Transcript from HARDBALL WITH CHRIS MATHEWS
Aired Monday, June 13, 2005
Subject: Michael Jackson Verdict

CHRIS MATTHEWS (host): Not guilty. Michael Jackson beats all charges. It's a verdict, but is it justice?

Let's play HARDBALL.

Good evening.

Michael Jackson wins acquittal on all -- on four counts of committing lewd acts upon a child, plus multiple counts of conspiracy to commit child abduction, to commit false imprisonment, to commit extortion, administering an intoxicating agent to assist in the commission of a felony, of providing alcohol to minors.

Why so much smoke and no fire?

Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice will be with us, by the way, tomorrow night.

We begin with two attorneys who have closely followed the Jackson case. Paul Pfingst is the former district attorney of San Diego County and is an MSNBC legal analyst. And Roy Black is a criminal defense attorney. We're also joined by jury consultant Jo-Ellan Dimitrius.

Let me to go Roy Black first.

Roy, what is the jury saying here, besides, obviously, not guilty? But what is the message they're giving us in this -- in this judgment?

MATTHEWS: It made it look like it was after the big, deep pockets of Michael Jackson.

PFINGST: After -- after the money.

MATTHEWS: OK.

Let me go to Jo-Ellan.

You know, watching the jurors afterwards, Jo-Ellan -- it's great to see you again, by the way.

JO-ELLAN DIMITRIUS, JURY CONSULTANT: Thanks, Chris.

MATTHEWS: Looking at those witnesses -- looking at those jurors, rather, I get the sense that some of the people, maybe they seem more sophisticated than the other jurors, seemed to be saying they didn't quite go along with the not guilty right away. They had to be convinced based upon the instructions and based upon maybe peer group pressure there.

DIMITRIUS: Yes, it certainly sounds that way. And my guess is, that's one of the reasons why they asked for the read-back of the alleged victim's testimony today.

And I would also like to point out something that I think is really interesting in these high celebrity cases. And that is, it would appear that, in high celebrity cases, it's almost -- the prosecution has to prove almost beyond a reasonable doubt, that there is a higher burden that the prosecution needs to prove in these type of cases.

And, you know, we've seen in a lot of celebrity cases. A lot of people contribute it to just being something that's a California phenomena. But I think we've seen it in other cases as well that have gone on outside of California.

MATTHEWS: Let's to go Dan Abrams right now, chief legal correspondent for NBC News and the host of "THE ABRAMS REPORT."

Roy pointed out before you came on right now, Dan, that the idea -- well, the obvious notion, it is transparent, if not manifest, that Michael Jackson has an odd way of spending his life on this Earth, did not seem to convict in this case.

DAN ABRAMS, NBC CHIEF LEGAL CORRESPONDENT: Well, that's right.

Look, there's one thing that's perfectly clear. These jurors hated the mother of the accuser in this case. And that is exactly how the defense hoped these jurors looked at the case. They hoped that they would first say, let's look at this case through the eyes of the family. Let's look at this case, not -- not just through all these other people who are coming in, not through these other bad acts.

But, first, we have to assess and only we have to assess, do we believe this boy? And they clearly were impacted by the mother. They didn't like the way she looked. They didn't like the way that she sounded. They didn't like the way that she snapped. It was literally -- you listen to them talking about it.

Let's listen. This is a couple of the jurors talking about the way the mother performed on the witness stand.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: What mother in her right mind would allow that to happen, or just freely volunteer your child to sleep with someone and not just so much Michael Jackson, but any person, for that matter?

(END VIDEO CLIP)

MATTHEWS: Well, what about the "that"? That "that" she mentioned. Who would allow "that" to happen?

Do these people really believe there was no weirdness going on, on that Neverland Ranch?

ABRAMS: I guess so. I mean, Chris, that's -- that's the odd part about the verdict, is they're basically -- this one juror, at least, is blaming the mother and saying, how could she have let her sob sleep in the same bed with Michael Jackson, but not blaming Michael Jackson for it.

Now, what they may have done is, they may have looked at it in the way that the judge instructed, which is to say, do you believe beyond a reasonable doubt, not just that Michael Jackson slept in bed with this boy...

MATTHEWS: Right.

ABRAMS: But that he actually molested this boy. And I guess, in the end, the jurors said no.

MATTHEWS: If the jury was made up of the smarter, more aware correspondents covering this case, would he have gotten off?

ABRAMS: Maybe. I think there would have been a hung jury. The bottom line is, look, let's not -- let's not treat these jurors as uneducated.

