Understanding the 2005 "Not Guilty" Verdict

March 25, 2025

When discussing the allegations against Michael Jackson, both past and present, his supporters often assert that he was found "not guilty," implying his complete innocence. This phrase is repeated frequently, much like a mantra, particularly among hard-core apologists.

For instance, shortly before the release of the documentary Leaving Neverland, the Jackson estate issued a statement asserting:

Michael Jackson is innocent. Period. In 2005, Michael Jackson was subjected to a trial—where rules of evidence and law were applied before a neutral judge and jury and where both sides were heard—and he was exonerated by a sophisticated jury. Ten years after his passing, there are still those out to profit from his enormous worldwide success and take advantage of his eccentricities. Michael is an easy target because he is not here to defend himself, and the law does not protect the deceased from defamation, no matter how extreme the lies are. Michael may not have lived his life according to society's norms, but genius and eccentricity are not crimes.

However, it is essential to emphasize that in a court of law, being found "not guilty" does not equate to a determination of innocence, contrary to claims made by the Jackson estate and others. In 2005, Michael Jackson was acquitted of the charges of molesting Gavin Arvizo due to reasonable doubt; this verdict does not absolve him of scrutiny regarding his questionable behaviour or other allegations made against him.

In any trial, there are key components: a plaintiff, a defendant, and specific charges that implicate them. In this particular case, Jackson served as the defendant, while Gavin Arvizo was the plaintiff. The trial's focus was solely on the charges brought against Jackson, meaning that the court did not evaluate whether he was a paedophile or if he had abused other children. Instead, the central issue was whether he had committed abuse against Gavin Arvizo.

Consequently, all discussions and evidence presented during the trial were directed at substantiating these claims. Much of the evidence collected in previous investigations, particularly from 1993, was deemed inadmissible. Under California law, the judge was obligated to assess whether the probative value of this evidence surpassed its potential prejudicial impact. This legal principle protects a defendant's right to be tried solely for the charges at hand, without bias from prior allegations.

Jurors expressed discomfort regarding Jackson's relationships with children, and some harboured suspicions about his past behaviour. However, the judge's instructions clarified that jurors were barred from considering past evidence (as outlined in Sections 1101 and 1108) when deciding on the 2005 charges.

From the document:

2.50 EVIDENCE OF OTHER CRIMES

(EVIDENCE CODE § 1101)

Evidence has been introduced for the purpose of showing that the defendant committed crimes other than that for which he is on trial.

Except as you will otherwise be instructed, this evidence, if believed, may be considered by you only for the limited purpose of determining if it tends to show:

- A characteristic method, plan or scheme in the commission of criminal acts similar to the method, plan or scheme used in the commission of the offense in this case which would further tend to show the existence of the intent which is a necessary element of the crime charged;

- The existence of the intent which is a necessary element of the crime charged;

- A motive for the commission of the crime charged;

- For the limited purpose for which you may consider such evidence, you must weigh it in the same manner as you do all other evidence in the case.

2.50.01 EVIDENCE OF OTHER SEXUAL OFFENSES (Evidence Code § 1108)

Evidence has been introduced for the purpose of showing that the defendant engaged in a sexual offense on one or more occasions other than that charged in the case.

- "Sexual offense" means a crime under the laws of a state or of the United States that involves:

- Any conduct made criminal by Penal Code § 288a. The elements of this crime is set forth elsewhere in these instructions.

- If you find that the defendant committed a prior sexual offense, you may, but are not required to, infer that the defendant had a disposition to commit sexual offenses. If you find that the defendant had this disposition, you may, but are not required to, infer that he was likely to commit and did commit the crime or crimes of which he is accused.

- However, if you find by a preponderance of the evidence that the defendant committed a prior sexual offense, or offenses, that is not sufficient by itself to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he committed the charged crimes. If you determine an inference properly can be drawn from this evidence, this inference is simply one item for you to consider, along with all other evidence, in determining whether the defendant has been proved guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of the charged crime.

Jurors could only reach a verdict based on the evidence presented about Gavin Arvizo, rather than on their beliefs regarding prior allegations.

Some members of the jury, which acquitted "The King of Pop" of all 10 charges related to allegations that he molested a now-15-year-old boy, said they suspected the singer had molested other children but that prosecutors had not proven he had done anything illegal to the accuser in his trial.

