CherubimII
Proud Member
- Joined
- Jul 25, 2011
- Messages
- 6,764
- Points
- 113
Houston Meets Hollywood: Ed Chernoff Prepares for His High-Stakes Defense of Dr. Conrad Murray
Miriam Rozen
Texas Lawyer
01-31-2011
At a preliminary hearing in the criminal case against Michael Jackson's doctor, Conrad Murray, lawyer Ed Chernoff had a ready response when Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Michael Pastor expressed his concern over Chernoff's cross-examination of a police detective by saying, "Houston, we have a problem. . . ."
"You have been waiting all week to say that," Chernoff, a partner in Houston's Stradley Chernoff & Alford, recalls telling the judge.
The Jan. 7 exchange stands out as a rare moment of levity for Chernoff during the 18 stressful months he has represented Murray, a Houston-based cardiologist. On Feb. 8, 2010, the Los Angeles County District Attorney's Office charged Murray with involuntary manslaughter in connection with the June 25, 2009, death of Jackson from a lethal dose of Propofol.
The DA's office alleges Murray "did unlawfully, and without malice, kill Michael Joseph Jackson . . . in the commission of an unlawful act, not amounting to a felony; and in the commission of a lawful act which might have produced death, in an unlawful manner, and without due caution and circumspection."
After the conclusion of the preliminary hearing, Pastor ruled on Jan. 11 that there is sufficient evidence for the prosecution's case against Murray to proceed to trial. Murray pleaded not guilty at his Jan. 25 arraignment.
The representation of Murray, which has drawn international attention due to Jackson's star power, has not been easy for Chernoff or for his firm. "We've handled lots of high-profile cases. It's one thing when you have three cameras out there as you leave the courthouse. It is another when it's 300," Chernoff says.
Chernoff and partner Bill Stradley say Murray's defense has taxed their firm's time and resources; forced them to figure out how best to handle the deluge of media inquiries; and required major case-juggling among the five lawyers at the firm.
"We are a small firm. We tend to share everything — caseloads and revenues," Stradley says. "The complexity and travel requirements of this case, all of those things have been a significant investment. Having one partner focused primarily on this case, we have had to adjust on a weekly basis how to distribute the workload."
Jokes Stradley, "I'm not playing nearly as much golf as I used to, but I used to play a lot, and that's OK, because we all recognize that this is important."
The notoriety of the case has generated new business for the firm, but not much, Stradley says. "It's not like by virtue of having this case, suddenly you have to fend them off at the door, but clients have a greater comfort level of our ability to deal with significant issues," he notes.
Chernoff says the firm uses its website as the main means to quickly inform the public and press of new information about Murray's case, all in an effort to ensure prospective Los Angeles jurors see and hear correct information. Murray has even posted a video on YouTube — which was taped at Chernoff's residence — to let his patients know he's OK and grateful for their concern.
Murray hired Chernoff within 48 hours of Jackson's death. [See "Best Course of Treatment," Texas Lawyer, July 20, 2009, page 5.] Since then, Chernoff has been shuttling from Houston to Los Angeles on a regular basis. Chernoff says last fall he leased an apartment in Hollywood to reduce hotel costs and he learned to stop answering his cell phone when he didn't recognize the number.
Chernoff says in July he even took and passed the California bar exam — although he still has to be sworn in as a member. Four weeks before the test, he began getting up at 3 a.m. to study using 3-year-old books he bought on CraigsList. He says he lucked out on the bar exam, because two of the essay questions were about criminal law. He says he took the California bar exam because he didn't want to risk losing his pro hac vice status.
Chernoff says in December 2009 he interviewed about a dozen lawyers but decided on J. Michael Flanagan, a partner in Glendale, Calif.'s Flanagan, Unger & Grover. Chernoff says he chose Flanagan because Flanagan successfully defended two California nurses charged with involuntary manslaughter for allegedly administering Propofol to a patient who died.
Despite the challenges of Murray's case, Chernoff says he can't complain. "I promised him I wouldn't abandon him," he says of Murray. "And we get paid well for what we do, by any standard." Chernoff adds, "I'm not positioned in life that I could afford to do this for free."
Some Strategy
Only the prosecution presented evidence at the hearing, because the defense chose only to cross-examine prosecution witnesses rather than put on an affirmative defense. And the prosecution won.
