Latest on MJJC

Court Procedures and Law Information and Q&A

So i guess it comes down to whether the jury thinks murrays contribution was significant or minimal in causing mjs D.
 
ivy;3504227 said:
From june

http://www.essaycoursework.com/modelanswer/law/essays/chain-of-causation-manslaughter.php

I'm quoting some parts below

The culpable act must have a degree of substantiality as a cause of death, the determination of this is for the judiciary and it certainly seems to be construed narrowly as was stated by Goff LJ in R v. Pagett ‘the accused’s act need not be the sole cause, or even the main, of the victim’s death, it being enough that his act contributed significantly to that result’. The distinction between a minimal contribution and a significant contribution has no technical meaning and in most violent criminal cases it will be what the ‘twelve men and women sitting as a jury in the jury box would regard in a common-sense way as the cause’ . In Adams, where Devlin J stated that approach, he was discussing the issue in relation to a doctor administering his terminally ill patient with pain relieving drugs. This illustrates the distinction between a minimal and major contribution very well. If the administration of drugs was considered part of a doctors duty which had the incidental effect of shortening life then this was not murder however if it was considered to be an intentional attempt to end the life of the patient then it was a substantially intervening fact so as to be considered the cause of death.
Click to expand...

That analysis relies on UK case law, but is it safe to say the same general principle (re minimal/significant contribution) is elucidated in American case law?

I am sorry for all the questions, I just can't seem to find enough hours in the day to locate the correct authorities as stated in California.
 
So thats uk law. theremust be an easy to find legal website with the definitions somewhere
 
roomdownstairs;3506480 said:
That analysis relies on UK case law, but is it safe to say the same general principle (re minimal/significant contribution) is elucidated in American case law?

I am sorry for all the questions, I just can't seem to find enough hours in the day to locate the correct authorities as stated in California.
Click to expand...

Involuntary Manslaughter Prosecution – California Penal Code Section 192(b)

To prove that you are guilty of involuntary manslaughter, the prosecution has the burden of showing that:

1.The defendant committed a crime that posed a high risk of death or great bodily injury because of the way in which it was committed, or committed a lawful act, but acted with criminal negligence; AND

2.The defendant’s acts caused the death of another person.

Criminal negligence involves more than ordinary carelessness, inattention, or mistake in judgment. The defendant acted with criminal negligence if:1.He/she acted in a reckless way that created a high risk of death or great bodily injury; AND

2.A reasonable person would have known that acting in that way would have created such a risk.

Additional Notes:•A defendant’s lack of “due caution and circumspection” is recognized as the equivalent to criminal negligence. People v. Penny (1955) 44 Cal.2d 861, 879.

•An act causes death if the death is the direct, natural, and probable consequence of the act and the death would not have happened without the act. A natural and probable consequence is one that a reasonable person would know is likely to happen if nothing unusual intervenes. In deciding whether a consequence is natural and probable, consider all of the circumstances established by the evidence.

•There may be more than one cause of death. An act causes death only if it is a substantial factor in causing the death. A substantial factor is more than a trivial or remote factor. However, it does not need to be the only factor that causes the death.
•Great bodily injury means significant or substantial physical injury. It is an injury that is greater than minor or moderate harm
 
Thanks q so that bit in red is the same as uk law thats written above
 
Just read the full transcript of Murray's interview:
http://tmz.vo.llnwd.net/o28/newsdesk/tmz_documents/1007_conrad_murray_transcript.pdf

I'm devastated. Did Murray have the right to disclose MJ's medical history to the police? He told the police about all Michael's most intimate problems - things that I'm sure Michael would have been extremely embarrassed to let the world know about. And now it's all on TMZ, and I'm praying for the press to be decent enough not to mock it. Those medical problems had NOTHING TO DO with the case. Did Murray have the right to talk about it??
 
morinen said:
Just read the full transcript of Murray's interview:
http://tmz.vo.llnwd.net/o28/newsdesk/tmz_documents/1007_conrad_murray_transcript.pdf

I'm devastated. Did Murray have the right to disclose MJ's medical history to the police? He told the police about all Michael's most intimate problems - things that I'm sure Michael would have been extremely embarrassed to let the world know about. And now it's all on TMZ, and I'm praying for the press to be decent enough not to mock it. Those medical problems had NOTHING TO DO with the case. Did Murray have the right to talk about it??
Click to expand...

answer from june


As I understand it, Murray and Chernoff called Detective Smith on Saturday, June 27, 2009 volunteering to give a statement (this being two days after Michael's death after Murray had lawyered up). They met that same day, June 27, at a local LA hotel where the interview was recorded. This was prior to the toxicology report and the death being ruled a homicide. I agree with some reports I have read that Murray and Chernoff wanted to get Murray's story out there, figuring MJ's death would be ruled an overdose, and the story would fade away, and by initiating the interview, he, Murray, would not appear more evasive than he had already proven himself.

