No, I'm not confused on that point - thats why I questioned if he comes to the conclusion MJ is a molester based on what he heard at trial, or from something else. Because either way the juror then is being irresponsible - the evidence he was presented had to do with the child in question. If he believes that Jacko is a child molester, and speaks out publicly on that, it would not seem unreasonable to assume that judgement comes from what was presented at trial, as relates to this specific case. Again raising the question of why vote not guilty if you think otherwise.
If, on the other hand, he's making an assessment based on something other than the evidence presented, it is simply an opinion and not worthy of note above the millions of others who have an opinion one way or the other on this or any other issue. Of course, if he is publicly expressing his own opinion, based on something other than the evidence he viewed, it might constitute libel, might it not, since it is likely to further tarnish Jackson's rep?

 

Jurors shouldn't be allowed to talk about a trial for a certain time period after the trial...

 

In the Jackson case, there definitely is a celebrity bias... Many if the 'talking heads' I heard were saying that if anyone else was accused, the DA would not even have brought it to trial becase there was nowhere near enough evidence to prove the case.

I think the DA owes the county a lot of money.