During deliberations, jury foreman Paul Rodriguez said, he and other jurors frequently discussed the testimony they had heard about past allegations that Jackson had molested or behaved inappropriately with five other boys, including two youngsters who reached multimillion-dollar settlements with the singer in the 1990s.

But, Rodriguez said, the jurors knew they could not convict solely on the basis of past allegations.

Source: abcnews.com

This is further confirmed in another interview conducted after the trial.

When asked if they believed that Michael Jackson may have molested other children, however, three jurors said they suspected that could be true. The jury heard testimony from a number of sources about Jackson's alleged molestation or inappropriate behavior with other children.

But the jurors said they closely followed the judge's instructions, considering only the evidence presented in this case.

The jury foreman, Paul Rodriguez, said past allegations came up frequently in the jury room, and while he said it is "possible" Jackson could have molested other children," we couldn't weigh that with this case in particular.

Source: ktre.com

Paul Rodriguez Further added:

The jury foreman, Paul Rodriguez, said jurors were "very troubled" that Jackson, by his own admission, had overnight sleepovers with children in his bed.

But Rodriguez, a 63-year-old retired high school counsellor from Santa Maria, said jurors were instructed by the judge to base their verdicts on the facts of the case, not "our beliefs or our own personal thoughts."

"We would hope ... that he doesn't sleep with children anymore," Rodriguez said on CNN. "He just has to be careful how he conducts himself around children."

Source: CNN.com

Furthermore, another Juror, Raymond Hultman, clarified this in the 2005 documentary "Why Michael Jackson Won."

This means that even if a person is not found guilty of a crime, it does not automatically imply their innocence in relation to the same crime committed against others. It is not uncommon for individuals to be acquitted in one case but subsequently found guilty of that same crime in other instances. For example, Argentine musician Cristian Aldana was acquitted in two cases of child sexual abuse but was found guilty in four. Similarly, musician Gary Glitter was accused and acquitted of engaging in sexual relations with a girl during the 1970s yet was imprisoned in 2015 for the same crime against another girl. Jordan, Wade, James, and Jason represent different cases from Gavin, and their allegations should not be conflated with his.

So, Is It Accurate to Assert That Michael Jackson Is Innocent of Sexually Abusing Gavin Arvizo?

No, because in the American judicial system, being declared innocent is distinct from being declared not guilty.

In court, the burden is not on the defence to "prove innocence," but rather on the prosecution to prove guilt. In criminal cases, the jury faces the challenging task of deliberating both sides and determining whether the prosecution has proven the case "beyond a reasonable doubt."

When someone is found not guilty, it doesn't mean the jury unanimously agreed that there is no possibility that the individual committed the crime. A not guilty verdict signifies that the jury carefully considered the possibility of guilt but ultimately found the evidence insufficient to reach a verdict. 

In Michael Jackson's case, the jury was significantly divided, leading to considerable tension within the group. Some jurors believed he was guilty, while others maintained his innocence, and some did not make any official statements either way. Ultimately, everyone voted not guilty to avoid a hung jury, which occurs when the jury cannot reach a decision.

Can it be argued that nothing could be proven? On a legal level, yes. A trial occurred, and the jury reached a verdict based on the high burden of proof required in criminal trials. However, on a factual level, that assertion is debatable. It was unreasonable for the jurors to expect definitive proof in a sexual abuse case; Mesereau managed the trial more effectively than Sneddon, and the family involved did not have a strong reputation, which does not negate the possibility that their son was indeed abused.

Sexual abuse trials are among the most challenging cases to win, as they often lack concrete evidence, victims are frequently inconsistent in their accounts, and juries are not experts in matters of sexual abuse.

Child sexual abuse (CSA) cases are notoriously difficult to prosecute. Medical evidence is available in less than 5% of the reported cases of CSA and the prosecution often must rely on the testimony of a child. Prosecutors have the responsibility to achieve justice. They balance this role with the complexities of determining what is justice for the child victim and how can they best protect the community from offenders who may go on to sexually abuse others. In 2014, the National Institute of Justice (NIJ) funded this study of prosecution of CSA. This report describes research findings on prosecutorial outcomes and considers obstacles to obtaining justice for the child victims in these complicated cases. 

We conducted retrospective analysis of 500 CSA cases referred for prosecution in one state, to examine the barriers to prosecuting these cases. We analysed case records for evidence about the alleged incident, details about the victim, the victim’s family, the alleged perpetrator, and the prosecutorial decisions. We assessed the case attrition and the CSA case characteristics associated with prosecution outcomes. 

