Rating The Jackson Closers

Attorney Andrew Cohen analyzes legal issues for CBS News and CBSNews.com.

Jackson is prey, not predator, in this story, Mesereau told the panel, and the case against him has been "a nightmare" for the fragile star. Jackson is the victim of a "pattern of extortion" by a family adept, willing and able to use sexual abuse allegations as a weapon to intimidate deep-pocket defendants into paying them money. Jackson, Mesereau said, "has been lax with money, he has let the wrong people sometimes be around him, (and) he was naïve to allow (the alleged victim and his family) anywhere near him." If jurors give points for understatement, Mesereau is the grand-prize winner.

In addition to trying to generate sympathy for his client, the defense attorney continued to savage the family accusing him. The alleged victim and his mother are "liars and perjurers," Mesereau kept repeating to the jury as he begged the panel to "heed the principle of reasonable doubt." Who are you going to believe? Mesereau asked jurors over and over again: a creepy family or a bunch of more reliable and independent witnesses who countered their story? The argument made you think of William Safire's infamous "congenital liar" line about Hillary Clinton. Here, Mesereau said, we have "a family where children have been taught to lie and con."

Mesereau didn't use top-shelf words but his argument was pointed, far more so than the one offered yesterday by his counterpart, senior deputy district attorney Ronald J. Zonen. Where Zonen was unfocused, Mesereau was sharp; where Zonen was deadpan, Mesereau was emotional; where Zonen lost jurors during his remarks, Mesereau kept the panel riveted. These differences won't determine the outcome of this case. But now that closing arguments have concluded it is fair to say, once again in this long case, that the defense got the better of prosecutors.

One of the more immutable truths about trials is that the side which seeks clarity in court is usually the side with the best evidence. That's why, in most criminal cases, prosecutors are the ones telling jurors that the evidence is clear and that the path to a verdict is easy and simple. And that's why, in most cases, it is the defense attorney who spends a ton of time trying to confused jurors with scattered theories, arguments and suppositions designed to muddy the waters where the facts and the law lie. This rule was proven here by the exception that the Jackson case represents.

During closing arguments it was Mesereau, not Zonen, who offered jurors specific details about the evidence. It was Mesereau, not Zonen, who pointed out specific testimony by the alleged victim-the defense attorney used a video screen in the courtroom to highlight the many times he says that Jackson accuser lied under oath. It was Mesereau, not Zonen, who gave specific examples of the times he says the accuser's mother conned, or tried to con people out of their money. It was Mesereau who gave jurors the specificity and preciseness that plays well in the jury room.

This is no small thing to consider as the jury now heads off to determine Jackson's fate. If nothing else, it is a clear indication of what both sides truly think about their own cases. Clearly, prosecutors don't have much confidence in the details of the charges-they never were even able to give jurors a workable timeline about when the alleged molestation took place in relation to when the conspiracy may have started. And clearly Mesereau's presentation suggests that he wants jurors to roll up their sleeves and root around in the depths of the trial evidence. In a case like this, with the whole world watching, jurors certainly are going to need specifics to make and then justify their verdict. Mesereau eagerly gave them the tools. Zonen seemed less inclined to find any.

Another interesting aspect of the defense argument was Mesereau's focus upon this trial's connection to a potential civil action against Jackson that is probably on its way. Trying to give jurors an explanation as to why a family would put itself through this drama and trauma if the allegations against Jackson are not true, Mesereau said the clan did it, in part, on the advice of its civil attorneys, who helped the young man and his family try to develop a case against the King of Pop. When they first learned of the purported molestation, Mesereau told jurors, the family called its lawyers before it called the police. And those lawyers, Mesereau added, are "manipulating the criminal justice system by getting the county to pay for the case... Don't let it happen," Mesereau begged.

Did the defense stumble at all? Yes. At the end of his close, Mesereau showed jurors snippets of a videotape showing Jackson talking about children and the like. The defense wanted it shown to humanize Jackson and try to convince jurors that he is a harmless child himself with kooky but not criminal designs. Perhaps the tape did that, but it also reinforced for jurors just how creepy the defendant is; just how odd he is for saying the things he says. I mean, who wants to have a party for animal stars like Lassie? Jackson. It was not the brightest or most effective way to end what otherwise was a stellar presentation.

After Mesereau sat down, Zonen stood up and had the final word. We expected him to be dramatic but he was not. He was measured, and firm, but offered no grand flourish before he sat down. As expected, he played for jurors a seven-minute portion of the videotape of an interview the police had with the young accuser, the one that was so dramatic and effective when it was played for jurors last week at the end of the prosecution's presentation. And then Zonen told jurors: "You just witnessed the seven worst minutes of this young boy's life." He was molested by Michael Jackson, a person close to him."

Zonen rebutted some of the points that Mesereau had made during his closing remarks but for the most part allowed the young accuser to speak for himself. And then he ended on a fairly tepid note. "The accusations" against Jackson "are not false," Zonen told the panel. "They are entirely accurate, entirely appropriate, and entirely trustworthy." If you ask me, that end to this case was entirely too unemotional and powerful-like when a politician endorses a candidate you can tell he doesn't particularly like.

Now the case is with jurors. After weeks and months of being told what to do or not do, at last now they have some control over their own fate. After listening to millions of words of testimony and argument and instruction at last now they get to speak. And until and unless they speak with one voice it will be the rest of us who must wait. Nowhere will that wait be longer than it is at Neverland, where one middle-aged man who acts like a kid and who looks like a freak will be wondering if this is his last free weekend for quite some time.