(CROSSTALK)

MATTHEWS: No, I'm asking -- I'm asking an objective question about the correspondents covering the case.

ABRAMS: I understand.

The bottom -- the bottom line is, though, that three of these jurors have graduate degrees. And so, some of them are smarter than some of the correspondents covering this case. But I think, Chris, it is interesting, because, in most cases, we get a real good sense of what is going to happen. There's no divide. In the Scott Peterson case, everyone I think had a real good sense that Peterson was going to be convicted, should be convicted.

But, in this case, there really was a divide amongst the journalists, even amongst the legal analysts covering the case. And that's why I thought, all right, they probably reflect the public to a certain degree. And they'll probably be a hung jury. They won't be able to get all 12 to agree. I don't think there would have been a conviction. Let's assume you took 12 random journalists or media folks who are here covering the case. I don't think you would have gotten a conviction. I think, at best, you would have had a hung jury.

MATTHEWS: Well, is this, is this woman, the mother of the alleged victim, and I mean alleged at this point, the Mark Fuhrman of this case?

ABRAMS: You know, yes. I think that's a good example, actually. It's a good comparison, because she destroyed the case. It was as if they looked at this case through the prism of mama.

And that's exactly what the defense wanted them to do. And one of the jurors used the language, things just didn't add up, speaking specifically about the mother. Things didn't add up. Boy, that's telling.

MATTHEWS: Yes.

ABRAMS: That basically says to me that these jurors were convinced that mom was behind all of this and they didn't like her. They didn't trust her. And they were not going to convict in large part based on her testimony.

MATTHEWS: Well, let's look at -- let's all look at some more of the testimony by the jurors. Here are two other jurors who clearly had a problem, as you say, with the accuser's mother.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I disliked it intensely when she snapped her fingers at us. That is when I thought, don't snap your fingers at me, lady.

(LAUGHTER)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: The mother, when she looked at me and snapped her fingers a few times and she says, you know how our culture is and winks at me, I thought, no, that's not the way our culture is.

(LAUGHTER)

(END VIDEO CLIP)

(LAUGHTER)

MATTHEWS: Well, there you have it.

Let me go back to Jo-Ellan here.

It seems like everybody is agreeing here that the mother is the Mark Fuhrman here, the one who lost the case for the prosecution.

DIMITRIUS: Well, it certainly seems that way.

I think another thing that really helped to tank the prosecution's case was when they brought in Debbie Rowe, Jackson's former wife. The prosecution brings her in and thinks that they're going to have great success. And, in fact, she is a big help for the defense. So, I think, first and foremost, indeed, the mother was the Fuhrman of the case.

But I think, second of all, I think that Debbie Rowe's performance in the prosecution's case in chief was absolutely disastrous for the prosecution.

MATTHEWS: OK, you first on this tough question, because it is not a lawyer's question. It is a non-lawyer's question.

Does this not guilty verdict mean innocent? Do these people have a mind-set right now, these jurors, who seem very happy people right now, would they trust their kids at Neverland Ranch overnight?

DIMITRIUS: You know, an interesting question.

And I think the one juror -- I believe it is number four -- that answered the response about having a mother keeping her child there, to me, seems to indicate that, in fact, she would not allow her children to stay there. And you're absolutely right, Chris. While many juries come back with not guilty verdicts, in fact, they say, well, we don't necessarily think that something didn't go on. It just didn't rise to the level of what the prosecution needed to prove.

MATTHEWS: Roy Black, does not guilty mean innocent here in the minds of the jury, as you've -- as you've listened to them?

verdict tonight. We're back with Dan Abrams, defense attorney Roy Black, former prosecutor Paul Pfingst, and jury consultant Jo-Ellan Dimitrius.

Jo-Ellan, you first. Did you see any jurors that were holding out all these last several days thinking he was more -- that he was innocent -- he was guilty?

DIMITRIUS: Well, you know, I didn't see the whole press conference.

But it seemed as though just the little bit that I saw, there was one woman who was sitting in the front left that seemed to be a bit reticent about coming to the verdict that she did. I ultimately would like to see the whole press conference. But that was just my impression, based on sort of body language and the things that she said.

MATTHEWS: Roy Black, your thoughts on that? Was it a unanimous jury from the get-go or was there some debate here?

And I think what they did is, they looked at this mother. They said, the defense says she orchestrated this whole thing. They watched her performance in court. And I'll tell what you what. Saying that's a reasonable doubt I think is reasonable.