KJ vs AEG Trial outcome : Possible Appeal [closed]

Status
Not open for further replies.
Re: KJ vs AEG Trial outcome : Appeal

Because Mrs. Jackson visited her son 10 days before his dead and she said in an interview that on this day he was glad, happy, good looking and he was joking to her.... She said in this interview too this was the last time she saw her son and that she want Michael in her memory how she saw him at this day.

Fair enough but why then blame AEG for not being aware, we are only talking about 10 days, that what I don't understand.

But actually the question was 'why didn't the siblings go, given that have have stated that they knew of a problem, so nothing was actually mentioned about Katherine.
 
Re: KJ vs AEG Trial outcome : Appeal

Fair enough but why then blame AEG for not being aware, we are only talking about 10 days, that what I don't understand.

But actually the question was 'why didn't the siblings go, given that have have stated that they knew of a problem, so nothing was actually mentioned about Katherine.


Exactly... as soon as MJ announced the shows, Janet. Randy, and Rebbie should've went to AEG and said our brother has a problem. He is not well enough to do these shows, His health and well being is important to us, please help him or stop the shows. According to Janet's interview with Oprah in 2010, she saw MJ in May 2009 at the party for her parents that she threw for them and she agreed with Oprah that MJ was very thin back then and she offered to say he had a problem and we all knew it. So why not do an intervention at the May 2009 party with all the family members there?
 
Re: KJ vs AEG Trial outcome : Appeal

Exactly... as soon as MJ announced the shows, Janet. Randy, and Rebbie should've went to AEG and said our brother has a problem. He is not well enough to do these shows, His health and well being is important to us, please help him or stop the shows. According to Janet's interview with Oprah in 2010, she saw MJ in May 2009 at the party for her parents that she threw for them and she agreed with Oprah that MJ was very thin back then and she offered to say he had a problem and we all knew it. So why not do an intervention at the May 2009 party with all the family members there?

Honestly? The reason being IMO is that they would have kissed goodbye the possibility of doing some shows with Michael. I don't blame the family for Michaels death, I don't blame Katherine but what I have issue with is when they state that others should have done what they did not. People in glass houses etc. That is what I take issue with.
 
Re: KJ vs AEG Trial outcome : Appeal

Exactly... as soon as MJ announced the shows, Janet. Randy, and Rebbie should've went to AEG and said our brother has a problem. He is not well enough to do these shows, His health and well being is important to us, please help him or stop the shows. According to Janet's interview with Oprah in 2010, she saw MJ in May 2009 at the party for her parents that she threw for them and she agreed with Oprah that MJ was very thin back then and she offered to say he had a problem and we all knew it. So why not do an intervention at the May 2009 party with all the family members there?

you always say/ask the same thing. Don't you know the answer by now? It's obvious no one had the balls to face Michael. They ignored some topics, did not raise concerns and perhaps Michael wouldn't be willing to listen to others as well. And blaming others is a good way to not feel guilt.
 
Re: KJ vs AEG Trial outcome : Appeal

Honestly? The reason being IMO is that they would have kissed goodbye the possibility of doing some shows with Michael. I don't blame the family for Michaels death, I don't blame Katherine but what I have issue with is when they state that others should have done what they did not. People in glass houses etc. That is what I take issue with.


I agree.. they are blaming AEG for not watching or caring about MJ's health, when they obviously didn't care either. Same with Debbie Rowe blaming the singers, dancers and back up team of TII for not intervening when she herself sat and watched MJ being given dangerous drugs by medical doctors and she did nothing to stop it herself.
 
Re: KJ vs AEG Trial outcome : Appeal

But actually the question was 'why didn't the siblings go, given that have have stated that they knew of a problem, so nothing was actually mentioned about Katherine.

I know that, LastTear, but sometimes I think other peoples are thinking 'round the corner' like myself.

What I meant was: If Mrs. Jackson had this positive impression 10 days before Michael's dead perhaps she may have told her sons/daughters about her visit.
Think about that in this time the family members came together often because the AllGood problem was not solved and erverybody in this family was always interesting in Michael's matters and specially in his matters with AEG/TII.
If I remember right, Frank DiLeo said he had a very good connection to Mrs. Jackson in this time; he sent a copy of the terminating from Leonard Rowe to Mrs.Jackson for her information.

