarterback Michael Vick, the murder trials of O. J. Simpson and actor Robert Blake, and the child molestation trial of Michael Jackson. They felt the public held all four of these celebrities guilty even though Vick has not yet been tried and the other three were acquitted by juries.

For the most part, the court of public opinion is molded by news media coverage and that is especailly true with respect to celebrities. There has been so much media coverage on the trials and tribulations of Paris Hilton, Britney Spears and Lindsay Lohan that everyone has an opinion as to the character of these spoiled and pampered primadonna party animals.

Lohan, who has been in and out of "rehab" like a jumping jack, has just been arrested for DUI, Driving With a Suspended License, and Possession of Cocaine. At the time of arrest, she was awaiting trial on another DUI charge. While being searched during her latest booking, police officers found a packet of cocaine in her pants pocket. Of course, Lohan claims the cocaine was not hers.

In the Vick case, the Falcons quarterback has just pleaded innocent to charges that he, along with three others, ran a dog fighting ring for gambling purposes. It should be noted that in our country the accused is presumed to be innocent unless he is found guilty at the conclusion of a trial. With all the media attention thus far, I suspect that Vick has already been convicted in the court of public opinion.

The Simpson case set a new criminal justice standard - jury nullification. Simpson benefitted from an inept team of prosecutors and a clever defense team which resorted to playing the race card. In the face of concrete evidence that Simpson murdered his ex-wife and her friend Ron Goldman, the predominantly black jury had already reached its decision before the presentation of closing arguments.

When the Simpson jury retired to the jury room they had already nullified the evidence. The jury just "schmoozed" around long enough to make it look like they had been deliberating before returning to the courtroom to announce their verdict of acquittal. In the court of public opinion, Simpson may be guilty as sin, but this has not prevented that creep from continuing to enjoy the lifestyle of the rich and famous.

Robert Blake, best known for his starring role in the Barettta television series, was acquitted of shooting his estranged wife to death outside a trendy restaurant. The authorities waited a long time before presenting their case to a grand jury, wanting to make sure they had all their ducks in line. Another inept prosecution and a brilliant defense also led to an acquittal by jury nullification. Unlike Simpson though, Blake lost all of his money paying for his defense.

Weirdo pop star Michael Jackson likes to sleep with little boys. When initially investigated for child molestation, Jackson reportedly paid the parents of his victims millions of dollars to keep them from bringing any charges against him. When he was finally brought to trial for molesting one of the boys, a key witness - a previous victim - refused to return from Europe where he was living off of the hush money given to his parents.

Wacko Jacko, with his oft-reconstructed putty nose, was acquitted by a jury to the cheers of his fans. The court of public opinion is divided in this case. To Jackson's millions of fans, the moon walker can walk on water. In the United States, those who are not his fans believe he is guilty. In Europe and Asia, where heterosexual and homosexual relations by adults with children seems to be more or less acceptable, this case was seen as much to do about nothing.

When an obviously guilty person is acquitted by a jury, the legal community refers to the accused as being LEGALLY INNOCENT BUT MORALLY GUILTY. That would seem to be the case with Simpson, Blake and Jackson. But what happens to those who are falsely charged, as in the Duke lacrosse team rape case, where the accused are both legally and morally innocent? Amazingly, the court of public opinion in the Duke case continues to be divided, with many blacks still convinced the accuser was telling the truth.

The Duke lacrosse players were victims of an unholy alliance - a rogue prosecutor, a salivating news media, the inflammatory rhetoric of Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton, and a lynch mob of 88 malicious educated idiot professors. The falsely accused players were convicted in the court of public opinion due to the trumpeted rush to judgement by the participants in that evil alliance.

Kathleen Parker of the Wahington Post Writers Group says the Duke players became victims of the "Nifong Syndrome - the mind virus that causes otherwise intelligent people to embrace likely falsehoods because they validate a preconceived belief. Mike Nifong, the North Carolina prosecutor ....., was able to convince a credulous community of residents, academics, and especially journalists that the three falsely accused men had raped a black stripper despite compelling evidence to the contrary."

Parker goes on to ask "Why? Because the lies supported their own thruths. In the case of Duke, that 'truth' was that privileged white athletes are racist pigs who of course would rape a black woman given half a chance and a bottle o' beer." So there you have it - the falsely accused can be screwed by the criminal justice system and the criminal justice system can be screwed by jury nullification.