To the question: did Murray have the right to talk to police regarding Michael's medical problems? Well, Murray can be heard many times deviating off the detectives' questions, adding medical information that was not asked of him, pointing fingers at other doctors, Klein, Adams, blaming the victim, blaming the promoter, bodyguards and anyone else he could think of. I was taken back at how rehearsed by Murray this entire "interview" went, in the sense that Chernoff more than likely had told him anytime they ask you about Michael's medical history, just go off and add whatever you want; Michael's not around to refute it. He seemed very detailed in his timeline of events over a six month period which is easy to do if one is making it up as he goes along and expects the death to fade away and the interview to "never be released" as the detectives had told him. Whether Murray had the "right" to talk to police regarding Michael's medical problems, at that time it wasn't a criminal investigation, however I'm sure detectives wanted to hear EVERYTHING Murray had to say, no matter how distorted and embellished.
 
Murray shoveled his legal grave with that interview since it's obvious he's putting a decedent down with that kind of medical information swoop. That much dissing of your dead patient (!!!) is a huge, red flag which would normally send every detective searching if that was something else then an overdose. How anyone from Chernoff to Murray didn't think it would look suspicious to put your freshly deceased patient down that much- Murray's gonna pay for that, just wait for the boomerang to come back. Kinda OT, but that act of trying to humiliate Michael is going to turn on him.

Fits in very nicely with the Russel testimony the prosecution already went for, disclosure of TMI. Prosecution opened with Russell and then waited to lower the boom by playing Murray out loud for confirmation.
While it's painful to us to listen to so much verbal diarrhea the prosecution is doing well to establish that Murray's overall attitude would be quite indicative of of someone capable of manslaughter.

And if media seriously wants to put one of the most creative and legendary dancers down for requiring the help of a podiatrist- then they deserve the sh*t storm the fans and people with common sense will gladly elicit. Word already got out that fans will light up the torches for use of racially charged monikers- should they try- well, we'll be there to demonstrate what we think about that. I wouldn't despair.
 
Last edited:
Reading what he said and what we have heard so far, I feel it´s like listening to a bunch of people making gossip, it feel the police couldn´t get enough and had a good time listening to all private things Murray claimed about Michael. Lot of them made up too. Gas station thing is one, they were allowed inside the house, kitchen door anyone..?
 
I almost went through the TV when he called Michael inhumane for not letting the body guards use the bathroom in the house. (I don't believe that for a second)
Michael Jackson didn't want a bug on his stage killed. Look in the mirror Conrad to see who is inhumane!
 
Yeah, that's the guy that let fans sleep on his bus after 9/11, bought his fans pizza and hot chocolate because it was cold outside. Secondly, guards said they used the kitchen door to use the guest bathroom.
Thirdly, MJ experienced everything from stalkers to people who wanted him DEAD and had fans break into his house in the past, hiding in closets. Who the heck is Murray to talk?? I know this is OT, but I also nearly went through the TV. Dude dissing on his dead patient. Man! And lastly people like Alvarez stated to have liked their job. I rest my case.

I swear, Murray's the last to who should talk about "inhumane". The gall. Someone referred to him as sociopath- the more you hear from the more I can't help but think that way.
 
ilmjj said:
I almost went through the TV when he called Michael inhumane for not letting the body guards use the bathroom in the house. (I don't believe that for a second)
Michael Jackson didn't want a bug on his stage killed. Look in the mirror Conrad to see who is inhumane!
Click to expand...

I don't remember who exactly, but one of the MJ's security guards already confirmed in earlier testimony that they WERE allowed to use bathroom in the house. I remember being surprised by this question by the prosecution. Now I understand why.
 
moodyblue97;3507579 said:
Reading what he said and what we have heard so far, I feel it´s like listening to a bunch of people making gossip, it feel the police couldn´t get enough and had a good time listening to all private things Murray claimed about Michael. Lot of them made up too. Gas station thing is one, they were allowed inside the house, kitchen door anyone..?
Click to expand...


This gas station thing is sooooooooooo not Michael. Murray saying,"I thought that to be so inhumane".
 
That's why I am so delighted that Murray is now tied in to his police statement. It's all going to come back and bite him in the a**. How I wish the defense are desperate enough to put Murray on the stand, I think the prosecution will crucify him.
 
And to me murray attacking mj re the gas station ect implies guilt.what sort of person would say that about someone whos just died and they claim is their friend. even then he was trying to make himself appear as a victim
 
elusive moonwalker said:
And to me murray attacking mj re the gas station ect implies guilt.what sort of person would say that about someone whos just died and they claim is their friend. even then he was trying to make himself appear as a victim
Click to expand...

Yes the victim and the hero all at the same time. Trying to wean him off the 'drugs', healing his feet, and starting to help this 'blind man' see again.
 
elusive moonwalker;3508103 said:
Is there even a gas station anywhere near the house
Click to expand...

No, the next gas station is miles away. It´s just Sunset Blvd
 
I'm sorry to ask this horrible hypothetical question, but it bothers me.