Therefore I think the siblings had no reason for an intervention neither with AEG nor with Michael.
 
Re: KJ vs AEG Trial outcome : Appeal

I know that, LastTear, but sometimes I think other peoples are thinking 'round the corner' like myself.

What I meant was: If Mrs. Jackson had this positive impression 10 days before Michael's dead perhaps she may have told her sons/daughters about her visit.
Think about that in this time the family members came together often because the AllGood problem was not solved and erverybody in this family was always interesting in Michael's matters and specially in his matters with AEG/TII.
If I remember right, Frank DiLeo said he had a very good connection to Mrs. Jackson in this time; he sent a copy of the terminating from Leonard Rowe to Mrs.Jackson for her information.

Therefore I think the siblings had no reason for an intervention neither with AEG nor with Michael.

Ok I'm with you. The point remains that the family blame AEG when in fact why should AEG see something that his own family didn't.
 
If I may:

IMO The plaintiffs have a strong argument. Additional duties given to the doctor by his employer speaks to supervision. The jurors did not deliberate on negligent supervision or retention. The jurors only deliberated three days and decided the doctor was hired but, not negligently without reviewing evidence. The seven affidavits prove the decision was based on what was heard during trial, NOT an actual review of five months of evidence. That confirms what the four other affidavits stated.

AEG’s original response should have been more technical. Instead it confuses the “or” operator between these three separate claims for their benefit. The original response uses the tactic they used effectively during trial: give enough of a story to benefit them and leave the receiver of the story to generate their own ending; the more negative against their opponent the better.

AEG seems to have forgotten these last two claims were NOT discussed by the jurors as per the seven affidavits THEY submitted. Jurors stopped at question two which was negligent hiring so they did NOT discuss supervision OR retention as a “no” answer caused deliberations to end. These affidavits stating jurors would say “no” to question three is seven jurors basically predicting they would rule in favor of the defense without stating any evidence that would be used to support that negative response as no evidence was reviewed as per their own affidavits.

Based on Ivy’s summary of their second reply, yes, they are more technical however, the logic is absent. If the jurors could not make a decision on question two, they were not allowed to skip it and give a favorable verdict to AEG on question three. AEG cannot explain why two claims (supervision and retention) were ignore so they choose to ignore it as well and focus on affidavits (which actually put the defense at a disadvantage), the timing of the filings, and the verdict form wording that they already argued in the original response.

The judge ruling in favor of the plaintiffs would be an admission of an error in judgment. Not many people in general will admit they are wrong. She may rule for the defense simply for that reason only. If she does, I do not believe an appeal court will have an issue with stating there were some legal errors made during this trial.
 
Re: KJ vs AEG Trial outcome : Appeal

The judge ruling in favor of the plaintiffs would be an admission of an error in judgment. Not many people in general will admit they are wrong. She may rule for the defense simply for that reason only. If she does, I do not believe an appeal court will have an issue with stating there were some legal errors made during this trial.

I have no idea which way this will go, however there would also be another possibility if the Judge rules for the defence, by law it could be the right action to take. I cannot say one way or another because I don't fully understand the legalities of jury instructions. But if someone disagrees with her decision doesn't mean she is corrupt.
 
Re: KJ vs AEG Trial outcome : Appeal

The family was clueless about his insomnia clueless about any problems mj had with the whole deal. they like to push the "tight nit" mantra and we tried to help inorder to make themselves look good. god forbid they ever admit they were clueless about mj and his life because he kept his distance because they only came to him to hassle him for reunion shows or to create biz deals were mj would end up being sued.

all the family cared about was getting in on the shows and cashing in. you had the allgood mess and the nasty little articles attacking mj thanks to joe and his allgood buddies you had tito running to the press saying how good it would if mj let the bros perform with him during some of the shows.

the jacksons like to throw stones to hide their hands. when in the end they just make themselves look like hypocrites and in the process are prepared to throw mj under the bus with lies and b.s to get what they want.
 
