Latest on MJJC

Questions and Answers about the Case and Law in general

Re: Michael Jackson:US & California Law, Questions, Discussion

Moonwalker.Fan said:
I have never read Elvis autopsy cos I havent found that)..., is there the autopsy online, the original document?
http://elvis-presley-death.beep.com/
http://www.king-elvis-presley.de/html/death-elvis-autopsy.html
http://oldies.about.com/od/elvisdeathfaq/f/elvisdeath.htm
Click to expand...

The second link that you have is the report published. This was way back in 1978. You can find autopsy reports for many celebrities online such as anna nicole, tupac etc etc. Media sometimes do not publish them as a whole if they believe it wont generate too much interest or controversy. In that case you either see a one page summary or a news report. For example complete report for anna nicole is available online but you can only find a summary for heath ledger online - this is because there are other people involved in anna nicole and there is a criminal case (murder/manslaughter) but no other person involved in heath ledger (and it is an accidental OD).
 
Re: Michael Jackson:US & California Law, Questions, Discussion

Moonwalker.Fan said:
Dont forget to post comments on the articles on the net!

We have to support Michael!

I think that any articles about the autopsy and coroners report are total and ultimate humiliation of Michael as a person.

Now, there are no secrets, nothing private, Michael as a person had/has no privacy.

I am horrifyingly surprised at this, the point is that Michael is now dissected publicly, literally!

I cant think about that... its surreal...
Click to expand...

I know it is just so awful :(
Michael said himself that his life was like ''public property'' which is such a violation of his human rights as a man.:(
 
As the case goes on, we see several questions posted in several threads asking what's happening next, what does this mean, why a decision was made, why it takes time etc..

In order to understand better what is happening, why is that happening etc, by request we started this thread for question and answers related to the case or law in general.

Please post your questions below, also please if you have the expertise, experience and knowledge please answer the questions.

Disclaimer : As we don't have the perfect information related to the case or law degrees , the answers on this thread could be based on best of our knowledge and/or educated guesses. Please use the thread as a reference but do not act like it's complete and absolutely perfect information.
 
Last edited:
I thought I'll start by adding a FAQ about the next hearing

- When is the next hearing?

The preliminary hearing (also called prelim in short) has been set for August 23.

- What happens at a preliminary hearing?

The prosecutor presents evidence in court to prove that there's a probable cause that the crime is committed. Judge determines that a) there was a crime and b) there's sufficient evidence to suggest that a certain individual committed that crime. In a prelim at least some witnesses testify to show probable cause and the defense can also cross-examine such witness statements. If a judge doesn't find probable cause, the case gets dismissed (note: very rarely happens). If the judge thinks that there's sufficient evidence to believe that the crime was committed, trial date is set.

Note: Prelim is important for us because it will allow us to see some (not all of it but the most important part of it) of the DA's evidence against Murray.

-How long a preliminary hearing last?

Depending on the case, evidence and complexity it could range anywhere between a few days to several weeks. For example prelim for Anna Nicole Smith case lasted 3 weeks.

- How soon after the preliminary hearing the actual trial can start?

It would most probably take several months. Before the trial starts there will be bunch other hearings to determine several legal aspects such as jury selection etc.
 
What do you think of the. DA's decision to go to a preliminary hearing instead of a grand jury?
 
yesterday during the license hearing the judge said he didn't have jurisdiction to over rule the other judge,,ok i understand that part..the part I don't understand is ,,,why do they keep going from court date to court date and NOONE is taking his license away? Does that sound a little like these judges are getting paid off..or is this the legal process until one of them gives in and just takes it?....at this rate they sound like they are passing the buck with all these what seem to be non-existent laws. Thank you IVY.
 
xthunderx2 said:
good idea..IVY..:)
Click to expand...

Well I can't take the credit for it. It was Limonali's idea.

Justthefacts said:
What do you think of the. DA's decision to go to a preliminary hearing instead of a grand jury?
Click to expand...

Now both prelim and grand jury is done to determine whether there's a probable cause, so tehcnically regardless of which one you use the outcome will be same : to see if the case goes to trial or not. However there are some differences.

In a grand jury - only the prosecutor presents the evidence, no judge, defendant or defense lawyer is present and jurors make the decision.

In a prelim - prosecutor present the evidence, defense can be present and hear the evidence, cross examine the witnesses etc and the judge makes the decision.

Now some think that it's much more simpler to get an indictment from grand jury - there's even a saying "grand jury can indict even a grilled cheese sandwich"..

