<style> <!-- /* Font Definitions */ @font-face {font-family:Cambria; panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4; mso-font-charset:0; mso-generic-font-family:auto; mso-font-pitch:variable; mso-font-signature:3 0 0 0 1 0;} /* Style Definitions */ p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal {mso-style-parent:""; margin:0in; margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-ascii-font-family:Cambria; mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin; mso-fareast-font-family:Cambria; mso-fareast-theme-font:minor-latin; mso-hansi-font-family:Cambria; mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin; mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-theme-font:minor-bidi;} a:link, span.MsoHyperlink {color:blue; text-decoration:underline; text-underline:single;} a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed {mso-style-noshow:yes; color
urple; text-decoration:underline; text-underline:single;} span.skimwords-potential {mso-style-name:skimwords-potential;} @page Section1 {size:8.5in 11.0in; margin:1.0in 1.25in 1.0in 1.25in; mso-header-margin:.5in; mso-footer-margin:.5in; mso-paper-source:0;} div.Section1 {page:Section1;} --> </style> I’ll give this a try, but with the disclaimer that I haven’t been following this trial nearly as intensively as I’ve followed other Michael-related court cases. I’m just sorry this trial ever happened. I don’t particularly care at this point who “wins.” I just want Michael to be left in peace.
First, a little bit about the American legal system. “A jury of one’s peers” doesn’t mean that jury selection is terribly specific, in terms of educational background, race, religion, ethnicity, etc. Basically it means the jury is not comprised of lawyers and other legal experts. Sometimes it’s possible to opt out of jury duty if it represents a “hardship.” That might include professional people whose interests would suffer if they spent time on juries, and for other reasons. (Juries sometimes are top-heavy with retired people, who have the time to spend.) A jury will not usually have any specific knowledge of the law, other than what’s said in court. There is no way to know what a jury’s collective critical thinking skills might be. (there are those on this board with a high level of critical thinking skills, but we can't assume that the jury will be comprised of people of the same level.) Although they are supposed to focus on the law, EMOTION clearly plays a part in any judgments. That component would be very hard to predict. I think juries tend to rely heavily on common-sense, and not so much on the minutia presented in court by attorneys.
If I have any opinion at all about the verdict, I’m leaning toward hoping for a win for the Jacksons. Not because they particularly deserve to be supported by Michael for the rest of their lives, but because if they get a substantial settlement, maybe they will finally leave Michael’s children alone as a money-making conduit for Michael’s estate?
Question No. 1
Did AEG Live hire Murray?
Yes. I’m pretty sure this will be a “yes.” The law does not require a contract for every instance of “hiring,” and oral agreements are very possible. In a personal sense, I work as a consultant (professional editing) and in fifteen years have never required a contract. I do the work, and on the honor system expect periodic payment. This works well. The Murray contract shows intention to formalize what was already occurring, i.e. Murray’s “work.” The emails confirm a relationship between AEG and Murray, if not an actual contract. I think he was "co-hired" by Michael and AEG, so AEG was in that mix as an employer.
Question No. 2
Was Murray unfit or incompetent to perform the work for which he was hired?
Yes. To me, key here is “the work for which he was hired.” I assume that in a general sense, that was to provide medical care for Michael. He did that. He killed him. This may seem far too simple, but it’s not impossible that the jury will give a lot of weight to this particular fact. Murray killed Michael.
Question No. 3
Did AEG Live know or should it have known that Murray was unfit or incompetent and that this unfitness or incompetence created a particular risk to others?
This one is more difficult, and I’m not sure what I’d answer if I were on the jury. A Google search is NOT a background check. A human life was at stake, and a lot of money. Common sense might lead the jury to think that a thorough background check should have been done by AEG. Even baby-sitters may have background checks done on them! Murray had one arrest for domestic abuse. He had at least one instance where he was reprimanded for “patient abandonment” where he was unable to be reached after performing a heart procedure on a patient. His office staff were volunteers, and apparently not being paid. His home was in foreclosure, and he was in arrears on child-support. While none of these things may directly apply to Michael, they paint a picture of someone who is LESS than responsible. This question could probably go either way.
Question No. 4
Did Murray's unfitness or incompetence harm Michael Jackson and the Jackson plaintiffs?
Yes. Michael died. Murray was doing medical procedures he was not qualified to do. To me, that indicates that as a doctor, he was incompetent because he should have known the risk, and yet he did it anyway. For this one, I’d think that AEG would not have had to have any specific knowledge that Murray was administering propofol. But this is a common-sense opinion, and I’m not really sure what the jury will do with it.
Question No. 5
Was AEG Live's negligence in hiring, supervising or retaining Murray a substantial factor in causing Michael Jackson and the Jackson plaintiffs' harm?
Not sure about this one, either. It remains unclear to me what, exactly, AEG’s supervising role actually was. The emails may come into play here, that AEG DID have a major hand in supervising. This one depends on the jury’s interpretation.
Questions No. 14-16
The amount of damages calculated by the jury could be significantly reduced when they reach the last three questions on their verdict form. These ask them to decide how much, if any, Michael Jackson's own negligence was a factor in his death.
I would think that if the jury gets this far, the damages could be significant. This one could go either way, but I doubt it would be even close to what is being asked for. There are too many unknowns. We do know that Michael supported his mother, but to what extent in the future that would have happened, and even how long Michael would have lived and what income he would have earned, remains speculation.