Re: KJ vs AEG Trial outcome : Appeal

To whom it may concern:

I am aware that there are claims being made about my posts here immediately after the verdict where I said that we focused primarily on the time of hiring when considering how to answer question 2, and that these posts supposedly stand in contrast to my sworn affidavit where I said that we considered both the time of hiring and the period thereafter in reaching our verdict.

This is only a contradiction if one were to conveniently ignore my posts where I specifically stated that we ALSO considered the period after the hire of Conrad Murray in our deliberations:

Example 1

Juror#27 on Oct. 6 said:
You bring up good points, and we did consider Murray's competence over the entire period and whether what AEG saw was enough to conclude that he was not fit. We felt that based on what they saw and were communicated, there was not enough to say that they should have known CM was breaking his sworn duty to do no harm.

Example 2

Juror#27 on Oct. 7 said:
To answer your question, it was not an either/or, we looked at both the time of hiring and the 2 month period of 'deterioration', but we felt that the most pertinent part was the time of hire.


We discussed what Murray was hired to do. We discussed whether he was fit and competent to do that work. And we discussed MJ's alleged deterioration and whether the time after Murray was hired showed him to be incompetent or unfit. We talked about all of that.

This characterization of our deliberations as being somehow limited to this very specific area of "time of hire" is simply untrue. That is where most of our time was spent on that question, but it was not to the exclusion of considering MJ's 'deterioration' or the time period after Murray's hire. That was also considered.
 
Katherine Jackson seeks new trial in AEG wrongful death case

By Jeff Gottlieb
January 3, 2014, 8:09 a.m.

Katherine Jackson is heading back to court Friday to ask a judge for a new trial in the family's wrongful-death case against AEG Live, which previously ended with jurors finding the concert promoter not liable for her son Michael Jackson's overdose death.

Her motion came after four jurors gave sworn statements that they found the verdict form confusing.

The 12 jurors had to answer yes to five questions in order to find AEG liable.

Jurors agreed that AEG Live had hired Dr. Conrad Murray, who administered the fatal dose of the anesthetic propofol to Jackson.

But they rejected the second question, which asked whether Murray was unfit or incompetent, ending deliberations.

The Jacksons’ attorneys argue that the verdict form only allowed jurors to focus on Murray’s fitness when he was hired, not “during the course of the relationship” with the pop star.

MICHAEL JACKSON: Complete trial coverage

“There is no question in my mind that AEG Live was liable,” one juror said in a declaration filed with the motion.

Another juror said, “I believed that Mrs. Jackson had proven her case against AEG Live. Despite this fact, I had no way of voting in favor of the plaintiffs because of the way the verdict form was worded.”

A third juror wrote that “some of the jurors were stunned and upset after learning that we had to stop deliberations after answering 'no' to Question 2.”

After the verdict, the jury foreman told reporters that panel members were somewhat confused by the question about Murray’s competence but understood its ramifications.

"We felt he was competent," Gregg Barden said.

"That doesn't mean we felt he was ethical. If ethical was in the question, it might have been a different outcome," the foreman said.

In a statement to The Times after the motion was filed last month, AEG attorney Marvin Putnam called it "an act of pure desperation."

"Katherine Jackson just can’t accept that her son is gone and that there is no one left that she can blame, well, aside from Dr. Murray, obviously," Putnam said. "The evidence at trial and the verdict told her just that. This long trial showed us — and her — that Michael Jackson had abused and demanded propofol, the drug that killed him, for decades."

The Jacksons argued during the five-month trial that AEG Live negligently hired and supervised Murray.

AEG said that Murray worked for Jackson and that any money the company was supposed to pay the doctor was an advance to the singer.

Putnam also noted that the juror affidavits were not admissable under California law. And even if they were, he said only two of the four jurors indicated they would have changed their answers on the forms -- not enough to change the outcome of the verdict.



http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/...son-aeg-20140103,0,915254.story#ixzz2pMAgVVsF
 
Attorneys For Katherine Jackson To Seek New Trial In Suit Against AEG
January 3, 2014 6:58 AM

LOS ANGELES (CBSLA.com) — Attorneys for Katherine Jackson Friday are expected to seek a new trial for her wrongful death lawsuit against AEG Live in the death of her son, Michael Jackson.

