Editorial: The system worked

Wednesday, June 15, 2005 | 9:13 a.m.

Raymond C. Hultman, a 62-year-old juror in the Michael Jackson trial, was quoted by the Los Angeles Times as saying that he thought the performer probably had molested children -- "somebody somewhere along the line." But in the end, he joined with his fellow jurors in voting not guilty. As a result, Jackson was cleared of all 10 counts of child molestation and conspiracy that had been brought against him by Santa Barbara County District Attorney Tom Sneddon.

This is an example of the court system working. The prosecution fell considerably short of proving its case beyond a reasonable doubt. Much of it depended on anecdotal evidence impossible to prove, and testimony from witnesses who in many cases were not credible or whose testimony conflicted with the prosecutors' allegations.

Our justice system was set up to protect defendants from unreliable witnesses, hearsay and historical information with no direct bearing on the case at hand. Jurors were listening for solid proof against Jackson and heard none. Some, like Hultman, may have had a gut feeling that Jackson was guilty. But in voting based on the evidence alone, they upheld the whole supporting principle of our court system.