As Scott Peterson's trial is winding down thru the penalty phase, the first big celebrity legal event of 2005 is starting up on Monday. The murder took place in May 2001.
Link

Obviously no one cares about this poor trial compared to Wacko Jacko wink -- but Robert Blake has been acquitted!

Great! Now Baretta and the Juice can go out looking for the "real killers" in tandem. Hey, why not make it a reality show?

I wouldn't equate the OJ fiasco with Robert Blake's acquittal. The DNA evidence alone should have convicted Simpson, while in the Blake case there wasn't even gun residue found on Blake though prosecutors claimed that he had done the shooting. I wonder what would have happened if, instead of trying to prove Blake was the killer, the prosecutors had tried him for arranging to have his wife killed. But considering he was also acquitted on those charges, the case could have been too weak to get a conviction.

~Adam

Newspaper reports the jury did not believe a word from either of the stuntmen, apparently both drug users, Blake reportedly talked to about killing his wife.

I was a bit surprised though by the verdict.

California is a silly excuse for a state in this country. Let's all go out there and commit rapes and armed robberies and then hire ourselves a flashy defense team and then walk as Baretta and Juice did. And soon Michael Jackson.

In my opinion some chosen jurors in this country become idiots in that deliberation room. They long to be the stars of the case and when they finally walk into that room, here's their chance. They get too caught up in all the B.S. they hear from the defense. They lose touch with reality and the facts.

Don't be too hard on us Californians; sometimes we get it right. The Blake verdict was a classic example of the prosecution's inability to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, which is the governing standard everywhere in the US in such cases.

amazin12, that's why they have trials, so people aren't convicted by public opinion. You have an opinion as to whether he was guilty or not; however, you weren't in court every day listening to testimony and facts.

And neither were you. Keep that in mind. None of us knows what was and wasn't said to make a full, informed opinion of this decision.

The general feeling among most of the talking heads I've seen on Court TV and CNN is that whilke they believe Blake is guilty of some part in the murder, the prosecution was just unable to prove it. Most of their prime witnesses were not credible and the victim herself was an unsympathetic character to begin with.

And Cali does get it right sometimes-Scott Peterson was found guilty.

Even the prosecutor spoke badly of Bonnie in her opening remarks calling her insulting names. I thought that was inappropriate and unprofessional.

bobby Bobby, what the hell is this supposed to mean? Apparently you think he is guilty and not happy. I made no judgment. I simply said that you can't make blanket statements about the intelligence of jurors when you are looking at it from afar.

Now, take your damn nice pills and quit being bitchy.

Most prosecutors with an unsympathetic victim will always tell the jury up front about the victim's shady past. It's going to come out in trial anyway. The defense was certainly going to bring it up so as to point the finger at any number of other people who might have a motive to kill her. Preemptive strike.

This reminds me of an episode of "American Justice" I saw recently. This is a true trial story. A female teacher was on trial for having a sexual relationship with an underaged teenager. All the evidence against the defendant was there. All the testimony against the defendant was given. Then the verdict is read. Not guilty. The teacher walks.

At the end of the program one of the jurors tells us "Well we believed there was definitely a sexual relationship between the two but the state couldn't prove it".

Now can someone tell me does that make sense?

Having sex with a kid is a crime. If you believed they had sex then how is she not guilty? You all want attention or something? :mad:

I think judges should make the decisions. Forget these dumb jurors.

[ March 17, 2005, 11:29 AM: Message edited by: amazin12 ]

I think it was David Letterman years ago who said about the 'trial by jury' system: Would you want your life decided by 12 people who can't even get out of jury duty?