Jackson’s attorneys claim the jury instructions and verdict form were misleading during the trial, prompting jurors to clear AEG of wrongdoing back in October.
They argue that once the panel found that Dr. Conrad Murray was fit and competent to be Michael Jackson’s doctor when he was hired, it prevented the jury from deliberating AEG Live’s actions in supervising and retaining Murray.

KNX1070 legal analyst Steve Meister says Jackson’s lawyers would have to have a specific argument that the court did something wrong to taint the outcome that unfairly resulted in a bad verdict.

“That’s what they have to show,” explains Meister. “If they don’t show that, they don’t get a second bite at the apple just because they wish the outcome had been different.”

In their filing, AEG Live lawyers argue that Jackson’s attorneys never challenged the instructions when they were originally being discussed.

http://losangeles.cbslocal.com/2014...ackson-to-seek-new-trial-in-suit-against-aeg/
 
Re: KJ vs AEG Trial outcome : Appeal

Margaret Carrero @MargaretCarrero
Judge tentatively DENIES request by Katherine #Jackson lawyers for a new trial against #AEGLive, but both sides are being heard. @KNX1070
 
Re: KJ vs AEG Trial outcome : Appeal

Margaret Carrero @MargaretCarrero
Judge tentatively DENIES request by Katherine #Jackson lawyers for a new trial against #AEGLive, but both sides are being heard. @KNX1070


Good.. I hope it is permanently denied
 
Re: KJ vs AEG Trial outcome : Appeal

Margaret Carrero @MargaretCarrero
Judge tentatively DENIES request by Katherine #Jackson lawyers for a new trial against #AEGLive, but both sides are being heard. @KNX1070

Hope it is true!
If new trial has been denied why judge still listen both sides?
 
Re: KJ vs AEG Trial outcome : Appeal

Tentative means based on the documents filed she has prepared a ruling. They get another chance - oral arguments- to change her mind. She can still change her ruling or adopt the tentative ruling as final.
 
JUDGE TENTATIVELY RULES AGAINST NEW JACKSON TRIAL
By ANTHONY McCARTNEY

LOS ANGELES (AP) — A judge has issued a tentative ruling against granting a new trial in a negligence case filed by the mother of Michael Jackson claiming a concert promoter is financially liable for the singer's death.

Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Yvette Palazuelos issued the lengthy ruling on Friday but did not immediately finalize it after hearing more than two hours of arguments from lawyers.

A jury in October rejected Katherine Jackson's lawsuit claiming AEG Live LLC negligently hired the doctor convicted of giving her son an overdose of anesthetic in 2009.

Her lawyers argued the verdict form didn't allow jurors to fully consider evidence in the case.

AEG's lawyers contend there was no basis for a new trial.

http://bigstory.ap.org/article/judge-tentatively-rules-against-new-jackson-trial

--------------------------------------------------------

Anthony McCartney @mccartneyAP
Judge didn't immediately rule on Jackson family's motion for new trial on AEG Live case, but issued a tentative ruling to deny it.
 
Re: KJ vs AEG Trial outcome : Appeal

One thing confuses me, even if the jurors continued to discuss the other questions, it was to no purpose as long as they had voted NO on Q2 (was CM unfit or incompetent for the job for which he was hired) b/c one NO was enough to say there as no negligent hiring etc. All questions had to be answered YES to get a finding of negligent.

Thanks to Yvette Palazuelos. Also big thanks to Juror #27 for sharing with us what went on in the deliberations.
 
Re: KJ vs AEG Trial outcome : Appeal

One thing confuses me, even if the jurors continued to discuss the other questions, it was to no purpose as long as they had voted NO on Q2 (was CM unfit or incompetent for the job for which he was hired) b/c one NO was enough to say there as no negligent hiring etc. All questions had to be answered YES to get a finding of negligent.

correct. that "if you answered no, stop" was designed to save jurors time during deliberations and get them stop if they did not find one of the required elements of negligence. Logically there's no sense in asking them to deliberate about other elements of negligent hiring/retention and supervision if they believed one of the required elements weren't met.

