The Michael Jackson Trial
By Burton S. Katz/Retired L.A. Superior Court Judge
This morning I was waiting for a toasted bagel with my daughter, who happens to be a lawyer, at a local Cross Creek coffee shop when I saw the calendar section of the Los Angeles Times featuring six pictures of Michael Jackson with commentary not on the substantive case, but on his attire. The photos featured Jackson in colorful quasi-military style outfits festooned with various arm bands, crests and military medals. The Los Angeles Times writer Booth Moore opined that Jackson “bore an unfortunate resemblance to a toy soldier…and that the bizarre courtroom uniform…are a constant reminder to the jury that he’s not like everybody else.” And therein lies the problem.
Much of the focus on this case seems to revolve on the eccentricities of Jackson. Is this merely a grand distraction from the truth-seeking process or a legitimate point to be considered by the jury? Normally we can be assured that astute defense counsel have advised a more sobering and humble countenance. In all my courtroom experience, defense counsels made every effort to dress their client up so as to appear more civilized, mainstream and respectful of the jury and court process. Even Manson family member Bobby Beausoleil, whom I prosecuted for the murder of Gary Hinman, appeared immaculate in a blue blazer and slacks, wearing a crisp white dress shirt and conservative striped tie; this from an inveterate counter-culture Spahn Ranch habitué. I have witnessed murderers, rapists, prostitutes, thieves and gang members all attempt to clean up their image in an effort to create the illusion of conformity to societal values.
But in this case, has counsel acquiesced to Jackson’s sartorial will with something else in mind? In normal cases, the defense would try to present a figure more relatable to a sitting jury. It is easy to dismiss Jackson’s bizarre dress as a blunder manifesting the willfully incorrigible behavior of an immature and spoiled superstar. But as my daughter points out, that perhaps is the point…namely that Jackson is just plain weird and so outside the norm that he marches to his own tune, hearing only the beats that capture his lost sense of self-importance and child-like existence. If that is true, it becomes a brilliant ploy by the defense to demonstrate in another way that Jackson creates his own world, doing things that normal adults would find questionable or worse, but falling short of illicit child molestation.
Thus we are being asked to accept the notion that it is possible for a 46-year-old man to sleep in the same bed with a pre-adolescent boy with wholly innocent intentions.
In the final analysis, substance must rule the day. It is not about how one dresses for one’s trial or how eccentric one may appear. It is and should be about the evidence-the hard evidence the jury comes to accept.
So what should we make of the spectacle of Michael Jackson? How should we interpret his penchant for looking like “The Nutcracker?” I don’t know if it means anything at all. I will leave it to the talking heads to divine its significance.
I can tell you this-handsome Bobby Beausoleil was sentenced to death by the jury of his peers. They were not fooled by a well-tailored blue blazer.