Some think that prelims is actually beneficial for the defense as they see some of the evidence - important : not all the evidence will be shown in a prelim. The DA will show enough evidence for probable cause and hold the most crucial evidence for the trial

Now about your question. My personal opinion is this

1) they know there's a high public interest and the DA wants to have a prelim to answer the questions of the people / to satisfy their curiosity

or

2) they are very confident of their case and that they are going to get a conviction they don't care if the defense sees some of the evidence they have.
 
Last edited:
xthunderx2 said:
yesterday during the license hearing the judge said he didn't have jurisdiction to over rule the other judge,,ok i understand that part..the part I don't understand is ,,,why do they keep going from court date to court date and NOONE is taking his license away? Does that sound a little like these judges are getting paid off..or is this the legal process until one of them gives in and just takes it?....at this rate they sound like they are passing the buck with all these what seem to be non-existent laws. Thank you IVY.
Click to expand...

okay let's discuss this but let me warn you that what I'm about to write will be emotion free - and it could be disturbing for some.

First of all I believe we also need some information from people in the medical field to tell us how the medical license suspension works. I honestly have no idea about that process.

As far as the law goes :


First Judge Pastor saying that he didn't have the jurisdiction to overrule other judge - he was right. I believe this was AG Brown's 2nd or 3rd time filing the same motion and he was just judge shopping and you can't do that.

Second - Prelim/Grand jury didn't happen yet. So as of now the judge only knows that DA is charging Murray with IVM but he hasn't heard any of the evidence (note: judge's cannot make decisions on media reports, celebrity websites, unnamed sources etc, they need to see the evidence). So without even hearing a single evidence , he cannot come to a conclusion.

I'm looking to his statement where he says "it's not about what I believe it's about law". He might believe that Murray's licence should be suspended but I don't think as of now he has the grounds to do it.

Another statement coming from him was this

Pastor said the law did not allow him to change Murray's bail terms unless there was a change in circumstances. He said nothing had changed since the arraignment. Pastor left open the possibility of reconsidering Murray's bail -- including whether he could practice medicine -- after he hears testimony in the case at a later preliminary hearing.
Click to expand...

To me this sounds like he can change his ruling once he has sufficient evidence and probable cause. and it makes all the sense.

another statement by him was this

He said his ruling did not prevent the medical board from seeking to suspend Murray's license at an administrative proceeding.
Click to expand...

so medical board can do their internal investigation and suspend Murray's licence but I think it would take time as well and the reason they go to a judge is to quicken the process.

So in short we'll have to wait for more evidence presented to the judge and/or medical boards internal investigation to end. Yes it's sad and unfortunately it takes a long time but that's how the system works.

For example : Dr. Kevorkian's (the doctor who assisted people in suicides) licence was revoked by Michigan in 1991 (he had intent to kill and assisting/killing multiple people). It took California to revoke his licence almost 2 more years.

Now the June 25th hearing about his licence, at which they are trying to suspend it on the basis of not paying child support. I'm actually more hopeful about that. Unless Murray pulls out a rabbit from his hat and somewhat manages his girlfriend to forgave this child support debt etc, I think they are more likely to suspend his licence on that technicality.

I also personally believe that Murray's licence will eventually be suspended and/or revoked. We'll just have to wait for more evidence or perhaps a conviction.

sources for the quotes : http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lan...tor-can-keep-medical-license-judge-rules.html
 
Thankyou for this thread and for the information, great idea!
 
Ivy, thank you very much for all the info and explanations. I like it that you write these posts without any emotions involved because it helps to understand the system better. I hope you don't mind if I translate some of this info for the Russian fans on Russian boards.
 
ivy said:
okay let's discuss this but let me warn you that what I'm about to write will be emotion free - and it could be disturbing for some.
Click to expand...

Thanks for that. It's about getting to know the system to have an objective frame for comparison and discussion.
It's the main thing that can keep us grounded during this trial in my eyes.

ivy said:
First of all I believe we also need some information from people in the medical field to tell us how the medical license suspension works. I honestly have no idea about that process.
Click to expand...

Is there anyone with medical knowledge that is a part of The Case forum = willing to discuss all this - that could share their insight here?

ivy said:
As far as the law goes :
First Judge Pastor saying that he didn't have the jurisdiction to overrule other judge - he was right.
I believe this was AG Brown's 2nd or 3rd time filing the same motion and he was just judge shopping and you can't do that.
Click to expand...

Ivy, my initial reaction to all this information was to suspect that Brown was in a way catering to the expectations of people watching the trial & fans.
I even suspected that he did that for PR reasons for himself as he must have known the judge will not have a possibility to do that (?)
I know it's just all assumptions but if they are somehow true then that gives him negative PR in my eyes. As in he should know better.
Would you agree with any of this, or should I put it away on 'based on nothing assumptions' shelve?
 
