Court Procedures and Law Information and Q&A

[ivy]

This is our dedicated thread about court procedures and any legal information related to Conrad Murray Trial. Our teams will post explanatory messages as well as will answer your questions.

Our volunteers consist of mjjangel2002 who is a legal intern , june (well known commentator on blogs) who is a paralegal and wendy2004 who has 20 years legal experience. They will be explaining criminal court procedures, simplify legal terms to us and do their best to answer any law related questions.

 

[ivy]

Legal team please provide us with some basic information about the court process and what to expect in the coming days and weeks.

 

[ivy]

The following message is from june and she's explaining us the basic as what to expect in the coming weeks.


this is in response to your request for "basic information about the court process and what to expect in the coming days and weeks." I'm sure it will not be this straightforward, however I believe what follows would be "the basics".

Opening statement by prosecution Tuesday
Opening statement by defense Tuesday
Prosecution starts its direct examination by calling it's witnesses (possibly in same order as at preliminary hearing, or in other order), including introduction of evidence/exhibits
Defense cross-examines each witness
Then can be re-direct by prosecution and re-cross by defense, should it so choose.
When prosecution done calling witnesses, then defense commences calling it's own witnesses for direct examination, including introduction of evidence/exhibits
Prosecution cross-examines defense witness
Then can be re-direct by defense and re-cross by prosecution, should it so choose
And rebuttal witnesses can be used by either side to rebut/refute direct testimony.
When each side has "rested" (finished presenting it's case) then come summations.
I've seen time estimates for the trial anywhere from 4-6 weeks and IMO Judge Pastor will keep it moving along.

 

[JMie]

thanks! I will translate this in russian. I think it's an important info especially for foreign fans who might be unfamiliar with the US court procedures.

it would also be useful if our legal experts could describe the process of the jury reaching the verdict. how long it might take, what's the possibility of a hung jury, is it true that just because of one juror being doubtful the verdict can be "not guilty". some basic information for the foreigners to understand all of that.

 

[JMie]

I found this description of the jury deliberations from this site http://www.courts.ca.gov/2240.htm Hopefully, it will be helpful.

After closing statements by the attorneys and the judge's instructions on the law, the bailiff or court attendant will take you to the jury room for deliberations. Your first duty when entering the jury room is to select a foreperson. The jury should carefully select a well-qualified foreperson. The foreperson's duty is to see that discussion happens in a free and orderly manner, that the issues you must decide are fully and freely discussed, and that every juror is given an opportunity to participate.

After you enter the jury room for deliberations, the exhibits that you are to consider are given to you. If you are not given written instruction from the judge on the law, you may request them. If you feel you need further instructions or to have certain testimony read back to you, inform the judge through the bailiff or the court attendant. Since these purposes can be accomplished only by returning everyone (including parties and lawyers) to the courtroom, you should not make these requests lightly. The procedure usually takes time, but this delay is understandable if you seriously believe doing so is necessary or helpful to you in reaching a verdict.

Quite often in the jury room the jurors may argue and have a difference of opinion. When this occurs, each juror should try to express his or her opinion and the reasoning supporting it. It would be wrong for a juror to refuse to listen to the arguments and opinions of the others or to deny another juror the right to express an opinion. Remember that jurors are not advocates, but impartial judges of the facts. By carefully considering each juror's opinion and the reasons behind it, it is usually possible for the jurors to reach a verdict. A juror should not hesitate to change his or her mind when there is a good reason. But each juror should maintain his or her position unless conscientiously persuaded to change that opinion by the other jurors. Following a full and free discussion with fellow jurors, each juror should vote only according to his or her own honest convictions.

The Verdict
In your efforts to reach a verdict, keep in mind that you should consider only the evidence that was presented in the courtroom. You should not guess or speculate about things not discussed in court, but you can draw reasonable conclusions from the evidence presented.

It is important to take the case you are deciding seriously. After all, if you were a party in the case, it would be important to you, and you would want the jury to give it serious consideration even if the controversy appears less significant to others.

All jurors should deliberate and vote on each issue to be decided in the case. When it is time to count votes, it is the foreperson's duty to see that this is done properly. In a civil case, the judge will tell you how many jurors must agree in order to reach a verdict. In a criminal case, the unanimous agreement of all 12 jurors is required. If the required number of jurors agree on each issue to be decided, the foreperson will sign and date the verdict, advise the bailiff or court attendant, and return with the signed verdict and any unsigned verdict forms from prior votes to the courtroom.

If a jury cannot arrive at a verdict within a reasonable time and indicates to the judge that there is no possibility that they can reach a verdict, the judge, in his or her discretion, may dismiss the jury. This situation is a mistrial, sometimes referred to as a "hung jury," and may mean the case goes to trial again with a new jury.

