3/15    Are they going to grill Michael Jackson as well or is he just
        going to sit behind his army of lawyers and let them do all
        the talking?
        \_ it is extremely unlikely they'll have jackson take the stand.
           \_ why? how can he not?
              \_ because putting nutjobs on the stand is a good way to get
                 them exposed as nutjobs.  -tom
                 \_ Yes, but nutjobs often don't listen to their lawyers.
                 \_ I know why they don't want MJ to take the stand.
                    What I am asking is can they do that? This is all
                    about fair and balance, how can he not take the
                    stand? (or rather, why would the law allow him not to
                    take the stand?) If you grill hard enough on any rape
                    victims, you are bound to find some thing. This just
                    seems a little strange.
                    \_ It is fairly common for criminal defendants not to
                       testify on their own behalf.  I've known some public
                       defenders who routinely advise their clients not to
                       testify.   -tom
               \_ Because of the 5th Ammendment of the US Constitution.
                  "nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a
                   witness against himself..."
                  \_ Ah, that nonsense...
                  \_ I do believe he should be required to take the
                     stand, and can say "I have nothing to say about
                     that" for all questions. But required to take the
                     stand.
                     \_ The prosecution can call him as a hostile witness
                        if they want to, but that would probably be seen as
                        a grandstanding ploy.  -tom
                     \_ he'll plead the fizzif.  one two three four fiiiiif!
                \_ because of 5th amendment, prosecution can't really force
                   him to testify, so only reason he might testify is if his
                   defense lawyers thought was a good idea.
                   \_ This is the same thing as the "self incrimination" thing
                      that we hear from cop dramas, right?
                      \_ 5th Amendment
                         "No person shall be held to answer for a capital,
                         or otherwise infamous, crime, unless on a
                         presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except
                         in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or
                         in the militia, when in actual service, in time of
                         war, or public danger; nor shall any person be
                         subject, for the same offence, to be twice put in
                         jeopardy of life or limb;
                                                   nor shall be
                         compelled, in any criminal case, to be a witness
                         against himself;
                                          nor be deprived of life,
                         liberty, or property, without due process of law;
                         nor shall private property be taken for public
                         use, without just compensation."
                         \_ About not being tried twice for the same offence,
                            what if the subject was found not guilty, and then
                            some new evidence is found later showing that he's
                            guilty?
                            \_ That's the idea.  The prosecution has to hold
                               off on bringing charges until they think they
                               have enough to convict.  Otherwise you could
                               have someone on trial over and over again for
                               the same offence as prosecuters keep
                               'discovering' evidence they should have
                               presented at the first trial.  Now if new
                               evidence of a similar but distinct crime turns
                               up, then you can be retried.
                               \- unless the new evidence points to a "new
                                  crime" it is over. so in theory
                                  you could even confess once you have been
                                  found innocent. however there are some not
                                  very self-evident details about what
                                  constitutes the same crime, there may be
                                  state/federal issues, you can still be
                                  sued in tort possibly etc. you can also\
                                  read about "jury nullification", directed
                                  verdicts, with/without prejudice dismissal.
                                  oh and obviously this doenst apply in the
                                  case of a mistrial. the double jeopardy
                                  issue was run around in the OJ case.
                            \_ Uh, it's still double jeopardy.  How did all
                               you people who've never heard of the fifth
                               amendment get into Berkeley?
                      \- If you are talking about the Miranda warning, the
                         decision of Miranda v. Az is sort of procedural rather
                         than substantive decision. The essence was "you have
                         to let suspects in custody know what their rights are"
                         rather than an expansion of the right against
                         self-incrimination. This is in contrast to a more
                         subtantive decision like Gideon v. Wainwright, which
                         says the right to counsel include an obligation for
                         the state to provide counsel for indigents. There
                         are a lot of intersting cases relating to self-
                         incrimination. YMWTGF: christian burial speech. --psb
                         \_ I'm surprised the racist-against-Mexicans guy isn't
                            frothing at the mouth and posting another anti-
                            immigration freeper storm in response to this
                            thread.
                        \_ tnx for the suggestion (re "christian burial"). An
                           interesting case which I hadn't seen before.  As
                           usual, I think the dissent has it right. -crebbs
                           \- somewhat interestingly, there are two brewer v.
                              williams cases. the first one involves the
                              "appeal to conscience" issue, and the second
                              one promotes the "inevitable discovery" doc-
                              trine. the evolution of the exclusionary rule
                              is also pretty interesting. --psb
        \_ It's called "Pleading the 5th".