Toe-To-Toe Over Jackson Trial

Observers say the jury in the Michael Jackson child molestation trial could get the case as soon as next week.

So, which side has done the better job so far, the prosecution or the defense?

CBS News legal analyst Wendy Murphy, a former prosecutor, and fellow CBS News legal analyst Mickey Sherman, a defense attorney, disagree up and down the line.

But they do seem to see eye-to-eye on one major point: It could all come down to the credibility of Jackson's accuser, and the accuser's family, particularly his mother.

"I think the prosecution, no matter what you think about the mother's problems, really did put on a very strong molestation case," Murphy asserted to The Early Show co-anchor Julie Chen Thursday. "I'm not persuaded that the conspiracy charge is going to land in a guilty verdict, but, boy, that child was so credible on the stand. There was so much corroboration. The jury heard from five other victims, or heard testimony about five other victims.

"The pornography, there is nothing you can do with that evidence. That's objective proof that Jackson is a sexually inappropriate man around children. And there was a lot of compelling evidence about the alcohol, the booze, he was providing to kids.

"So I think it's going to be very difficult for the jury to find him not guilty on the molestation charges. The defense really didn't do much during its case to undermine the prosecution's evidence.

"As Wendy says," Sherman rebutted, "they brought in evidence that Michael Jackson molested other victims. So what did the defense do? They brought in the victims, who said, 'He never molested me.' Notably, (actor) Macaulay Culkin.

"Everything goes back to the mother of the victim. You can say the young man was strong. Where did he get his story? Where did he get his marching orders? From someone whom the state basically conceded was a liar, a perjurer. It comes back to her. Even Jay Leno, as weak as they say his testimony was, still showed that this mother, and her son, acted in such a way that he got spooked about it and he called the police."

Sherman conceded that, "No question, the biggest problem (the defense has) is this young man looking at that jury and saying, 'That guy touched me.' There is no question about it. That's very tough to deal with.

"But (the defense) did it in a very appropriate way. They went all around him. They said he's probably not telling the truth, because this is a grand scheme, and they've done this before. Then they also brought other witnesses to say, 'No, that's not the way it happened.' "

Murphy was quick to counter: "I think the defense did promise in openings that they'd put on all these witnesses to say this family was a bunch of grifters who were always trying to get money from celebrities. But guess what? None of that panned out. There was no evidence that that's the way this family functioned, especially with celebrities, and certainly there was no evidence that that happened with Michael Jackson.

"Witness after witness said, 'This family never asked me for a dime.' Mickey is wrong. There is absolutely no evidence that this mother told this child to lie about anything, including molestation.

"One of the reasons the child is especially credible is how understated his claims were. He didn't say, 'Oh, you know, Michael Jackson raped me.' He said, 'There were three times he patted me in my genital area, two times over my clothing.' Boy, if you were going to lie about being molested, you'd say a lot more than that!"

Sherman and Murphy even split over the importance of closing arguments.

Sherman: "You never really know. There is a school of thought that says the last thing the jury hears is going to control. But they have to tie it together. I think the state has spent so much time sliming Michael Jackson, asking the jury to condemn him, to take away his livelihood, based upon his character, it's not going to fly."

Murphy: "There is no question that closings will make or break the case for the prosecution. They've gotta highlight the things that came out of the defense witnesses that helped strengthen the prosecution's case, including a defense witness who said Jackson slept in bed with a little boy 365 nights over the course of two years. There is no innocent explanation for that. That is sexual in nature. That's going to make a big difference in this case."