 

[ivy]

This is from June

After the prosecution and defense have rested, the jury recesses to deliberate after receiving instructions on the law from the judge. Any estimate I might give of the time it will take the jury to reach a verdict would be a guess and I don't want to guess; and in my opinion this will NOT result in a hung jury or mistrial. There will be a verdict.

 

[mjjangel2002]

sorry i was away im heart broken but ill try to help u guys well i think its gonna be a very impartant trail guys its gonna be like the anna nickole smit trail in many ways they goin to ask many other doctors to speak under oath we will see alot of doctors who saw MJ in past its gonna be painful guys so be strong

 

[windy09]

sorry i was away im heart broken but ill try to help u guys well i think its gonna be a very impartant trail guys its gonna be like the anna nickole smit trail in many ways they goin to ask many other doctors to speak under oath we will see alot of doctors who saw MJ in past its gonna be painful guys so be strong

Yes indeed. We are family and we are all here for each other right? You are not alone. Also, please use the support forum if you need to.

 

[mjjangel2002]

ok guys the way i see things now we goin to win there alot of breaking trough to work with meaning murry lied to permedic to doc in hopital so we can play with it

 

[morinen]

Can someone please explain me the concept of "hearsay"? In Michael's trial none of the witnesses was allowed to repeat someone else's words - the opposing side always objected to it as "hearsay". However, Walgren as well as, I think, Ortega were allowed to repeat Michael's words yesterday. What is the difference?

 

[LastTear]

Leading upto the trial yesterday I kept hearing news reports that in order to obtain a conviction the prosecution simply have to prove that murray was negligent in his care of Michael. So if all the experts agree that patients need to be constantly monitored whilst being given propofol and it is proven that murray left his patient alone, coupled with delaying calling 911. Should that be enough for a conviction regardless to the amount of meds Murray claims he administered?

And also, if he is convicted, regardless of jail time would he automatically lose his licence?

Thanks in advance.

 

[Aquarius]

Angel, Wendy & June, thanks for your help.

Can any of you please tell me why some attys prefer not to cross examine?

 

[ivy]

answers from june

Can someone please explain me the concept of "hearsay"? In Michael's trial none of the witnesses was allowed to repeat someone else's words - the opposing side always objected to it as "hearsay". However, Walgren as well as, I think, Ortega were allowed to repeat Michael's words yesterday. What is the difference?

Morinen asks for an explanation of the term "hearsay". Hearsay is basically statements of a third party repeated by a witness on the stand. Example, X witness on the stand says he heard something from another party. I would urge everyone to remember that Judge Pastor stated these are opening statements, NOT evidence. If a defense lawyer thinks he can get away with it, he can say anything on opening statement and probably not have to back it up with evidence. Like the Casey Anthony case (Jose Baez defense attorney)

Leading upto the trial yesterday I kept hearing news reports that in order to obtain a conviction the prosecution simply have to prove that murray was negligent in his care of Michael. So if all the experts agree that patients need to be constantly monitored whilst being given propofol and it is proven that murray left his patient alone, coupled with delaying calling 911. Should that be enough for a conviction regardless to the amount of meds Murray claims he administered?

And also, if he is convicted, regardless of jail time would he automatically lose his licence?

Thanks in advance.

Last Tear asked if Murray's gross negligence if Michael's care can be proven, does it matter how much propofol he infused into Michael. If Conrad Murray can be proven to have "significantly contributed" to Michael's death, then he is guilty of gross negligence under the involuntary manslaughter definition. He does not have to be proven to be the "sole contributor". If the jury follows Judge Pastor's instructions, then regardless of whether it was 25 mg or 100 mg, Murray should be found guilty, in my opinion. And I don't see how a physician can retain his medical license if convicted of a felony, even if that conviction results in mere "probation". Or what patient would want to be treated by a physician convicted of a felony!

Angel, Wendy & June, thanks for your help.

Can any of you please tell me why some attys prefer not to cross examine?

And Aquarius asked why some attorneys prefer not to cross examine witnesses. Well, the defense can only cross examine on testimony given in the prosecution's direct examination. So the defense attorney may prefer to bring up another or the same issue in another manner during his own direct examination

 

[mjjangel2002]

"hearsay" means that either its what he heard from another person and not his own opinion ok

 

[mjjangel2002]

on cross examine they can fall with asking wrong questions it can make them lose the case cross examineis used only if u have a real prove that the other side lying under oath

 

[morinen]

ivy, mjjangel2002 thank you.
What I essentially want to know is if Michael's words retelled by a witness will be admissible at testimony. Because he said some very important things (for example he said to Nurse Lee that he knew he needed to be closely monitored when under propofol, and he wanted to find a doctor who would be able to keep an eye on him - exactly what Murray failed to do). I know the nurse is (for some reason) not on the prosecution witness list, but I want to know in general if the jury will be allowed to learn Michael's take on the situation.

 

[Aquarius]

I know Murray is responsible for Michael's death and it seems his lawyers don't have anything to hang on because everything points at Murray. My question is if Murray is found guilty can he appeal by saying he wasn't well legal represented?

