After five and one half hours of deliberation, the jury in the "sniper" trial of John Muhammad returned a death verdict today.

Juror Dennis Bowman said he voted for life imprisonment on Friday but changed his mind Sunday night. "The man to me doesn't care about anything but himself and his," Bowman said. "The total lack of remorse seemed to cap it all for us."

The jury's choices were life without parole or death. As aggravators, the jury found the crime was particularly heinous and Muhammad represents a future danger to the public.

Jurors had two choices after finding him guilty of Meyers’ murder: life in prison without parole, or death.

...In Virginia, defendants spend an average of five years on death row before they are executed. Virginia appeals courts rarely overturn convictions and death-penalty sentences.

Our thoughts are with defense counsel Jonathan Shapiro and Peter Greenspun, both of whom conducted an excellent defense despite overwhelming circumstantial evidence against their client, a presumption of guilt in the minds of the public and their client's non-cooperation prior to trial. While criminal defense has greatly rewarding moments, the toughest is standing next to a client whose life has been in your hands and hearing the jury pronounce a sentence to death.

As to grounds for reversal, Elaine Cassel lays them out well here. Our views are here.

Fox News reports on Michael Jackson's defense plan--it's an attack on the 12 year old's mother. We don't know why most of the U.S. press is now shielding the name of the 12 year old (or his mother, Janet Ventura-Arvizo) when the names have been reported in over 75 newspaper articles since February, 2003 when the Martin Bashir documentary was aired on television, according to Lexis.com .

Anyway, new details on the mom:

...sources said there are written statements .... which were signed late February by the boy and his mother in front of Jackson's attorney Mark Geragos. Also, Fox News has learned the Jackson team has been flooded in recent days with calls from witnesses who were at Neverland Ranch when the boy was there. These witnesses say the boy always acted happy and did not seem troubled.

There are also some employees of Jackson who will say they saw the mother of the boy often arguing with him -- sometimes, they say, high on crack -- and that she made demands.

The New York Post has these details about the child's life of turmoil with his parents.

Why would the boy's mother be signing a statement in front of Jackson's lawyer? Maybe because Jackson and the boy's mother had filed official complaints with the Broadcasting Standards Commission in the U.K. in addition to Jackson's suit for an injunction to stop Granada, the UK company that made the documentary, from releasing any more tapes.

Newsweek's new issue includes " From Moonwalk to Perp Walk with more details about the parents of the 12 year old cancer survivor who is accusing Michael Jackson.

[attorney for the child's father] Rick Halpern further alleges that the mother has coached the children in the past to make untrue statements in legal cases, once in a slip-and-fall suit against a chain store, and later during her acrimonious divorce battle, which began in 2001.

The mother, who has been in seclusion with her children, couldn't be reached for comment. But the father has his own credibility problems. In 2001, he pleaded no contest to a charge of wife-beating and was sentenced to attend domestic-violence counseling. The following year, he pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor charge of willful cruelty to a child in an incident involving his daughter. In a court filing seeking a restraining order against him, the mother claimed that "instances of violence in our marriage were a daily occurrence."

For more on the child and his parents, see our post from last evening here, quoting an assortment of news articles.

Update: Elizabeth Taylor released a statement Sunday affirming her belief in Michael's innocence:

Actress Elizabeth Taylor says she believes pop star and good friend Michael Jackson is "absolutely innocent" of child molestation charges and will be "vindicated." In a statement on Sunday, Taylor also criticized the press for behaving "abominably" toward the self-styled King of Pop, who was arrested this week on suspicion of sexually abusing a young boy. "Their whole reaction is that he is guilty. I thought the law was 'innocent until proven guilty.' I know he is innocent and I hope they all eat crow," Taylor said of the press.

The Modesto Bee has a detailed recap of the Scott Peterson preliminary hearing. Given the paucity of direct evidence presented at the hearing, the question arises, was the prosecution holding back or is that all they have? Our views are among those included in the article:

"His behavior and words (since Dec. 24) don't make him a murderer," said Jeralyn Merritt, a criminal defense attorney in Denver..... "Mark Geragos' strategy at the prelim was to rebut every piece of information capable of more than one interpretation," Merritt said, "and he did a very effective job at it."

"There is no murder weapon, no cause of death, no crime scene. What do they have?" Merritt said. "There is no evidence even of a struggle, let alone a murder."

....[defense attorney Bernie] Grimm and Merritt said if they were in Geragos' shoes, they would push for a speedy trial when Peterson is arraigned again Dec. 3 on the upheld charges.

As to the low threshold of proof necessary to establish "probable cause," Mark Geragos says, "I like to jokingly say it's, 'Is my client breathing?'"

