Questions and Answers about the Case and Law in general

[Limonali]

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

what is double jeopardy, Ivy?

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.

T-Mez was stating in his interview that this is one of the main causes why he can't criticise the IM charge.
Would you agree with that? Is it better to 'play it safe', at least at the beginning?

 

[elusive moonwalker]

what is double jeopardy, Ivy?

it means u cant be tried twice for the same crime if u have already been aquited.so any new evidence would have to come out during/b4 a trial. unless of course a precedent could be set. its a daft law in one sense. if smoking gun evidence came to light after someone had been aquited u are letting a guilty person walk

 

[ivy]

what is double jeopardy, Ivy?

Elusive is right. Double jeopardy means that a person cannot be tried twice for the same crime based on the same facts. So they are kinda limited in time in regards of finding new evidence.

T-Mez was stating in his interview that this is one of the main causes why he can't criticise the IM charge.
Would you agree with that? Is it better to 'play it safe', at least at the beginning?

I agree with T-Mez.

I'll be brutally honest here for a second. Don't read the rest if you think you can't handle it.

There has been the ongoing debate about Murder 2 versus IVM charges.

Granted we don't know the evidence that the DA has against Murray. There might not be evidence to support a Murder 2 charge. or there could be enough evidence to go with a Murder 2 charge.

However evidence is not the only thing that you consider when you are determining a charge. You also look to possible defense strategies and what the jurors might think as well.

Of course we also do not know what defense will Murray use, but with all the stuff that we heard, it's safe to assume that they'll go with some sort of "blame the victim" defense.

Remember the things we heard over the last months : People talking about Michael being a drug addict, interventions, he's shopping around for doctors to give him propofol, referring to it as his milk, paying high amounts of salary etc etc..

In a murder charge Murray's team could use all these as defense and if they can convince only 1 jury that Michael was an addict and asked for the drug himself (place the blame on MJ) , Murray could walk free.

However in an IVM charge none of these matter much. DA could simply say "so what if MJ asked for it, Dr. gave it without the necessary safety equipment present"..

Once again we don't know the evidence against Murray, but with all the cr*p talk going on at least to me an IVM charge looks like a more certain conviction where as a Murder 2 charge looks like a roll of dice.

 

[Limonali]

I get it. Thanks for answering straight and honestly.

 

[Maria MJ]

Ivy, thank you so much for this thread, and also for the time and effort to share your expertise. Very much appreciated.
I'm pretty sure I have some questions, but first I need to go through the previous pages in case something has already been answered.

 

[Maria MJ]

Ivy, is it true that if during trial more evidence comes out to sustain murder 2, the family can sue the DA or the state for not pressing higher charges?

 

[bouee]

Thanks Ivy for this thread, this is very helpful , and thanks Elusive too for your answers.

Maria's question reminded me of what's going on in the Tonya Craft case. I am not very familiar with her case, so maybe this is too far fetched, but her story seems close to what happened to Michael (she was found not guilty of child molestation).

And she is suing the people who wrongly accused her, including people in the Sheriff's department, apparently for the methods they used when interrogating the children.

http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/Media/ton...tation-sues-accusers/story?id=10801264&page=1

I'm aware it's a different state, and a different time, but I can't help thinking .... what if ????

What do you think about it ???

As Maria asked, do you think the DA could be held accountable, and / or the LAPD should more evidence come up during the trial ?

 

[elusive moonwalker]

Ivy, is it true that if during trial more evidence comes out to sustain murder 2, the family can sue the DA or the state for not pressing higher charges?

id only think you could sue the D.A if u can prove that the D.A knew of this evidence yet with held it. like it was done on purpose.ie a cover up but then u have things like plea bargins so the D.A can say yes there was evidence that supported a murder 2 charge but we thought it was to dodgy and it was better to go with a lesser charge as theres a better chance of a conviction

i would think your only chance would be if they didnt file charges at all and then it came out that they had evidence but with held it

tonyas a defendent so not sure how that fits.its not really the same

 

[ivy]

I never heard of suing the DA for not pressing higher charges. because like I mentioned before what to charge a person is not a definitive thing. It doesn't only depend on the evidence but on the possible defense strategies, possible things that can create reasonable doubt etc..

that Tonya case is also different. it's not for suing them about the charges, it's for suing them for using questionable interview techniques. so it is more similar to suing for police brutality etc..

another example is what elusive said if there was evidence and if it was withheld and resulted in an unfair trial - you can sue for that. but once again I never heard of suing the DA for not pressing higher charges.