Alternatively they could have divided the verdict form into two parts - first give questions about hiring & negligence and second part about determining damages. After the first 5 questions about hiring and negligence elements they could have added an instruction that said "if you answered any of the above questions no, stop. If you answered all yes, go on to determine damages".

Technically the outcome wouldn't be different among jury answering 5 questions and stopping or stopping after Q1,Q2,Q3,Q4 or Q5 (whenever they answered no). It would just force them to deliberate more and decide on all elements of negligent hiring/retention/supervision.
 
Updated AP story

JUDGE TENTATIVELY RULES AGAINST NEW JACKSON TRIAL
By ANTHONY McCARTNEY

LOS ANGELES (AP) — A judge issued a tentative ruling Friday against granting a new trial in a negligence case filed by the mother of Michael Jackson claiming a concert promoter was financially liable for the singer's death.

Superior Court Judge Yvette Palazuelos did not immediately finalize the ruling after hearing more than two hours of arguments from lawyers.

A jury in October rejected Katherine Jackson's lawsuit claiming AEG Live LLC negligently hired the doctor convicted of giving her son an overdose of anesthetic in 2009.

Her lawyers argued the verdict form didn't allow jurors to fully consider evidence in the case. Lawyers for AEG Live countered that there was no basis for a new trial.

AEG Live attorney Jessica Stebbins Bina told the judge it was actually Katherine Jackson's lawyers who included the disputed language in drafts of the verdict form and instructions.

Jackson family attorney Deborah Chang, however, said the question that brought jurors to end the case couldn't have been corrected and should have been excluded from the form.

Palazuelos did not indicate when she would finalize her ruling. If she stands by it, Katherine Jackson's attorneys could pursue an appeal with a higher state court.

Jurors heard more than five months of evidence in the lawsuit trial.

Katherine Jackson sued AEG Live on behalf of herself and her son's three children, accusing the concert promoter of hiring Dr. Conrad Murray and creating a conflict of interest in his care of the pop superstar.

Murray, who was deeply in debt, expected to be paid $150,000 a month to care for Jackson while the singer prepared for a planned series of comeback concerts in London's O2 Arena. Jackson died on June 25, 2009, after receiving an overdose of propofol, which Murray was giving Jackson as a sleep aid.

Murray was convicted of involuntary manslaughter in 2011 and released in October after serving two years in jail.

The trial offered a close look into Jackson's personal life as well as his routines as an entertainer and medical treatments for a variety of ailments.

Jurors later said their verdict did not mean they thought Murray was ethical in his care of Jackson, but that he was fit and competent to serve as his doctor.

AEG Live denied any wrongdoing throughout the trial and said there was no way executives could have known that Murray was giving Jackson propofol in the bedroom of his rented mansion.
 
ivy;3945773 said:
Updated AP story

JUDGE TENTATIVELY RULES AGAINST NEW JACKSON TRIAL
By ANTHONY McCARTNEY

LOS ANGELES (AP) — A judge issued a tentative ruling Friday against granting a new trial in a negligence case filed by the mother of Michael Jackson claiming a concert promoter was financially liable for the singer's death.

Superior Court Judge Yvette Palazuelos did not immediately finalize the ruling after hearing more than two hours of arguments from lawyers.

A jury in October rejected Katherine Jackson's lawsuit claiming AEG Live LLC negligently hired the doctor convicted of giving her son an overdose of anesthetic in 2009.

Her lawyers argued the verdict form didn't allow jurors to fully consider evidence in the case. Lawyers for AEG Live countered that there was no basis for a new trial.

AEG Live attorney Jessica Stebbins Bina told the judge it was actually Katherine Jackson's lawyers who included the disputed language in drafts of the verdict form and instructions.

Jackson family attorney Deborah Chang, however, said the question that brought jurors to end the case couldn't have been corrected and should have been excluded from the form.

Palazuelos did not indicate when she would finalize her ruling. If she stands by it, Katherine Jackson's attorneys could pursue an appeal with a higher state court.

