I'm still not going to let my kid sleep-over at Neverland

As every cognizant person in the Western Hemisphere expected, Michael Jackson has been found not guilty. I have not followed the case closely. I have read those internet headlines which seemed most interesting and have listened to radio coverage, but that is about it.

Having said that, I knew that the star prosecution witness, the accuser's mother, did not appear credible; and that several prosecution witnesses did not testify in the fashion expected.

There is no excuse for a legal team, whether for the prosecution or the defense, to be caught by surprise by any findings of fact made by witnesses on the stand. A long-standing legal principle is that all prospective witnesses are required to answer questions beforehand at a deposition so that both sides can have a reasonable idea of what to expect.

Folks are calling this the battle of the "two moms"-- pointing out that Jackson's mother arrived at trial each day looking as if she had just come from church, while the accuser's mother seemed arrogant and low class, snapping her fingers at the jury.

That wasn't it.

This was the battle of the two legal teams: and the better paid legal team won.

In my opinion, it is always a battle of the legal teams.

I served as a juror once, about 19 years ago, and it was one of the more disillusioning experiences of my life. I was on a military jury at a special court-martial: a three man panel in which the verdict would be found by majority vote rather than unanimous vote. The defendant was accused of adultery (yes, it is still considered a crime in the Military Services to have sex with anyone who is another person's spouse) and despite overwhelming evidence to convict, the defendant was released.

Why? The defendant's lawyer was a seasoned captain of Marines while the prosecution was represented by a relatively green lieutenant. The defense could question witnesses, and submit motions and objections easily and confidently while the prosecution appeared tentative and hesitant. My two fellow jurors did not consider themselves convinced beyond a reasonable doubt, and the defendant walked.

As it happens, the military is a small world. I and my fellow jury members, the defendant and the cuckolded spouse all belonged to the same battalion. One of my fellow jury members ate lunch with me the next day and mentioned that he had gone to a bar the previous night and seen the newly acquitted defendant having a drink with the girl he could not be convicted of horsing around with.

The spouse, a good Marine, dumped his wife and quit after his enlistment was up.

The defendant later tried to kill himself just before local sheriff's authorities served a warrant on him for running a burglary ring out in town.

I, of all people, was ordered to conduct an investigation on the Marine's suicide attempt. An investigation of this type was really just a paperwork exercise in preparation for pressing charges.

I recommended he be prosecuted for conduct detrimental to good order and discipline, and for damaging government property.

The battalion commander grinned as he signed off on my report.

Then I was assigned as young Cassanova's company commander.

Lucky me. Before the report could be fully endorsed, the adulterer/burglar/attempted suicide Marine was discharged from service for an unspecified back injury. That is, he was also a malingerer.

Later on, I was asked to serve on the jury of a child molestation case. During the pre-trial screening, the defense lawyer asked me if I had any preconceived opinion regarding the case.

I did. I said we didn't need a trial; that the legal process would only gum things up; that the MPs wouldn't have busted the accused without just cause; and that we needed to send this new defendant to Leavenworth only long enough to put together a firing squad.

I was released from jury duty.