 

[bouee]

what do you think of Joe / Oxman filing a civil lawsuit before the criminal one is over ???

I don't think there can be a civil trial before the criminal one, am I right ?

 

[elusive moonwalker]

I don't think there can be a civil trial before the criminal one, am I right ?

they can file one but the D.A can stop it from progressing until a crim case is over. i doubt the D.A cares though

oxman is only damaging the case with his obsession with saying mj was a druggie and frail etc. he doesnt care aslong as he gets a payout. from day one thats been his line of thought as he knows he will get more money in interviews etc by calling mj a druggie

 

[kasume]

In a murder charge Murray's team could use all these as defense and if they can convince only 1 jury that Michael was an addict and asked for the drug himself (place the blame on MJ) , Murray could walk free.

But what about the autopsy report showing that Michael's organs had no drug addict damage. (except propofol damage by murray to his brain) And also stating that he was healthy and not a drug addict.

Is the autopsy report not enough to prove that?

 

[bgz]

A question for Ivy.

I understand the concept that if only one juror believed Michael was an "addict", that could potentially allow Murray to walk free since the verdict must be unanimous.

What I do not understand is whether other words are used, ie "dependence" or "reliance" on medication (including Propofol), during specific time periods r/t performances/tours, etc., could that be enough for a juror to vote not-guilty? That Michael was not an "addict", but was using meds at intervals throughout the years because he needed relief or rest during stressful periods.

It's kind of hard to explain what I'm thinking in my head. There are many times in people's lives where they "rely on" or "have a temporary dependency" on medication to get them through a difficult period. Propofol is definitely a medication I wouldn't think an average person would be able to utilize (although there's caseloads of instances where medical personnel used it for varying reasons quite frequently r/t need for "sleep" or rest, no matter that Propofol doesn't give the type of sleep needed).

I hate the word addiction in r/t Michael, but I could certainly understand temporary dependence for relief of anxiety, insomnia, pain, etc. There are I'm sure thousands/millions of people that would fall into the temporary dependence category throughout the world and over the years, and they cannot be categorized as "addicts".

(sorry for the length of this "question", hope I'm making sense.)

 

[ivy]

what do you think of Joe / Oxman filing a civil lawsuit before the criminal one is over ???

I don't think there can be a civil trial before the criminal one, am I right ?

there's a certain time limit to file for the wrongful death suit so I believe that they had to file now or quite soon.

However logically they need to ask for a delay until the criminal case is over - because if the civil case happens before the trial then the burden of proof is at Oxman.

Simply put - if at a criminal case the jury says "guilty" then in the civil case it's only about determining damages.

if there's no verdict then it's your duty to prove guilt before you can get damages.

by the way - one other important thing is that even before the civil trial happens Joe has to prove that he's a dependent of Michael or he has no grounds to sue for wrongful death. The case can be thrown out of the court just based on this.

But what about the autopsy report showing that Michael's organs had no drug addict damage. (except propofol damage by murray to his brain) And also stating that he was healthy and not a drug addict.

Is the autopsy report not enough to prove that?

Sure. I wasn't talking about a general drug addiction. Remember several other stories that we heard - several people came forward and said that Michael asked them for propofol or we heard that Murray will say that he wake up and self injected.

That's the reasonable doubt that I was talking about. You can have some person in the jury that might think like "how could it be murder if he was an aware and willing participant?"

however on the IVM - this doesn't matter. all they need to determine is "was the necessary monitoring equipment there or not?"

I feel like a IVM is more probably conviction than a second degree murder.

What I do not understand is whether other words are used, ie "dependence" or "reliance" on medication (including Propofol), during specific time periods r/t performances/tours, etc., could that be enough for a juror to vote not-guilty? That Michael was not an "addict", but was using meds at intervals throughout the years because he needed relief or rest during stressful periods.

as I said before I believe as far as the IVM charge goes it doesn't matter (however that doesn't mean that his medical history will be paraded to discredit Michael).

It's a matter of how and why did those medications were given. Such as you have an issue and a doctor prescribed that medicine and you are relying/depending on it , it shouldn't classify as addiction because there's a legitimate reasoning.

in the case of propofol it's not something that Michael could form a reliance on his own - you need to be in the medical profession to have access to it. So even though he might have relied on it for sleep , you still have a doctor that gave that drug for the non intended and not appropriate purposes - that should still classify as a doctor error.

 

[bgz]

there's a certain time limit to file for the wrongful death suit so I believe that they had to file now or quite soon.