"Michael is not here with us today because of the actions of an utterly inept, incompetent, reckless doctor, the defendant, Conrad Murray," Deputy District Attorney David Walgren told the court on Jan. 11. In summing up the evidence presented at the hearing, Walgren said that the prosecution's witnesses testified that Murray had spent time hiding evidence "at the time his attention should be on his patient," and failed to tell a paramedic about the Propofol in Jackson's system — all of which reflects on Murray's "consciousness of guilt."
Walgren also noted that records showed Murray had been reading and sending e-mails after he found Jackson not breathing, according to a timeline the doctor gave police. "What you also have to assume then is Dr. Murray allowed Michael Jackson, allowed him to lay dead or dying an hour before 911 is called. . . . Now, if he is accurate and he waited an hour, or if he is lying about the time line, we have those two options. The third option can only be, and it is equally troubling, Dr. Murray is absolutely so utterly incompetent and reckless and inept that he has no idea what time he gave the medicine to Michael Jackson. He has no idea what he gave him or when," Walgren argued.
The defense countered Walgren's arguments by noting that no witnesses said an e-mail killed Jackson, nor did any suggest resuscitation or an earlier call to 911 would have altered his death. Murray's lawyers also noted that Murray was under stress the day Jackson died and he might have been mistaken about the timeline.
On Jan. 11, Pastor ruled there was sufficient evidence for the prosecution's case against Murray to proceed to trial. California v. Conrad Robert Murray is scheduled to begin March 28.
Chernoff says he and Flanagan had no doubts the judge would rule there was sufficient evidence for the prosecution's case against Murray to proceed to trial, so they didn't waste their time with affirmative defenses at the hearing. They also didn't want to give prosecutors a preview of their trial strategy.
As part of that strategy, Chernoff says he decided not to waive his client's right to a speedy trial. Without the waiver, California law requires prosecutors to begin presenting their case within 60 days of Murray's Jan. 25 arraignment.
Two chief factors contributed to the defense lawyers' decision to go to trial sooner rather than later, Chernoff and Flanagan say. For example, on Jan. 11, the last day of the six-day preliminary hearing , Pastor suspended Murray's license to practice medicine in California pending the outcome of his trial. Chernoff says he wants Murray's trial to start quickly before additional authorities have a chance to strip the doctor of his Texas and Nevada medical licenses.
A loss of his Texas license would diminish Murray's income and his ability to pay for his defense, not to mention affect the well-being of the doctor's patients and Murray's sense of purpose.
Flanagan says another reason for a speedy trial has to do with the testimony presented by the 24 witnesses prosecutors called at the preliminary hearing — testimony he says "went in opposite directions," which will help the defense raise reasonable doubt at trial. A speedy trial gives the prosecution less time to fix the problems with their case, Flanagan says.
During the hearing, Flanagan says the prosecution changed its theories about what took place in Jackson's home — specifically regarding the Propofol. According to a transcript of the hearing, in his opening statement Walgren talked about Murray "slowly infusing Michael with an injection of Propofol."
But Flanagan elicited testimony showing Jackson could have ingested the Propofol himself. During Flanagan's cross-examination of prosecution witness Dr. Richard Ruffalo, Ruffalo conceded he had mistaken "micrograms" for "milligrams" when measuring concentrations of Jackson's stomach contents from the coroner's toxicologist's report. "I didn't have my glasses on well," Ruffalo testified. Ruffalo also said that properly re-calculated numbers may lead to the conclusion that Jackson "self-ingested" or "drank" some of the Propofol as opposed to Murray administering all of the drug to Jackson. However, Ruffalo testified that Murray was still responsible for leaving the drug unattended in Jackson's presence.
The Los Angeles County District Attorney's Office declines comment for this article. "We have a pending case and it would be inappropriate for us to engage in the type of out-of-court discussion that you are seeking," writes spokeswoman Sandi Gibbons.