Jurors heard more than five months of evidence in the lawsuit trial.

Katherine Jackson sued AEG Live on behalf of herself and her son's three children, accusing the concert promoter of hiring Dr. Conrad Murray and creating a conflict of interest in his care of the pop superstar.

Murray, who was deeply in debt, expected to be paid $150,000 a month to care for Jackson while the singer prepared for a planned series of comeback concerts in London's O2 Arena. Jackson died on June 25, 2009, after receiving an overdose of propofol, which Murray was giving Jackson as a sleep aid.

Murray was convicted of involuntary manslaughter in 2011 and released in October after serving two years in jail.

The trial offered a close look into Jackson's personal life as well as his routines as an entertainer and medical treatments for a variety of ailments.

Jurors later said their verdict did not mean they thought Murray was ethical in his care of Jackson, but that he was fit and competent to serve as his doctor.

AEG Live denied any wrongdoing throughout the trial and said there was no way executives could have known that Murray was giving Jackson propofol in the bedroom of his rented mansion.

Jackson family attorney Deborah Chang, however, said the question that brought jurors to end the case couldn't have been corrected and should have been excluded from the form.

WHAT? This can't be right. They wanted the question totally excluded?? 'Was CM unfit or incompetent for the job for which he was hired?' Isn't that the heart of the negligent hiring issue? Can someone explain the reasoning to exclude that key question? Also did plaintiffs ever say that Q2 should be excluded before now?
 
CBSLA

Judge Denies Katherine Jackson’s Request For New Trial Against AEG
January 3, 2014 6:58 AM

LOS ANGELES (CBSLA.com) — A judge on Friday tentatively denied a motion by Katherine Jackson’s attorneys for a new wrongful death trial against concert promoter AEG Live.

Jackson’s attorneys claim the jury instructions and verdict form were misleading during the trial, prompting jurors to clear AEG of wrongdoing in the death of Jackson’s son Michael back in October.

Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Yvette Palazuelos sent attorneys a 45-page tentative ruling denying the motion by lawyers for the Jackson family matriarch Thursday night, in advance of a hearing on the issue today.
Details of the judge’s ruling were not immediately available.
Jackson’s attorneys argued that once the panel found that Dr. Conrad Murray was fit and competent to be Michael Jackson’s doctor when he was hired, it prevented the jury from deliberating AEG Live’s actions in supervising and retaining Murray.
KNX1070 legal analyst Steve Meister says Jackson’s lawyers would have to have a specific argument that the court did something wrong to taint the outcome that unfairly resulted in a bad verdict.

play
Jackson's Lawyers To Seek New Trial Against AEG LiveMargaret Carrero
00:00
“That’s what they have to show,” explains Meister. “If they don’t show that, they don’t get a second bite at the apple just because they wish the outcome had been different.”
In their filing, AEG Live lawyers argue that Jackson’s attorneys never challenged the instructions when they were originally being discussed.
AEG’s lawyers also argued that “There is simply no reason to believe the jury interpreted the verdict form at odds with its plain language and the arguments of the parties.”
Katherine Jackson, 83, sued in September 2010 on behalf of herself and her son’s three children — Michael Jr., Paris-Michael Katherine and Prince Michael — claiming that AEG Live hired Murray to be Jackson’s personal physician and failed to properly supervise him.

http://losangeles.cbslocal.com/2014...ackson-to-seek-new-trial-in-suit-against-aeg/
 
Re: KJ vs AEG Trial outcome : Appeal

45 page ruling. Can't wait for it to be available.
 
Re: KJ vs AEG Trial outcome : Appeal

45 page ruling. Can't wait for it to be available.

Im sure there will be a lot of people waiting for you to make it available ;-)

So the appeal for a whole new trial is declined, sorry for the simpleton question but does this also include any appeal of the verdict? Is it one of the same? Just trying to have it all clear in my head where we are.

Edit, sorry I was mislead by the title of the last piece, she hasn't actually made her final ruling yet.
 