However logically they need to ask for a delay until the criminal case is over - because if the civil case happens before the trial then the burden of proof is at Oxman.

Simply put - if at a criminal case the jury says "guilty" then in the civil case it's only about determining damages.

if there's no verdict then it's your duty to prove guilt before you can get damages.

by the way - one other important thing is that even before the civil trial happens Joe has to prove that he's a dependent of Michael or he has no grounds to sue for wrongful death. The case can be thrown out of the court just based on this.



Sure. I wasn't talking about a general drug addiction. Remember several other stories that we heard - several people came forward and said that Michael asked them for propofol or we heard that Murray will say that he wake up and self injected.

That's the reasonable doubt that I was talking about. You can have some person in the jury that might think like "how could it be murder if he was an aware and willing participant?"

however on the IVM - this doesn't matter. all they need to determine is "was the necessary monitoring equipment there or not?"

I feel like a IVM is more probably conviction than a second degree murder.



as I said before I believe as far as the IVM charge goes it doesn't matter (however that doesn't mean that his medical history will be paraded to discredit Michael).

It's a matter of how and why did those medications were given. Such as you have an issue and a doctor prescribed that medicine and you are relying/depending on it , it shouldn't classify as addiction because there's a legitimate reasoning.

in the case of propofol it's not something that Michael could form a reliance on his own - you need to be in the medical profession to have access to it. So even though he might have relied on it for sleep , you still have a doctor that gave that drug for the non intended and not appropriate purposes - that should still classify as a doctor error.

Thanks, Ivy. That helps me to understand things (terminology and train of thought) better. As much as I know so many believe this was much more, ivm does sound like a more likely thing to prove, versus a higher murder charge where there might be a higher potential for failure to "prove" beyond reasonable doubt.

 

[elusive moonwalker]

But what about the autopsy report showing that Michael's organs had no drug addict damage. (except propofol damage by murray to his brain) And also stating that he was healthy and not a drug addict.

Is the autopsy report not enough to prove that?

well if murray is just going to say mj was addicted etc to diprivan than the autopsy doesnt really matter interms of murrays not saying mj was addicted to everything and anything. then u have arguments over whethers its physcially addictive(which it isnt) how long it was been given for etc.

yeah agree with ivy. tbh oxmans stupid going with a lawsuit b4 the crim case is over cause if hes convicted in the crim case u dont even bother with a civil trial.they will get a default judgement. logically u wait until the crim case is over

 

[Maria MJ]

well if murray is just going to say mj was addicted etc to diprivan than the autopsy doesnt really matter interms of murrays not saying mj was addicted to everything and anything. then u have arguments over whethers its physcially addictive(which it isnt) how long it was been given for etc.

yeah agree with ivy. tbh oxmans stupid going with a lawsuit b4 the crim case is over cause if hes convicted in the crim case u dont even bother with a civil trial.they will get a default judgement. logically u wait until the crim case is over

But I think the deadline of 90 days since March was expiring on June 25--what was that deadline all about?

 

[ivy]

But I think the deadline of 90 days since March was expiring on June 25--what was that deadline all about?

you have to give notice 90 days before you file the wrongful death suit.

in other words in march Oxman told Murray's lawyers that he's going to file a wrongful death suit, in July he filed the suit with the court.

 

[kasume]

I contacted two lawyers in criminal law for better understanding.


Quote:
To understand the focal point of the prosecution in such cases, or in any other criminal case for that matter, requires an understanding of how culpability is attached to defendant.

For every crime, there is what is called the black letter law definition containing (or made up of) one or more Essential Elements which the defendant has to meet and satisfy in their entirety in order for culpability to attach. For example, burglary is defined as breaking and entering into the dwelling of another with intent to commit a felony therein (essential elements underlined). So if a defendant found an open door or a window through which he gained access to and entered the dwelling, then he cannot be found guilty of burglary since there was no breaking of things.

By the same token, Involuntary Manslaughter’s black letter law definition is: the unlawful killing of another human being without intent and is divided into two types. The fist is Criminal Negligence Manslaughter which requires the showing of a high degree of negligence and recklessness, and the second type is Unlawful Act Manslaughter which occurs during the commission of an unlawful act, usually a misdemeanor.

So the question to be decided in this case is not how or why medication was dispensed by the doctor, but whether the act of dispensation of the medicine standing alone shows a high degree of recklessness or was it just an unlawful excess of the privilege to dispense medicinal narcotics and or controlled substances.