Now the June 25th hearing about his licence, at which they are trying to suspend it on the basis of not paying child support. I'm actually more hopeful about that. Unless Murray pulls out a rabbit from his hat and somewhat manages his girlfriend to forgave this child support debt etc, I think they are more likely to suspend his licence on that technicality.
Click to expand...
what i don't understand is why his licenсe can be revoked because of child support payments but not because of the IVM case. is it because the child support case started earlier and has come to the point of revoking the licenсe while the IVM case is just starting?
 
Last edited:
Like she said there is evidence of anything yet. All the judge knows is that he was charged he has not seen any evidence yet
 
JMie said:
Ivy, thank you very much for all the info and explanations. I like it that you write these posts without any emotions involved because it helps to understand the system better. I hope you don't mind if I translate some of this info for the Russian fans on Russian boards.
Click to expand...

Please feel free to translate it any way you want. but please add the disclaimer as well - that it's based on general knowledge but not necessarily consist of complete or perfect information.

I never claim to have the perfect information/knowledge (just doing my best) and I don't want people to take my words as indisputable facts. :)

Limonali said:
Ivy, my initial reaction to all this information was to suspect that Brown was in a way catering to the expectations of people watching the trial & fans.
I even suspected that he did that for PR reasons for himself as he must have known the judge will not have a possibility to do that (?)
I know it's just all assumptions but if they are somehow true then that gives him negative PR in my eyes. As in he should know better.
Would you agree with any of this, or should I put it away on 'based on nothing assumptions' shelve?
Click to expand...

I was watching TMZ Live later on and Harvey Levin said it was a political move - and I agree. I personally thought that Murray's licence wouldn't get this quickly and these easily suspended or revoked - and I'm not a lawyer. Harvey Levin in TMZ Chat were saying that it's not going to happen etc for weeks/months now. You also know that there's a group of fans that's protesting and bombarding Brown with requests , increased charges etc.

So yes I would agree with all of the things you said, he must have known better. It could be just for PR reasons or perhaps he thought that he'll get lucky and get a judge that would say let's suspend it (even though it might be a slim chance).

JMie said:
what i don't understand is why his licenсe can be revoked because of child support payments but not because of the IVM case. is it because the child support case started earlier and has come to the point of revoking the licenсe while the IVM case is just starting?
Click to expand...

No starting earlier is not the matter. Evidence and proof is the matter.

I looked to that at some time back so there's a question on the medical licence renewal that asks "do you owe back child support". Murray says No when he actually owes back child support. That's lying on an official form.

Plus it's easier to prove whether or not he owes child support. Now as far as the IVM goes , like I said before as of now Judge has no proof or evidence that if Murray is indeed guilty. As of now from legal perspective we only have DA saying that he's guilty, the trial will determine whether he's guilty or not.

However in the child support it's so easy to determine whether he owes money or not. They simply look to the bank statements etc, there's no reasonable doubt, there's no question, no need for a witness, no need for an investigation etc

So that's why I'm hopeful about that however it's not a certain thing either. We'll wait and see.

Note: I also believe even if child support issue stick, that would only result in a temporary suspension of his licence. - still it's better than nothing in my book.
 
Last edited:
We see a lot of people upset about latest developments, saying they are afraid that Murray will get away with it and walk out free.
Confusion and emotions are of course understandable.
I wanted to ask you if you see any abnormalities in terms of time or steps being taken SO FAR that can lead to assumption that there is something wrong with this trial?
Or is it just taking the usual time cases like this take?
I know it might be difficult to answer right now, given that we are at the very beginning.
 
I wanted to ask you if you see any abnormalities in terms of time or steps being taken SO FAR that can lead to assumption that there is something wrong with this trial?
Or is it just taking the usual time cases like this take?
I know it might be difficult to answer right now, given that we are at the very beginning.
Click to expand...
going by mjs trial its just as slow or abit slower. i think with mj there was hearings once a month. but from arrest in november he wasnt indicted till around april or may was it? with murray its feb and and prelim (indictment) at the end of august.so its about the same time
 
american courts seem to be terribly slow. whether its to do with all the ambulance chasers i dunno.or i guess the high crime rate or its a case of jobs forthe boys and the longer cases go on the more money the lawyers make
 
Limonali said:
We see a lot of people upset about latest developments, saying they are afraid that Murray will get away with it and walk out free.
Confusion and emotions are of course understandable.
I wanted to ask you if you see any abnormalities in terms of time or steps being taken SO FAR that can lead to assumption that there is something wrong with this trial?
Or is it just taking the usual time cases like this take?
I know it might be difficult to answer right now, given that we are at the very beginning.
Click to expand...

I realize that people is saying it's taking too long, it's been a year since MJ's death and still there's no justice but when you look to the time and compare it to other cases (for example MJ's case) it's just normal.

