NEWSNetflix's 'Michael Jackson: The Verdict' Reopens the Trial That Still Shadows His Legacy
Netflix revisited Michael Jackson’s 2005 abuse trial.
June 9 2026, Published 5:32 a.m. ET
Netflix’s Michael Jackson: The Verdict arrives in the middle of a cultural split: the music remains everywhere, but the allegations against the man have never ended.
The docuseries, released June 3, revisits Jackson’s 2005 criminal trial on child sexual abuse charges, along with the earlier 1993 accusations against him. Jackson was acquitted and repeatedly denied wrongdoing until his 2009 death. Still, the case has remained one of pop culture’s most contested scandals.
The Trial Returns to the Screen
The docuseries revisited the fallout from Martin Bashir's documentary.
The Netflix series traces the events that followed the 2003 U.S. release of Martin Bashir’s documentary Living with Michael Jackson, in which Jackson spoke on camera about sharing his bed with children. The program preceded allegations from Gavin Arvizo that Jackson abused him at Neverland Ranch.
Forensic psychiatrist Dr. Carole Lieberman played a role in bringing attention to the case soon after Bashir’s film aired.
“I was the psychiatrist who brought about this trial through my complaint to Child Protective Services,” Lieberman said. “I held a press conference after the Martin Bashir documentary to describe all the clues in it that pointed to Michael having sexually abused Gavin. I also listed reasons why Michael’s children should be taken away until he got treatment.”
Dr. Carole Lieberman recalled filing a complaint against the King of Pop.
Lieberman read her complaint to reporters outside the Child Protective Services office in Los Angeles.
“This was how it all began,” she said.
The Santa Barbara County Sheriff's Department confirmed to NBC News at the time that Dr. Lieberman's complaint prompted their own investigation into the alleged abuse.
Santa Barbara County’s then-District Attorney Tom Sneddon dismissed an earlier investigation in Los Angeles County — which found the allegations "unfounded" — as "an interview plain and simple and that's all it was."
- 'The Same Sentence as a Serial Killer': Lyle Menendez Claims His Trial Was 'Never About Actual Innocence' After 34 Years Behind Bars
- Michael Jackson's Former Cook Claims He Witnessed Singer 'Grope' Macaulay Culkin at Age 10 While Playing Video Games
- Inside Michael Jackson and Bubbles' Relationship: Everything to Know — Including Where the Famous Chimpanzee Is Now
Want OK! each day? Sign up here!
What the Series Leaves Open
Dr. Carole Lieberman questioned Netflix's storytelling.
Lieberman said she had not yet watched the Netflix docuseries but plans to.
“What I can say is that no one from the Netflix documentary contacted me, so I am left to wonder whether they incorporated the origins of the trial in it,” she said. “Viewers must keep in mind that any retelling of a trial risks being biased to promote the writer’s point of view instead of the truth.”
The Difference Between Court and Television
The series reopened discussion about fame and justice.
Attorney and law lecturer Danny Karon said viewers should remember that trials and docuseries are built for different purposes.
“Trials and trial testimony are meticulously crafted to account for the facts, with a mind for the most persuasive way to channel them through the rules of evidence,” Karon explained. “Docuseries are fashioned for ratings by amplifying the facts to suit viewers’ salacious interests and generate advertising dollars.”
“The goals of each process is vastly different,” he added. “I’ve experienced this difference firsthand and can tell you that seeing is often not believing.”