Martin Bashir's documentary about Michael Jackson aired in February, 2003. The current charges pertain to Jackson's relationship with a 12 year old cancer survivor--which was well documented in the movie--and also was the subject of intense media criticism afterwards. [All articles available on Lexis.com]

People Magazine, 2/24/03:

So why did Jackson agree to let British journalist Martin Bashir trail him around for eight months? "I think Michael just kind of trusted him," says a Jackson-camp insider. Now Jackson, 44, is fighting back. In an effort to counter Bashir and his Granada TV production company, he sold FOX TV hours of his own footage with Bashir and his sleepover pal Gavin Arvizo, a 12-year-old cancer survivor, for $ 5 million. He will help craft it into a two-hour special to air Feb. 20. He also has filed complaints with two British media watchdog groups charging that Bashir breached codes of conduct by showing footage of his three children--Prince Michael I, 6, Paris Michael, 4, and 11-month-old Prince Michael II--and by interviewing Arvizo without the consent of the boy's parents. In addition, a source close to Jackson says, "legal action against [Bashir and Granada] has not been ruled out."

Of course, neither has legal action against Jackson. His blithe talk of hosting juveniles in his bedroom revived discussion of the 1993 case and prompted the Smoking Gun Web site to post court documents from that time....In a letter calling upon Santa Barbara D.A. Tom Sneddon to investigate the pop star's more recent contact with minors, A. Sidney Johnson III, president of Prevent Child Abuse America, the nation's largest such organization, wrote, "Michael Jackson has raised enough red flags for us to be concerned about protecting the welfare of children he comes in contact with, including his own." Sneddon put out word that his office's criminal investigation of Jackson is "open but inactive," just as it was at the time Jackson settled the '93 civil case .... Sneddon also encouraged anyone who felt victimized to come forward.

Meanwhile, Arvizo's divorced parents used the British tabloids to air their differences, both personal and philosophical. "Michael has pet names for all of my children, and Gavin even calls him Daddy," said mom Janet Ventura-Arvizo, 34, who was once so poor that she temporarily lived in a horse stable with her children. "He is the father they never had." She said Gavin and siblings Star, 11, and Davelin, 16, "are hoping to spend a lot more time with him in the future." Dad David, 37, countered that Janet, a former waitress, "sees prestige for herself from the connection." He said that while Jackson "has been very generous to the kids, [he] should not be sharing a room with them."

Music producer Phil Spector pleaded not guilty to a murder charge yesterday. His case has not garnered the attention that Michael Jackson's has, but it promises to be an interesting one. Spector is accused of shooting a woman to death at his home. He says the woman shot herself. After a nine month investigation, the Sheriff's department decided it was a murder.

His media-savvy celebrity attorney, Robert Shapiro, who defended O.J. Simpson against a charge of murdering his ex-wife and her lover, said Spector was innocent and said he was gathering a forensic team to prove it.

``We have assembled a team of scientific experts, which is among the most respected and prestigious in the world,'' he said in a statement. ``Based on this team's findings of this horrible human event, any jury will conclude that Phil Spector is not guilty. We will prevail.''

It's interesting that so many of the current crop of high profile criminal cases are in California--Scott Peterson, Robert Blake, Michael Jackson, Phil Spector. Forensics are likely to play a major role in the Peterson, Blake and Spector cases, which significantly ups the costs. Given the state's budget woes, we wonder how it will be able to pay for so many expensive prosecutions in one year.

Public Defender Dude has a thoughtful post on lawyers representing high-profile defendants. He astutely describes the lawyer's job and explains why it is not a matter of victim-bashing:

Talk radio is saying that Geragos may try to "trash" the victim in the Michael Jackson case, and trash his family. Well, I have some news for you. When trying to cast reasonable doubt on a case, you are required to look at the motives and biases of the witnesses against you. Everytime you go to the police you put your credibility at issue. I don't know the facts of the Michael Jackson case well, but I have heard rumors that when Michael Jackson cut off funding for the family, they went to a lawyer to see how they could get back on the gravy train. This may be true, it may not be true. However, exploring this possibility is not a matter of "trashing the victim." It is a legitemate investigation into the background of someone who's statements could put you in prison for the rest of your life.

This really makes us mad. Gloria Allred has no business in this case. Yet she filed a complaint with child welfare services today asking them to remove Michael Jackson's kids from his home. Doesn't she have enough publicity with her representation of Amber Frey in the Scott Peterson case to sastify her? Is she jealous that Mark Geragos is getting more media time than she is? Gloria, give it a rest. It's none of your business.