 

[elusive moonwalker]

ivy, mjjangel2002 thank you. What I essentially want to know is if Michael's words retelled by a witness will be admissible at testimony. Because he said some very important things (for example he said to Nurse Lee that he knew he needed to be closely monitored when under propofol, and he wanted to find a doctor who would be able to keep an eye on him - exactly what Murray failed to do). I know the nurse is (for some reason) not on the prosecution witness list, but I want to know in general if the jury will be allowed to learn Michael's take on the situation.

imo yes because thats not hearsay.mj directly talked to the witness whos quoting him. its only hearsay if mj told for example nurse lee something and then lee told someone else. that someone else couldnt testify to mj talking as that person didnt hear mj say it direct. they got the info from lee.

ivy u mentioned cross examination.and said they can only cross on what came up on direct. i thought this was the case aswell. but in faheems testimony they brought up lee and she was never mentioned in the direct.

 

[elusive moonwalker]

If Conrad Murray can be proven to have "significantly contributed" to Michael's death, then he is guilty of gross negligence under the involuntary manslaughter definition. He does not have to be proven to be the "sole contributor".

when u read it like it sounds to easy. in the sense that being provern that he bought the diprivan and brought it into the house to me is enough to convict just on that. let alone all the other things he did. is that the actual definition the judge gave to the jury or hasnt he given them one yet?

 

[mjjangel2002]

ok guys whats happend earlier on the court today is very good for us the witness were very strong dont be surprised if the gonna change it to 2nd degree murder we have proves enough for that

 

[roomdownstairs]

answers from june

If Conrad Murray can be proven to have "significantly contributed" to Michael's death, then he is guilty of gross negligence under the involuntary manslaughter definition. He does not have to be proven to be the "sole contributor". [/COLOR][/B]

Can you let me know the legal basis for where the "significant contribution" aspect of the IM charge arises? I heard that in opening statements and was wondering about it. Is that requirement something that was derived from case law, or possibly from a different part of the statute?

 

[Milka]

I'm watching some of the testimonies on youtube, and this question might sound silly compared to the other questions asked in this thread, but I've been wondering since day one - the defense exhibits are marked with letters, A, B,C ... what happens once they reach Z?

 

[ivy]

i'm watching some of the testimonies on youtube, and this question might sound silly compared to the other questions asked in this thread, but i've been wondering since day one - the defense exhibits are marked with letters, a, b,c ... What happens once they reach z?

aa

 

[Milka]

aa

Oh, ok, thank you, that makes sense.

 

[smoothlugar]

- What is the definition for "discovery" (which both parts were obliged to disclose before the trial)?

- Are both prosecution and defense obliged to present to the other part the "exhibits" in advance before presenting them in the actual trial?

Thanks in advance.

 

[Milka]

I have a question about recalling witnesses. Does the prosecution have to recall witnesses, if they choose to, before they rest? Or can they recall them after the defense has rested?

 

[wendy2004]

Prosecution can recall witnesses before they rest. After each witness testifies the judge generally notifies them that they're still under oath and may be recalled; shouldn't discuss the case with other witnesses, etc.

 

[wendy2004]

- What is the definition for "discovery" (which both parts were obliged to disclose before the trial)?

- Are both prosecution and defense obliged to present to the other part the "exhibits" in advance before presenting them in the actual trial?

Thanks in advance.

Discovery, in layman's terms, is anything each side has access to related to the case (statements, documentation, physical evidence, test results, etc.). Each side must share this information for the other side to review prior to trial. This way each side has a fair chance to defend themselves against and/or challenge the information shared. This is supposed to prevent surprises and an unfair advantage of one side over the other. However, sometimes information/evidence may become available at the last possible minute; i.e. a witness no one knew about comes forward or a piece of evidence is located which may need testing (this testing could take place while the trial is ongoing). IF the judge feels one side has violated the rule of discovery, they may decide to throw the newly presented evidence out to keep things fair and balanced. There's always the appellate courts if one side feels a ruling is unfair.

 

[roomdownstairs]

Does anyone know the answer to the question I asked earlier?

 

[ivy]

I know Murray is responsible for Michael's death and it seems his lawyers don't have anything to hang on because everything points at Murray. My question is if Murray is found guilty can he appeal by saying he wasn't well legal represented?

from june

defendant has automatic right of first appeal, and one of the grounds for appeal is alleged incompetence of his legal counsel at trial, so yes, Murray could file an appeal on the basis of incompetent counsel.

ok guys whats happend earlier on the court today is very good for us the witness were very strong dont be surprised if the gonna change it to 2nd degree murder we have proves enough for that

I don't think raising the charges are possible at this point in time.

Can you let me know the legal basis for where the "significant contribution" aspect of the IM charge arises? I heard that in opening statements and was wondering about it. Is that requirement something that was derived from case law, or possibly from a different part of the statute?

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.