Given how closely he has become identified with Murray's case, Chernoff knows the stakes. "If I walk out with my client at the end of the trial, it's going to have a tremendous impact on my practice. If I don't walk out[with him], I'm going to be the guy who lost the biggest trial since O.J. Simpson's."
http://www.law.com/jsp/tx/PubArticleTX.jsp?id=1202479658686&slreturn=1&hbxlogin=1
Miriam Rozen
Texas Lawyer
01-31-2011
At a preliminary hearing in the criminal case against Michael Jackson's doctor, Conrad Murray, lawyer Ed Chernoff had a ready response when Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Michael Pastor expressed his concern over Chernoff's cross-examination of a police detective by saying, "Houston, we have a problem. . . ."
"You have been waiting all week to say that," Chernoff, a partner in Houston's Stradley Chernoff & Alford, recalls telling the judge.
The Jan. 7 exchange stands out as a rare moment of levity for Chernoff during the 18 stressful months he has represented Murray, a Houston-based cardiologist. On Feb. 8, 2010, the Los Angeles County District Attorney's Office charged Murray with involuntary manslaughter in connection with the June 25, 2009, death of Jackson from a lethal dose of Propofol.
The DA's office alleges Murray "did unlawfully, and without malice, kill Michael Joseph Jackson . . . in the commission of an unlawful act, not amounting to a felony; and in the commission of a lawful act which might have produced death, in an unlawful manner, and without due caution and circumspection."
After the conclusion of the preliminary hearing, Pastor ruled on Jan. 11 that there is sufficient evidence for the prosecution's case against Murray to proceed to trial. Murray pleaded not guilty at his Jan. 25 arraignment.
The representation of Murray, which has drawn international attention due to Jackson's star power, has not been easy for Chernoff or for his firm. "We've handled lots of high-profile cases. It's one thing when you have three cameras out there as you leave the courthouse. It is another when it's 300," Chernoff says.
Chernoff and partner Bill Stradley say Murray's defense has taxed their firm's time and resources; forced them to figure out how best to handle the deluge of media inquiries; and required major case-juggling among the five lawyers at the firm.
"We are a small firm. We tend to share everything — caseloads and revenues," Stradley says. "The complexity and travel requirements of this case, all of those things have been a significant investment. Having one partner focused primarily on this case, we have had to adjust on a weekly basis how to distribute the workload."
Jokes Stradley, "I'm not playing nearly as much golf as I used to, but I used to play a lot, and that's OK, because we all recognize that this is important."
The notoriety of the case has generated new business for the firm, but not much, Stradley says. "It's not like by virtue of having this case, suddenly you have to fend them off at the door, but clients have a greater comfort level of our ability to deal with significant issues," he notes.
Chernoff says the firm uses its website as the main means to quickly inform the public and press of new information about Murray's case, all in an effort to ensure prospective Los Angeles jurors see and hear correct information. Murray has even posted a video on YouTube — which was taped at Chernoff's residence — to let his patients know he's OK and grateful for their concern.
Murray hired Chernoff within 48 hours of Jackson's death. [See "Best Course of Treatment," Texas Lawyer, July 20, 2009, page 5.] Since then, Chernoff has been shuttling from Houston to Los Angeles on a regular basis. Chernoff says last fall he leased an apartment in Hollywood to reduce hotel costs and he learned to stop answering his cell phone when he didn't recognize the number.
Chernoff says in July he even took and passed the California bar exam — although he still has to be sworn in as a member. Four weeks before the test, he began getting up at 3 a.m. to study using 3-year-old books he bought on CraigsList. He says he lucked out on the bar exam, because two of the essay questions were about criminal law. He says he took the California bar exam because he didn't want to risk losing his pro hac vice status.
Chernoff says in December 2009 he interviewed about a dozen lawyers but decided on J. Michael Flanagan, a partner in Glendale, Calif.'s Flanagan, Unger & Grover. Chernoff says he chose Flanagan because Flanagan successfully defended two California nurses charged with involuntary manslaughter for allegedly administering Propofol to a patient who died.
Despite the challenges of Murray's case, Chernoff says he can't complain. "I promised him I wouldn't abandon him," he says of Murray. "And we get paid well for what we do, by any standard." Chernoff adds, "I'm not positioned in life that I could afford to do this for free."
Some Strategy
Only the prosecution presented evidence at the hearing, because the defense chose only to cross-examine prosecution witnesses rather than put on an affirmative defense. And the prosecution won.