If Murray had called 911 (albeit late) and MJ had subsequently been left in a persistent vegetative state..or indeed with any degree of brain damage (due to lack of oxygen because of the late call), could MJ have sued CM for damages? eg multi millions for care? Is CM 'better off' being found guilty of manslaughter and losing his medical licence? I guess after jail time he can still work in some capacity (other than as a Dr) and will have no further financial or other penalties hanging over him...?

I wondered if not calling 911 was a premeditated act...... not just because he hoped to cover things up, but for his own future 'lack of potential financial cost'.
I'm guessing any medical insurance would not have covered him for IV admin of propofol and any consequent 'accidents'.

Edited to add: It just seems so odd that he would have the ambubag and oxygen to hand, and not use them, and not do correct CPR...everything points to a deliberate act of negligence. He also attached the oximeter to MJs finger, but must have removed it after Alberto came in to the room..maybe so that Alberto could not see the values it was displaying. CM must have known MJs level of oxygenation at that time....it was probably getting low.

As the expert medical witnesses testified yesteday..all doctors are trained to evaluate the 'worst case scenario' before starting treatment...maybe CM had...and just planned to 'blame MJ' for anything that went wrong, all along. Minimising the potential cost to himself would be a logical next step. A cardiologist would be very aware of the likely effects of lack of oxygen to the brain if the patient was rescued, but rescued too late for a full recovery. He would also know that most of what the paramedics were doing was too late....so the fact he encouraged them not to 'call time of death' is not really an argument against this hypothetical possibility.
 
Last edited:
Very interesting question. It is very possible that not calling 911 may have be 'premeditated'. Maybe not in those clear terms but he may have thought that at that point it would be best for him to leave no witnesses behind. This is such a scary thought.
 
myosotis said:
I'm sorry to ask this horrible hypothetical question, but it bothers me.

If Murray had called 911 (albeit late) and MJ had subsequently been left in a persistent vegetative state..or indeed with any degree of brain damage (due to lack of oxygen because of the late call), could MJ have sued CM for damages? eg multi millions for care? Is CM 'better off' being found guilty of manslaughter and losing his medical licence? I guess after jail time he can still work in some capacity (other than as a Dr) and will have no further financial or other penalties hanging over him...?

I wondered if not calling 911 was a premeditated act...... not just because he hoped to cover things up, but for his own future 'lack of potential financial cost'.
I'm guessing any medical insurance would not have covered him for IV admin of propofol and any consequent 'accidents'.

Edited to add: It just seems so odd that he would have the ambubag and oxygen to hand, and not use them, and not do correct CPR...everything points to a deliberate act of negligence. He also attached the oximeter to MJs finger, but must have removed it after Alberto came in to the room..maybe so that Alberto could not see the values it was displaying. CM must have known MJs level of oxygenation at that time....it was probably getting low.

As the expert medical witnesses testified yesteday..all doctors are trained to evaluate the 'worst case scenario' before starting treatment...maybe CM had...and just planned to 'blame MJ' for anything that went wrong, all along. Minimising the potential cost to himself would be a logical next step. A cardiologist would be very aware of the likely effects of lack of oxygen to the brain if the patient was rescued, but rescued too late for a full recovery. He would also know that most of what the paramedics were doing was too late....so the fact he encouraged them not to 'call time of death' is not really an argument against this hypothetical possibility.
Click to expand...

I would think that Murray's medical malpractice insurance should have covered it. Also if MJ was saved it wouldn't have been that easy of a case - as 911, revival and equipment would become irrelevant. Furthermore especially if MJ was the one that requested Propofol.
 
ivy said:
I would think that Murray's medical malpractice insurance should have covered it. Also if MJ was saved it wouldn't have been that easy of a case - as 911, revival and equipment would become irrelevant. Furthermore especially if MJ was the one that requested Propofol.
Click to expand...

Just out of interest... Would the insurance pay out if he didn't have a signed consent?
 
Does the judge have total say over sentencing or are the jury involved
 
I'd like to know about the sentencing too because I heard on TV that there's a possibility due to the charges that Murray might serve probation only because jails are over crowded. Also heard if he goes to a county jail, the sheriff might realese him earlier. This can not happen. this will be unjust because if Murray can't practice after the sentencing; he will make money with books and interviews.
 
He cant make money from books and interviews. its against the law
 
That guy accused of hacking the e-mail accounts of the stars could get more time than Murray.:no:
 
If Murray eventually takes the stand, I suppose he can use the 5th amendment, can he ? Can he use it for certain questions only ?

How does that work ?

Thank you
 
elusive moonwalker said:
He cant make money from books and interviews. its against the law
Click to expand...

Thank God. I just wish the media be more responsible and show some kind of ethics & stop making money & get ratings at the expense of other's suffering. My sister just told me the same thing. She said Murray won't be able to make any money, but he can make it through his girlfriend. That'll be disastrous, do you imagine the kind of lies she would say just to make money? I just wish that after the trial the Media concentrate only in Michael's artistic achievements and on his humanitarian heart.
 
if (when) Murray is convicted, can he appeal the verdict ? If so, o, what grounds ? Thanks
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top