I think the most important issue in this (like the OJ trial) is the most important words you'd want to hear if you were on trial: Reasonable Doubt.
It's too bad it isn't applied fairly in all cases (there have been rape/murder trials based on circumstantial evidence where passions ran hot and generated a conviction) but I think the most important part of any murder trial is that a jury must be convinced that the person on trial is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. The OJ trial didn't have enough evidence to do this, whether he was guilty or not. Apparently the same is true with the Michael Jackson trial. If I was a juror in a murder, rape, abuse, or otherwise violent crime case, I'd want all the facts in hand and I'd want a clear cut case with more than just a few circumstantial events. Without those two words, it would be far too easy for a jury to target their hatred of the crime committed against the defendant, whether he was guilty or innocent, and wrongly convict. Too often these days, people are presumed guilty by the public just because they are put on trial. My dislike of Michael Jackson aside, I think that presumption needs to end.
Intel Q9450 @3.2GHz, Gigabyte GA EP45-UD3P, 4 x 2GB G.Skill @4-4-4-12
Antec P160SW case (modded), Xigmatek 750w PSU
3x 500GB (RAID-5), , OptiArc 7200S, ASUS E818A3T
Creative X-Fi XtremeGamer, Hauppauge HVR-1800, Radeon 4890