Quote:
Involuntary manslaughter involves one or two things: either it was an unlawful act (i.e., giving drugs you weren't authorized to give) that doesn't have enough gravity for one of the more serious homicide charges, or that the act was done with such lack of caution or circumspection to be criminally dangerous.

Unless the drug involved is so egregiously inappropriate for any use (like some untested thing from Mexico) you can be assured that they will delve into both the nature of the drugs and the circumstances surrounding it's prescription and administration.

Originally Posted by ivy
Those lawyers are actually saying two different things. If you look the fist one says exactly what I have been saying.

the second one adds that "why" the drug will be given will also be examined

The lawyers did not say two different things. They absolutey agreed, and they agreed completely that I should of just posted the second lawyers's response. As I look back, putting up both of their responses was really unnecessary. But I did that and I cant change it.

The second lawyer DOES FURTHER EXPLAIN on the basis of a completley outrageous situation. If you read their responses carefully, it is the same. The first lawyer's response and the second lawyers first paragraph is telling the same thing.

However, the second paragraph of the second lawyer you pointed out, she said UNLESS the drug involved is so inappropriate....In that new paragraph, she is swaying from the general explanation given by the both of them and goes into a more specific situation. If you go back and read both respones, you will see that she gives a further explanation that the first lawyer did not tell.

Unless the drug involved is so egregiously inappropriate for any use (like some untested thing from Mexico) you can be assured that they will delve into both the nature of the drugs and the circumstances surrounding it's prescription and administration.

According to what I've heard about propofol, they said it's like killing an ant with a hammer. Now I don't know how innapropriate that is....but it kind of seems "way off the chart" to me also.

furthermore what you said below is also relevant and of course could be examined in the trial if there's a cover up

Quote:

Originally Posted by kasume
Some of these things just can't be ignored. I remember that investigators believe Murray may have found Michael not breathing as early as 9:00AM. But Murray said he was giving Michael propofol at 10:40AM. If investigators believe Michael was not breathing as early as 9:00AM, then that would mean a second lie in the timeline and shorter intervals between which the drugs were given, which would make the case against Murray even stronger. Or what about the fact that police believe Murray may have left Michael dead for five hours before the 911 call? I don't see how the court can just push those things aside. That's all very important.

If there's a coverup? I believe it SHOULD be examined. Investigators wouldn't say that if there wasn't a possiblilty and no evidence or suspicion showed up that made them consider that. And come trial, I really expect them to get more serious and really delve into it.

 

[LMAT]

Ivy: Is it possible for the judge to disallow all of or part of Michael's medical
history when it comes to pain meds or propofol? The issue, to me, is simply
whether Murray is culpable for his individual action. Whether Michael was given
that drug or any others in the ;past seems irrelevant.

Murray is on trial (hopefully) for his actions on that particular morning, is he not?
For six weeks he admits to giving Michael propofol almost every night for insomnia.
And, also, it should be noted that propofol is not addictive in the usual sense. There
is no tolerance developed and it does not take increasing doses to obtain the same
affect. 50-100 mgs. will put a person to sleep every single time.

 

[elusive moonwalker]

Is it possible for the judge to disallow all of or part of Michael's medical
history when it comes to pain meds or propofol? The issue, to me, is simply
whether Murray is culpable for his individual action. Whether Michael was given
that drug or any others in the ;past seems irrelevant.

during pre trai l hearings you have arguments over what evidence is allowed. this normally happened with the prosecution and the defence trying to stop certain evidence being used. idont know if its the same rule for the defence or can they use anything and everything? ivy maybe able to help on that one. but yes i hope the judge can stop the defence from using certain theories

 

[Rockin.]

I made a thread like this in February -

http://www.mjjcommunity.com/forum/showthread.php?t=86710

I think it would be useful to have this thread to inform everyone of the steps which come after Murray is charged (if this happens).

I think it is important that everyone can understand what may/will happen next.

Can someone explain please so that all members on the board can understand?

If anyone has any questions about procedures etc., they can also be addressed here.

We all need to be informed.

Thank you for your helpful responses.​

There are some questions and answers in there.. some which have been asked again here. Maybe mods can merge..?

 

[Ingelief]

jury system questions america vs ........

i live in holland, and we dont have jurys. i think that that is a good thing. they are people no experts.. its more who does the most talking the best.

1. would you think if murray gonna be testified against a jury he mide walk??

2. i dont understand the system complety in america, so where is this trial now?? why does it take so long?? its 1,5 year now that he is gone?? everything has been tested etc by now right?? or distroit by how ever want it to be gone.