Last edited:
Re: KJ vs AEG Trial outcome : Appeal

Great my first good news for the New Year!!! We need to see the judge's explanations, in light of people running around the internet giving misleading interpretations.

As far as I am concerned it is officially denied. This wait is just a formality, since I doubt the lawyers had anything new to add.
 
Re: KJ vs AEG Trial outcome : Appeal

Yes, I would like to hear the judge's reasoning that it is acceptable that the jurors deliberated three days over negligent hiring only - not negligent supervision or negligent retention - without reviewing five months of evidence (plus time subtracted for watching TII).
 
Re: KJ vs AEG Trial outcome : Appeal

So the appeal for a whole new trial is declined, sorry for the simpleton question but does this also include any appeal of the verdict? Is it one of the same? Just trying to have it all clear in my head where we are.

Edit, sorry I was mislead by the title of the last piece, she hasn't actually made her final ruling yet.

This is not an appeal. Appeal is totally different. They can and most probably will apply for multiple appeals including the verdict and the retrial request. and yes it's tentative, meaning she can make changes or even totally change her ruling based on the oral arguments. she has until Jan 13th to finalize it.
 
Re: KJ vs AEG Trial outcome : Appeal

Great my first good news for the New Year!!! We need to see the judge's explanations, in light of people running around the internet giving misleading interpretations.

As far as I am concerned it is officially denied. This wait is just a formality, since I doubt the lawyers had anything new to add.

I too think she'll denies new trial request.
As for people running around the internet giving misleading interpretations - thanks for :giggle:
Yes, sometimes black and white can be turned into red and blue if it supports ones agenda.
 
Last edited:
Jury in wrongful-death trial was confused, Jackson attorneys say
IRFAN KHAN / LOS ANGELES TIMES
BY KATE MATHER
January 4, 2014

A Los Angeles judge heard arguments Friday over her tentative ruling this week denying Katherine Jackson's request for a new trial against entertainment giant AEG Live in the death of her son, Michael Jackson.

Los Angeles County Superior Court Judge Yvette Palazuelos took the case under submission following the morning hearing, which came three months after jurors decided AEG was not responsible for Jackson's death.

Palazuelos issued her tentative 44-page ruling Thursday. When the judge makes her final decision, the parties will have 30 days to file an appeal.

In their civil case, Katherine Jackson and her grandchildren claimed AEG negligently hired and controlled Conrad Murray, the doctor convicted of giving the pop superstar a fatal dose of the anesthetic propofol in 2009. Jurors agreed that AEG Live hired Murray, but they rejected the second question on the verdict form that asked whether Murray was unfit or incompetent, ending deliberations.

The jurors had to answer yes to five questions on the form to find AEG liable in Jackson's death.

The Jackson family filed a motion seeking a new suit last month, after four of the jurors gave sworn statements saying they found the verdict form confusing.

"I believed that Mrs. Jackson had proven her case against AEG Live. Despite this fact, I had no way of voting in favor of the plaintiffs because of the way the verdict form was worded," one juror said in a declaration filed with the motion.

Attorneys representing the Jacksons focused much of their arguments Friday on that verdict form, saying it limited jurors from fully considering the evidence at hand. Rather, they said, the second question only allowed jurors to focus on Murray's competence and expectations when he was hired — not whether they changed after the fact.

Attorney Deborah Chang called it a "major, major problem" that "cut us off at the knees."

AEG's attorney Jessica Stebbins Bina kept her arguments brief, saying there was no need for a new trial. It was the Jackson team, she argued, who including the language of the disputed question in drafts of the verdict form and jury instructions.

Chang said there was no way to improve the question, arguing it should have been ignored because the case overall was "too complicated and too strange" for the verdict form used.

Both sides — along with the judge — acknowledged the difficulty of the trial, which stretched nearly six months. They made multiple references to the often-heated back-and-forth, with Chang calling the case a "fight to the bitter, bitter end."

"There will never be another case like this again," Chang said. "Maybe part of the reason why is there will never be someone like Michael Jackson and Dr. Murray, and the whole situation with AEG Live."

-----
Hmmm....somehow I think they'd be arguing to ignore any question answered in AEG's favor.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top