Latest on MJJC

Michael Jackson Case: Dr. Conrad Murray's Legal Team Grows

CherubimII

Proud Member
Joined
Jul 25, 2011
Messages
6,923
Points
113
Michael Jackson case: Dr. Conrad Murray's Legal Team Grows

March 4, 2011 |

<!-- sphereit start -->A Superior Court judge cleared Dr. Conrad Murray’s defense Friday to add a third member to his legal team.

Judge Michael Pastor said in a written decision that he had found “no real or potential conflict of interest” in allowing a Glendale attorney who had once worked for a lawyer representing Michael Jackson to defend the physician now accused in the pop singer’s death.

The attorney, Nareg Gourjian, was a junior associate in the firm of Geragos & Geragos seven years ago when lawyer Mark Geragos was Jackson’s criminal defense counsel.

Pastor’s ruling came a day after the judge held closed-door meetings with Geragos, Gourjian and Howard Weitzman, an attorney for Jackson’s estate.

“I’m pleased with the court’s finding,” Gourjian said.
Jury selection for Murray’s manslaughter trial gets underway later this month. He faces up to four years in prison if convicted. Jackson died of a drug overdose in June 2009.

-- Harriet Ryan
<!-- sphereit end -->http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lan...-case-dr-conrad-murrays-legal-team-grows.html

Aside: This sucker Conrad Murray really thinks he is going to get away with the murder of Michael Jackson. If he does, he might live to wish he hadn't.

Romans 12:19
Never take your own revenge, beloved, but leave room for the wrath of God, for it is written,
"VENGEANCE IS MINE, I WILL REPAY," says the Lord.
 
Last edited:
well so far the judge seems to have been pretty decent. id like to see the info regarding his ruling (if it gets released.will it? i guess not seeing as it was done in private) b4 passing judgement
 
anyone remember what said about how this case will go if this guy is allowed to work on the defense team??...well now I KNOW which way it will go...you cannot defend Michael in one court case and THEN work against him in the next one...it just doesn;t make any sense. So yeah...this s not good..IMO. I dont really care what Geragos thinks.
 
anyone remember what said about how this case will go if this guy is allowed to work on the defense team??..
Click to expand...
what do u mean.said by who? geragos.
 
xthunderx2 said:
anyone remember what said about how this case will go if this guy is allowed to work on the defense team??...well now I KNOW which way it will go...you cannot defend Michael in one court case and THEN work against him in the next one...it just doesn;t make any sense. So yeah...this s not good..IMO. I dont really care what Geragos thinks.
Click to expand...

I agree. I have to wonder what Gergagos is thinking by raising the serious issue about a conflict of interest in the beginning and then basically backing down at the end. When there is a dead man who is already being actively blamed for his own death in his own house despite being under (what I believe was) a live-in doctor's care, then allowing a still-possible (IMO) conflict of interest during a courtroom trial makes less sense than no sense to me. All the seemingly inevitable stupidity about this case everywhere in the public domain already and then they allow this? How is this right?
 
Last edited:
elusive moonwalker said:
what do u mean.said by who? geragos.
Click to expand...
oh no sorry..I didnt mean to imply that is what Geragos said....that is MY own personal assumption. I feel now that thi guy has been allowed to be on the the defense team justice will not happen. This is my own personal opinion.
 
Kingofpop4ever3000 said:
I agree. I have to wonder what Gergagos is thinking by raising the serious issue about a conflict of interest in the beginning and then backing down at the end. All the seemingly inevitable stupidity about this case everywhere in the public domain already and then they allow this? How is this right?
Click to expand...
well I think he didnt the right thing by raising the question..but like you ..I dont think he did the right thing by letting this guys continue on the defense.. it just seems ludicrous to me.
 
well hopefully judge Pastor has made the right decision. If the prosecution sticks to the script and to the evidence it doesn't make a difference who Murray has an attorney because the evidence is overwhelming at his guilt and his responsibility for MJ's death
 
Ugh...it just don't look right! SMH Dude look like a traitor no matter how small he was involved in the MJ 05 case!? U know what I mean?! =/ But, u know how it is "it's just business!"
 