Allred has announced she's filed a complaint with the child welfare services in Santa Barbara, seeking an investigation of Jackson. She says that's warranted because of Jackson's previous statements about sleepovers with children, previous sex abuse allegations and an incident in which he dangled his infant son from a window.

Update: Jackson family attorney Brian Oxman responds to Allred's action:

"It is outrageous that she should seek such media attention for her own aggrandizement. She is attacking Michael for her own benefit," Oxman said.

The jurors in the trial of John Muhammad sent out a note today asking the Judge what happens if they are divided. This is a good sign, because all it takes is one juror to vote for life to defeat the death penalty.

The jury has retired for the weekend. You can access the jury instructions and verdict forms here.

We haven't heard much about the new accuser of Michael Jackson. Here's what Fox News reporter Trace Gallagher said last night on On the Record with Greta:

Now, we can tell you Roger Friedman from foxnews.com is now reporting that the alleged victim, the 12 or 13-year-old boy, was a cancer victim and that one of his last wishes was to go and meet Michael Jackson. Jackson brought him here in Neverland ranch. He felt bad for the boy, paid medical bills, bought the family a car, maybe a house.

In subsequent time, the boy got better, went back to school, and his classmates began teasing him about the relationship with Michael Jackson. His mother, says Friedman, felt bad about the taunting. She contacted a lawyer. The lawyer told her to take the boy to a psychiatrist. And the boy apparently told the psychiatrist about the abuse, and that doctor then went to authorities. Authorities began the investigation. Jackson got wind of it, and apparently, according to Friedman, tried to send this family, all of them, to South America.

[Transcript, Lexis.com]

Update: Mark Geragos has been representing Michael Jackson in this probe since February. The kid reportedly told the therapist he was high on sleeping pills and/or alcohol at the time Michael allegedly took advantage of him.

Michael Jackson surrendered today on an arrest warrant citing child molestation charges. He will be booked and released on a $3 million bail. The surrender was arranged by his attorney Mark Geragos, who also represents Scott Peterson.

According to the DA, molestation means:

"arousing, appealing to, or gratifying the lust, passions or sexual desires of" the offender or a child under age 14. Each charge carries a penalty of three to eight years in prison.

Jackson adamantly maintains his innocence. DA Tom Sneddon says there's nothing personal in his pursuit of Jackson. From his continual comments on Jackson from 1994 to the present, particularly the September 1995 Vanity Fair article and those referenced here, we don't buy it. He's about to reach retirement--....what a nice cap to his career a conviction against Jackson would bring.

We think Michael Jackson is a little odd, but we are very suspicious of the charges in this case.

Update: Here is the statement released by Jackson today.

Michael Jackson's response to the arrest warrant issued for him based on new child molestation charges is here.

Tom Sneddon, the District Attorney in Santa Barbara in charge of the new Michael Jackson case, was also in charge of the 1993 case. Today he said "he had put the earlier case out of mind." We don't think that's true. Here's a sampling of what our Lexis research turned up (out of 100 entries for "Tom Sneddon" and "Michael Jackson" between 1994 and 2001.)

The Daily Telegraph (Sydney, Australia) March 7, 2001

"Heal The Kids" was described as an image-building deception by Santa Barbara district attorney Tom Sneddon, who prosecuted the singer for alleged child molestation in 1993. Jackson avoided trial by paying the family of his 13-year-old accuser around $20 million. Sneddon recently warned the case could be reopened at any time.

Herald Sun (Melbourne, Australia) February 16, 2001

In a twist on the eve of his launching appeal [for a children's charity program], the district attorney who brought the case said it was not closed. "The case against Michael Jackson was never closed, and he was never exonerated," said DA Tom Sneddon. "It's in suspended animation and can be reopened at any time."

Broadcast News (BN) February 15, 2001

Remember the child molestation charges levelled against Michael Jackson a few years ago? So does the district attorney in Santa Barbara, California, Tom Sneddon. He's the one who investigated Jackson in 1993 when a then-13-year-old boy claimed Jackson molested him. Jackson later settled with the family and was never charged by authorities.

Sneddon tells the New York Daily News the case against Jackson was never closed and it can be re-opened at any time. He says the statute of limitations hasn't run out because Jackson was living out of the country for so much time.

Daily News (New York) February 14, 2001

Michael Jackson is not out of the woods.

So says Santa Barbara District Attorney Tom Sneddon, the man who brought child molestation charges against the singer in 1993. Jackson is scheduled to deliver a speech tonight at Carnegie Hall on behalf of his Heal the Kids initiative. Although Sneddon can't be there in person, he's definitely arching an eyebrow from 3,000 miles away.

"The case against Michael Jackson was never closed, and he was never exonerated," Sneddon says. "It's in suspended animation and can be reopened at any time."