If you remind MJ's case he was arrested Nov 2003, but the trial didn't start until Feb 2005 - that's 14 months.
After the trial started in Feb 2005, it was over June 2005 - that's 4-5 months.

Murray was arraigned in Feb 2010. If you just go with MJ's case timeline and add 14 months the trial would start in April 2011. So you see that it's taking the usual time.

As far as the steps taken that's normal as well. You got the arraignment , then a bunch of small court dates, then you'll have the prelim, after that we'll see other small court meeting for several subjects, motions, requests etc, then the most significant will be jury selection and then the case.

Unfortunately people are exaggerating these court dates / events. For example we knew that June 14 is the date to set the prelim date so the only thing that will happen was judge giving a date and that's exactly what happened.

Note: Also be ready to see requests for delay and continuance. TMZ is reporting several times that the defense is saying they are not receiving the documents - if true - we can see delays and the process could take even longer.


edited to add : the one abnormality or a better words is unfairness that I saw was the perp walk or the lack of the perp walk.
Michael was also cooperating and he also surrendered himself but yet he was handcuffed. Murray wasn't.
Now we cam make argument that it was different locations, jurisdiction, police precinct etc, and yes there's no rule that says that everyone should be handcuffed (and yes Michael surrendered himself to the cops and Murray walked into a court - that a difference) but still in my book that was unfair.
 
Last edited:
Firstly thank you Limonali for suggesting this thread and thank you Ivy for providing us with some answershttp://mjjcommunity.com/forum/member.php?u=17732.

I don't know anything aobut the american court system but it does seem very long winded. If all they were doing was setting a date for the prelim, why couldn't that have been done at the last meeting? Or why couldn't they just pick up the phone to arrange it?! Seems like an awful lot of effort to set a date!



 
bowen9999 said:
I don't know anything aobut the american court system but it does seem very long winded. If all they were doing was setting a date for the prelim, why couldn't that have been done at the last meeting? Or why couldn't they just pick up the phone to arrange it?! Seems like an awful lot of effort to set a date!
Click to expand...

In the last hearing (april 5) the trial judge was assigned. The thing is that when a judge is assigned they don't know anything about the case (once again they cannot use the information from the media etc to make a decision). So before he can set a date etc he gets the information, he asks the parties if they have any request motions they want to file etc. Then he goes over them , then the court date comes, he hears each sides arguments etc and finally makes a decision.

and you are right it's most obviously not an efficient way.
 
I don't know much abuot the court. So what if info and evidence starts coming out that is obviously too much for IM. Even with this IM trial, what if things come out that hint to second, first degree murder. Will it just be ignored?

I don't know if things like that happen at cases or what.
 
Ok, here I'm asking your peronal opinion as a person who knows law:

do you think that is possible that Murray is found totally not guilty? (obviously if the story of what he did that morning does not change)
In other words: is giving, by your decision, a wrong medicine in a place without the necessary medical equipement and killing this person is always a crime?
 
kasume said:
I don't know much abuot the court. So what if info and evidence starts coming out that is obviously too much for IM. Even with this IM trial, what if things come out that hint to second, first degree murder. Will it just be ignored?

I don't know if things like that happen at cases or what.
Click to expand...

if evidence comes to light they can change the charges i would think. even if its during the trial the D.A goes to the judge and says whats happened. .i guess u can get a mistrial and start again with the new charges.
 
raindrop said:
Ok, here I'm asking your peronal opinion as a person who knows law:

do you think that is possible that Murray is found totally not guilty? (obviously if the story of what he did that morning does not change)
In other words: is giving, by your decision, a wrong medicine in a place without the necessary medical equipement and killing this person is always a crime?
Click to expand...

anythings possible with a jury
 
thanks elusive moonwalker for the answers. I also have the same answers :)

kasume said:
I don't know much abuot the court. So what if info and evidence starts coming out that is obviously too much for IM. Even with this IM trial, what if things come out that hint to second, first degree murder. Will it just be ignored?

I don't know if things like that happen at cases or what.
Click to expand...

yes. if there's new evidence , additional charges can be added or the charges can be charged.
(of course do not forget double jeopardy).

raindrop said:
Ok, here I'm asking your peronal opinion as a person who knows law:

do you think that is possible that Murray is found totally not guilty? (obviously if the story of what he did that morning does not change)
In other words: is giving, by your decision, a wrong medicine in a place without the necessary medical equipement and killing this person is always a crime?
Click to expand...

not guilty verdict is always a possibility in any case. Remember a guilty verdict can only happen if there's no reasonable doubt, if all the jurors believe that he's guilty without any doubt.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top