Kingofpop4ever3000 said:
I agree. I have to wonder what Gergagos is thinking by raising the serious issue about a conflict of interest in the beginning and then basically backing down at the end. When there is a dead man who is already being actively blamed for his own death in his own house despite being under (what I believe was) a live-in doctor's care, then allowing a still-possible conflict of interest during a courtroom trial makes less sense than no sense IMO. All the seemingly inevitable stupidity about this case everywhere in the public domain already and then they allow this? How is this right?
Click to expand...

It just isn't right IMO. Geragos brought up the question in the first place, and they had an in-chamber discussion regarding the issue, and ultimately the Judge rules this doesn't amount to a conflict of interest? I've worked in law offices for many years, and I know that personnel have access to files, may see or overhear things that would be considered confidential. Attorneys have been known to lack integrity. Why did the defense choose THIS attorney? What expertise does HE have that a zillion other LA attorneys don't? I know that we aren't privy to those private conversations right now, but it sure gives the impression of impropriety.
 
I don't like this either. It just makes me sick the way things are developing.
 
dirtydiana27 said:
It just isn't right IMO. Geragos brought up the question in the first place, and they had an in-chamber discussion regarding the issue, and ultimately the Judge rules this doesn't amount to a conflict of interest? I've worked in law offices for many years, and I know that personnel have access to files, may see or overhear things that would be considered confidential. Attorneys have been known to lack integrity. Why did the defense choose THIS attorney? What expertise does HE have that a zillion other LA attorneys don't? I know that we aren't privy to those private conversations right now, but it sure gives the impression of impropriety.
Click to expand...

Couldn't agree more with everything, esp. the bold. Not only WHY did they choose him, HOW did they find him? Did he come to them? Did they go looking for him? Put out an ad: Wanted: a lawyer who has previously worked for Michael Jackson, please apply to Chernoff, et al. for an opportunity to possibly betray your former client, gain much PR exposure and help defend the man accused of killing your former client. Ethics not required.

This is no coincidence. I. smell. a. rat. Also, Geragos is not a novice in this profession. Why would he have brought it up if he didn't think a conflict might exist? And didn't the estate lawyers and in essence, Michael, object? The judge has been pretty even handed up to now but this...doesn't feel right. Wonder what T-Mez thinks of this.
 
Is any one in MJ's family, friends doing anything to fight for him? My God MJ has absolutely no one but the fans that give a damn about this.. Why isn't his family or friends upset that a medical doctor killed MJ? where is the outrage? I will continue to love and pray for MJ because it doesn't seem like any one else gives a damn in his family.
 
I don't understand this either. He brings up the issue that there might be a possible conflict of interest, then agrees with the decision. Further Michael's attorneys were there. Since, I believe that Michael's attorneys are going to do what is in the best interest of Michael, I will remain calm. The judge must have listened to all parties, and since he has been diligent so far, I am hoping he did the right thing.
 
Petrarose said:
I don't understand this either. He brings up the issue that there might be a possible conflict of interest, then agrees with the decision. Further Michael's attorneys were there. Since, I believe that Michael's attorneys are going to do what is in the best interest of Michael, I will remain calm. The judge must have listened to all parties, and since he has been diligent so far, I am hoping he did the right thing.
Click to expand...

I agree. And I also hope that the judge made the right decision for the sake of fair justice. But personally, I don't like this at all.
 
This is all frustrating, a man part of the team who was defending michael now works for someone who killed him. I don't care how many lawyers Murray gets he knows he's guilty.
 
elusive moonwalker said:
well so far the judge seems to have been pretty decent. id like to see the info regarding his ruling (if it gets released.will it? i guess not seeing as it was done in private) b4 passing judgement
Click to expand...

Same here. Let's hope it's more to this story than we know at the mo net.

StacyJ said:
well hopefully judge Pastor has made the right decision. If the prosecution sticks to the script and to the evidence it doesn't make a difference who Murray has an attorney because the evidence is overwhelming at his guilt and his responsibility for MJ's death
Click to expand...

True... Let's pray that justice prevails

Moulin Rouge said:
This is all frustrating, a man part of the team who was defending michael now works for someone who killed him. I don't care how many lawyers Murray gets he knows he's guilty.
Click to expand...