"Michael is not here with us today because of the actions of an utterly inept, incompetent, reckless doctor, the defendant, Conrad Murray," Deputy District Attorney David Walgren told the court on Jan. 11. In summing up the evidence presented at the hearing, Walgren said that the prosecution's witnesses testified that Murray had spent time hiding evidence "at the time his attention should be on his patient," and failed to tell a paramedic about the Propofol in Jackson's system — all of which reflects on Murray's "consciousness of guilt."
Walgren also noted that records showed Murray had been reading and sending e-mails after he found Jackson not breathing, according to a timeline the doctor gave police. "What you also have to assume then is Dr. Murray allowed Michael Jackson, allowed him to lay dead or dying an hour before 911 is called. . . . Now, if he is accurate and he waited an hour, or if he is lying about the time line, we have those two options. The third option can only be, and it is equally troubling, Dr. Murray is absolutely so utterly incompetent and reckless and inept that he has no idea what time he gave the medicine to Michael Jackson. He has no idea what he gave him or when," Walgren argued.
The defense countered Walgren's arguments by noting that no witnesses said an e-mail killed Jackson, nor did any suggest resuscitation or an earlier call to 911 would have altered his death. Murray's lawyers also noted that Murray was under stress the day Jackson died and he might have been mistaken about the timeline.
On Jan. 11, Pastor ruled there was sufficient evidence for the prosecution's case against Murray to proceed to trial. California v. Conrad Robert Murray is scheduled to begin March 28.
Chernoff says he and Flanagan had no doubts the judge would rule there was sufficient evidence for the prosecution's case against Murray to proceed to trial, so they didn't waste their time with affirmative defenses at the hearing. They also didn't want to give prosecutors a preview of their trial strategy.
As part of that strategy, Chernoff says he decided not to waive his client's right to a speedy trial. Without the waiver, California law requires prosecutors to begin presenting their case within 60 days of Murray's Jan. 25 arraignment.
Two chief factors contributed to the defense lawyers' decision to go to trial sooner rather than later, Chernoff and Flanagan say. For example, on Jan. 11, the last day of the six-day preliminary hearing , Pastor suspended Murray's license to practice medicine in California pending the outcome of his trial. Chernoff says he wants Murray's trial to start quickly before additional authorities have a chance to strip the doctor of his Texas and Nevada medical licenses.
A loss of his Texas license would diminish Murray's income and his ability to pay for his defense, not to mention affect the well-being of the doctor's patients and Murray's sense of purpose.
Flanagan says another reason for a speedy trial has to do with the testimony presented by the 24 witnesses prosecutors called at the preliminary hearing — testimony he says "went in opposite directions," which will help the defense raise reasonable doubt at trial. A speedy trial gives the prosecution less time to fix the problems with their case, Flanagan says.
During the hearing, Flanagan says the prosecution changed its theories about what took place in Jackson's home — specifically regarding the Propofol. According to a transcript of the hearing, in his opening statement Walgren talked about Murray "slowly infusing Michael with an injection of Propofol."
But Flanagan elicited testimony showing Jackson could have ingested the Propofol himself. During Flanagan's cross-examination of prosecution witness Dr. Richard Ruffalo, Ruffalo conceded he had mistaken "micrograms" for "milligrams" when measuring concentrations of Jackson's stomach contents from the coroner's toxicologist's report. "I didn't have my glasses on well," Ruffalo testified. Ruffalo also said that properly re-calculated numbers may lead to the conclusion that Jackson "self-ingested" or "drank" some of the Propofol as opposed to Murray administering all of the drug to Jackson. However, Ruffalo testified that Murray was still responsible for leaving the drug unattended in Jackson's presence.
The Los Angeles County District Attorney's Office declines comment for this article. "We have a pending case and it would be inappropriate for us to engage in the type of out-of-court discussion that you are seeking," writes spokeswoman Sandi Gibbons.
Given how closely he has become identified with Murray's case, Chernoff knows the stakes. "If I walk out with my client at the end of the trial, it's going to have a tremendous impact on my practice. If I don't walk out[with him], I'm going to be the guy who lost the biggest trial since O.J. Simpson's."
http://www.law.com/jsp/tx/PubArticleTX.jsp?id=1202479658686&slreturn=1&hbxlogin=1