Source: ojp.gov

And:

The decision to prosecute child sexual abuse is a complicated process in part because of the special dynamics surrounding child abuse: The crime of sexual abuse is often committed in private; there are rarely eyewitnesses; and the child’s testimony usually provides most of the information about the crime. When children are young, the quality of their testimony may be compromised by developmental limitations in memory and language. Furthermore, there are potential complications to sexual abuse cases: The child may have a pre-existing close relationship with the offender, thereby increasing the chance of reluctant cooperation in the court process. In addition, the criminal court process can be extremely lengthy for sexual abuse cases, and caregivers may be concerned about the stress placed onto their children as a result of the process.

Source: sci-hub.se

And:

It is exceedingly difficult to make child sexual abuse cases stick at trial, according to prosecutors, police and advocates, because months may have passed before the abuse came to light, child witnesses may waver and there seldom is the additional physical evidence jurors crave.

'It's the No. 1 hardest crime to prosecute,' said Cedar Rapids police Officer Charity Hansel, who investigated sex and internet crimes against children for 11 years.

Source: thegazette.com

Was It a Squeakyclean Trial?

I doubt there are many trials where both prosecution and defense witnesses tell the truth and nothing but the truth. The 2005 trial was no exception.

Most notably, was Wade Robson, heralded as the "star" witness by the defence. We now know that Wade falsely defended Jackson at that trial, disclosing in 2013 that he had been abused over 100 times as a child, keeping it a secret due to extensive grooming and manipulation.

Wade's testimony wasn’t the only misleading account; his mother and sister, Joy and Chantelle, also testified in Jackson's favour without realizing that Wade harboured a deep, dark secret.

Another issue is defence witnesses who were falsely discredited, due to Wade's testimony. For instance, Blanca Francia, the former housemaid, testified that she believed she witnessed Wade taking a shower with Jackson. Wade denied ever using the shower with Jackson in 2005, undermining Blanca's credibility.

Moreover, some defence witnesses who initially planned to testify against Jackson changed their tune and ended up praising him instead. Ron Zonen, one of the lead prosecutors, noted this in the 2020 documentary "The Real Michael Jackson," suggesting that Jackson exerted influence over them, referring to his brief ex-wife, Debbie Rowe, and possibly Bob Jones, his ex manager.

Watch the clip below.

Thomas Mesereau, Jackson's lead attorney, was also questionable in his tactics. He tricked Gavin Arvizo's brother, Star, into claiming that a "Barely Legal" magazine he was holding up was the same one Michael Jackson had shown him and his brother. The magazine Mesereau presented had been published at a later date, making Star appear dishonest. It’s important to note that all "Barely Legal" magazines closely resemble one another.

Additionally, prosecution witness, Kiki Fournier, another former housemaid, was questioned about the boys she saw coming to Neverland Ranch, including James Safechuck by both sides. Thomas Mesereau went on to ask whether she knew James Safechuck had gotten married at Neverland, only for her to reply that she didn't know he was married at all. However, this is false. James Safechuck never got married at Neverland, and Thomas Mesereau clearly created the impression to the jury, that James maintained a positive relationship with Jackson into adulthood. He didn't.

On top of that, Michael Jackson himself appeared in court an hour late, wearing pajamas, looking frail and in pain, on the 10th of March. This just happened to coincide with key testimony from Gavin Arvizo and his family. Initially, Thomas Mesereau claimed that Jackson was in "hospital for treatment for a severe back problem after tripping and falling over while getting dressed." However, just weeks later, Jackson offered a markedly different story, stating he had slipped in the shower and severely bruised his lung, for which he was undergoing treatment.

Sounds plausible, right?

Yet, in a 2017 documentary titled "TIME Presents: Celebrities on Trial," Mesereau repeated his claim that Jackson had fallen and injured his back, contradicting the shower incident.

Watch the clip below.

So why can't Jackson and Mesereau get their story straight?

It seems evident that Jackson faked an injury to present himself as frail and vulnerable. Let’s not forget, this is the same individual who falsely accused officers of dislocating his shoulder during his 2003 arrest. By showing up late in his pyjamas, he attracted significant media and public attention, which was likely intended to disrupt the Arvizo's testimony.

Whether the above things had a big impact on the jury's final verdict, I guess, we will never know. But they played a part, that's for sure.