Everyone and their grandma knew he was guilty after facts started coming out about 19months ago. I wonder how Muarry is paying for this.
 
chanel05 said:
Everyone and their grandma knew he was guilty after facts started coming out about 19months ago. I wonder how Muarry is paying for this.
Click to expand...

Well he still has his license in Nevada and he might be getting some help. Unfortuantely there are some people who don't feel he is guilty. It's just mind boggling that there is a chance he could walk away with no time or only 2-4 years while Michael is gone forever. He doesn't even seem to care.
 
Moulin Rouge said:
Well he still has his license in Nevada and he might be getting some help. Unfortuantely there are some people who don't feel he is guilty. It's just mind boggling that there is a chance he could walk away with no time or only 2-4 years while Michael is gone forever. He doesn't even seem to care.
Click to expand...

True... Some try to say if it wasn't him then MJ would have found someone else which is soooo stupid to say. Whether it was Muarry, Klien, Williams, Jones or whoever... If they did what Muarry did to MJ then they should go under. N that case that could be said about anything because we all will die one day.
 
do i understand it right. a guy who works for geragos is representing murray. While geragos was representing michael in the past.. Thats a different guy so why is it a conflict of interest???

Working in the same building is something else than if geragos was now rep murray???
 
Geragos is whoring for limelight. He brought the issue, just to have his name on the news-free publicity.
 
Moulin Rouge said:
This is all frustrating, a man part of the team who was defending michael now works for someone who killed him. I don't care how many lawyers Murray gets he knows he's guilty.
Click to expand...

This is so ridiculous that I can't believe my eyes! Could this be really true???
No, it can't be true, please, tell me it's not..... :(
 
This only makes Murray look guiltier and guiltier, and he knows that he is, thus his and his team's desperation. Thought he was broke, apparently that's another lie.
 
dirtydiana27 said:
It just isn't right IMO. Geragos brought up the question in the first place, and they had an in-chamber discussion regarding the issue, and ultimately the Judge rules this doesn't amount to a conflict of interest? I've worked in law offices for many years, and I know that personnel have access to files, may see or overhear things that would be considered confidential. Attorneys have been known to lack integrity. Why did the defense choose THIS attorney? What expertise does HE have that a zillion other LA attorneys don't? I know that we aren't privy to those private conversations right now, but it sure gives the impression of impropriety.
Click to expand...

Those are my feeling too. At the rate this trail is gowing, it's likely to go beyone June 25th.:(
 
Geragos is whoring for limelight. He brought the issue, just to have his name on the news-free publicity.
Click to expand...
wouldnt surprise me. but non of us can really say unless we know the details which i doubt we ever well

anyway if crap starts appearing on TMZ from the 03-05 case we will all know where it came from
 
cinzia said:
Couldn't agree more with everything, esp. the bold. Not only WHY did they choose him, HOW did they find him? Did he come to them? Did they go looking for him? Put out an ad: Wanted: a lawyer who has previously worked for Michael Jackson, please apply to Chernoff, et al. for an opportunity to possibly betray your former client, gain much PR exposure and help defend the man accused of killing your former client. Ethics not required.

This is no coincidence. I. smell. a. rat. Also, Geragos is not a novice in this profession. Why would he have brought it up if he didn't think a conflict might exist? And didn't the estate lawyers and in essence, Michael, object? The judge has been pretty even handed up to now but this...doesn't feel right. Wonder what T-Mez thinks of this.
Click to expand...

Exactly. How did the defense find Gourjian? The mere fact that he worked for Geragos while Geragos was representing Michael should be enough for any Judge to rule him out--even just to rule on the side of caution. Maybe Gourjian had absolutely nothing to do with the case when Geragos represented Michael, but he still worked for that firm--access to a lot IMO. I'm sure Geragos assured Pastor that he wasn't involved in any way with the molestation case and perhaps Weitzman may have been convinced, along with the Judge. However, this is a very high-profile case and it just would have made more sense for this Judge to excuse Gourjian--if for nothing else other than the impression of impropriety be removed. Were the prosecutors even present during discussions? Did they object to this? As far as TMes is concerned, we haven't heard him comment on this yet, but my bet is that he would echo the above. It just doesn't make any sense at all!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top