3. and who are they looking at besides conrad (or what his name is)????????

hope you all want to help me discusse this.

sorry for my not perfect english.

 

[elusive moonwalker]

Re: jury system questions america vs ........

whos knows if he will testfiy. he doesnt have to. i guess the answer is it depends if hes a good actor.

where are we now? the case will have a preliminary hearing in january.thats a hearing where the judge will decide if theres enough evidence for it to go to trial or not. 99.9 of cases go to trial so its just routine. after that there will be more hearings where evidence etc is discussed then the trial

they arent looking at anyone else besides conrad murray. hes the only one charged as he was the one who was there and gave mj the stuff

 

[ivy]

Re: jury system questions america vs ........

let me try to answer

1. in any trial anybody (even guilty) could walk. It's too early to try to guess the outcome of the trial, especially as we don't know much about the evidence. But generally speaking it's always a possibility that a guilty person might walk free.

2. the simple order will be police investigation - prelim or grand jury hearing - trial.
As of now the police completed their investigation and the DA charged Murray with involuntary manslaughter. We are waiting for the prelim hearing to happen in January.

In the prelim hearing the judge will determine if there's enough evidence (probable cause) to go to trial. If he finds it satisfactory, then the next steps will happen (such as jury selection) and then finally the trial.

Yes it takes a long time but it's normal. For example Anna Nicole Smith's death case was completed more than 3 years after her death. So the system works slowly but it's normal.

Yes everything should be tested by now but there might be additional testing as required and as requested.

3. They are only looking to Conrad Murray. He's the only one charged. If any new information comes to light they can charge other people but as of now it seems like Conrad Murray is the only one that's being charged by the DA.

However Katherine Jackson has a civil suit against AEG.

 

[Ingelief]

Re: jury system questions america vs ........

thank you for answering. Im just concerned with the whole jury thing. like if a laywer is a good actor the people let him walk. In our system there are no jurys so.. hope u understand my reaction to this. Further there are more speculation about who is involved by fans by interviews of the family so why only look at conrad?? the case katherine is doing is that apart from the murder case??

why not investigate around him like bodyquards aeg thome etc conrads wife if neccesery????

 

[elusive moonwalker]

Re: jury system questions america vs ........

you dont have jurys at al lin holland? thought pretty much every country had them. it is what it is. tbh id be more concenred about how the meida can influence jurrors. the biggest worry is his own family calling him a druggie this is murray best defence

there are more speculation about who is involved by fans by interviews of the family so why only look at conrad??

because thats basically coming from pp who believe in conspiracy stuff.that there was some big plan to kill mj and someone hired murrays to do it. theres no evidence anyone else was involved. murray admitted being there he admitted injecting mj. thats pretty much it.

katherine filed a civil suit (for money) against AEG. the lawsuit is based around conspraicy stuff.

 

[Ingelief]

Re: jury system questions america vs ........

no we dont have any jurys...

 

[smoothlugar]

Re: jury system questions america vs ........

2. the simple order will be police investigation - prelim or grand jury hearing - trial.
As of now the police completed their investigation and the DA charged Murray with involuntary manslaughter. We are waiting for the prelim hearing to happen in January.

Sorry, I have some doubts:
- in a grand jury hearing, is it that jury the one who decides if there's probable cause for trial? (there were rumours in August that DA and CM's defence were considering the grand jury hearing to shorten the length of those hearings... (??))

- DA said to the judge on 23 August, according to CNN, that the investigation was still going on (??). Was that true? And if so, could the charges be raised if new evidence appeared?

Thank you. All these issues are a bit confusing and the news are sometimes misleading.

 

[elusive moonwalker]

Re: jury system questions america vs ........

in a grand jury hearing, is it that jury the one who decides if there's probable cause for trial? (there were rumours in August that DA and CM's defence were considering the grand jury hearing to shorten the length of those hearings... (??))

your confusing things. yes a grand jury decides if theres probably cause. but no there where not rumours in august that the D.A and CM were considering a GJ. firstly CM has no right of a say in a GJ. they are not involved at all. what was been mentioned was that the D.A could reduce his witness list if C.M agreed to certain things so that the prelim wouldnt last aslong

DA said to the judge on 23 August, according to CNN, that the investigation was still going on (??). Was that true? And if so, could the charges be raised if new evidence appeared?

dont know if that was true or if it ment anything or whether its just a standard thing to say. from my understanding the charges could change upto the prelim. like what sneddon did with mj. he changed the charges at the GJ. but i highly doubt anything will happen. they investigated for 8 months b4 charges were filed