Latest on MJJC

Jury Selection News and Discussion / Jurors selected

Re: Jury Selection News and Discussion / Jury Questionnaire posted

wendy2004 said:
And with the majority having some experience with addictions/substance abuse in their families, they could all agree or disagree on a few things.
Click to expand...

I reacted on this too.. that many of the jurors have or had in the past familymember that suffered with drug-alcohol-medic abuse.

If the defense are going with the whole "blame-the-victim" perspective then maybe the jurors will find that strategy very appaling? For instance, if I had a sister who suffered with some kind of abuse and died because of it I would be outraged and upset if someone just told me ''It is your sisters own fault.. she took the drugs, she got noone but herself to blame''.

I hope Im right with this theory hehe.. Since we KNOW team Murray will blame Michael I honestly think it would be much worse if the jurors were just some random peeps with no experience at all with drugs/alcohols/pres medics... they would maybe not understand all the factors behind abuse and say the victim did it to himself... but with jurors who have had abuse in the family, the might relate it to themselves and get very upset if Murray will say "blame the victim"
 
Re: Jury Selection News and Discussion / Jury Questionnaire posted

Vici said:
I reacted on this too.. that many of the jurors have or had in the past familymember that suffered with drug-alcohol-medic abuse.

If the defense are going with the whole "blame-the-victim" perspective then maybe the jurors will find that strategy very appaling? For instance, if I had a sister who suffered with some kind of abuse and died because of it I would be outraged and upset if someone just told me ''It is your sisters own fault.. she took the drugs, she got noone but herself to blame''.

I hope Im right with this theory hehe.. Since we KNOW team Murray will blame Michael I honestly think it would be much worse if the jurors were just some random peeps with no experience at all with drugs/alcohols/pres medics... they would maybe not understand all the factors behind abuse and say the victim did it to himself... but with jurors who have had abuse in the family, the might relate it to themselves and get very upset if Murray will say "blame the victim"
Click to expand...

They could also go with the "he would have done anything to get what he needed" theory too. It's hard to know how those people felt about their relatives' addictions. :(
 
Re: Jury Selection News and Discussion / Jury Questionnaire posted

Ben said:
They could also go with the "he would have done anything to get what he needed" theory too. It's hard to know how those people felt about their relatives' addictions. :(
Click to expand...

Even so, that still begs the question why Murray left the room with someone he calls a known addict. That is like leaving the house with an alcoholic with the liquor cabinet unlock. Yes, they may go in and drank themselves to death, but why did you leave the house without locking the cabinet knowing that person is an alcoholic?

The above isn't legally, true, but Murray is a doctor. He took a oath that clearly states, 'do no harm'. So why did he think as a doctor that it was okay to leave who he is calling an addict alone with several drugs for any length of time? What made it okay to give a drug like this at home without any of the proper medical equipment so even if Michael did overdose himself, he could had saved him? Why did he lie to the MTs about the drugs to begin with if Murray gave him the proper amount and Michael gave himself more without his knowledge? He didn't even suggest this possibility in any police interview. If he was an addict, why did Murray give him lopz, a highly addictive sleep medication? Finally, if Michael was an addict why did he tell Kenny, AEG, and the insurance company that Michael was fine and fit to do TII? As a doctor, wouldn't it be your duty to tell these people that your patient isn't well and maybe they should wait to go forward? Murray's defense never once said that Murray tried to stop TII despite Michael supposedly being ill and addicted to drugs.

Even if Michael was an addict, how does that excuse any of the above. To me, this makes Murray look even more amoral since it shows he clearly chose the money over his patients well-being.
 
HLN is the same station that said Michael was bald all white underweight and his body was riddled with needle marks. They also said Michael had a bunch of pain killers in his house. If you have learned nothing else you should know by now that was not true. And yet people still watch that channel. I am starting to think some of you like watching stuff like that and can't wait to share it.
 
Exactly. and let remember the addict defence was pretty much snuffed out by the judge. this case is about the lack of monitoring lack of equipment.giving the drug in the wrong environment and for the wrong reason.the cover up and lies to medics etc etc etc. thats what the negligence charge is about. its not like murray didnt do any of the above and it was just an accident.
 
Justthefacts said:
HLN is the same station that said Michael was bald all white underweight and his body was riddled with needle marks. They also said Michael had a bunch of pain killers in his house. If you have learned nothing else you should know by now that was not true. And yet people still watch that channel. I am starting to think some of you like watching stuff like that and can't wait to share it.
Click to expand...
thank you.
 
Re: Jury Selection News and Discussion / Jury Questionnaire posted

Ramona122003 said:
Even if Michael was an addict, how does that excuse any of the above. To me, this makes Murray look even more amoral since it shows he clearly chose the money over his patients well-being.
Click to expand...

I totally agree, dont get me wrong. To me it would just be an aggravating factor to murray's guilt.
 
Justthefacts said:
HLN is the same station that said Michael was bald all white underweight and his body was riddled with needle marks. They also said Michael had a bunch of pain killers in his house. If you have learned nothing else you should know by now that was not true. And yet people still watch that channel. I am starting to think some of you like watching stuff like that and can't wait to share it.
Click to expand...

You know I have thought that too. It is sad to say, but I think some people get an excited feeling watching people say negative things about others, and in this case Michael. These people will read all the facts that show the coverage was incorrect and still go back the next day to have their entertainment. To each his own, I say.
 
I wish people would understand that watching this just to say how stupid/incorrect it is makes no sense. Just like clicking on TMZ to see how dumb the article is. The only thing it achieves is to give those media more money. With that kind of behavior, those so called journalists will never disappear.
 
Ben that is true, because the main thing for these people is ratings not your comments. Ratings = money.

By the way what is the name of the court house for this trial. I do not want to go and stand in front of the wrong courthouse on Tuesday. Then they will really say "look another crazy MJ fan, standing at the wrong court."
 
Cant remember the name but click on the court website link in the sticky at the top and on that in the high profile case section its there
 
Re: Jury Selection News and Discussion / Jury Questionnaire posted

Ramona122003 said:
Even so, that still begs the question why Murray left the room with someone he calls a known addict. That is like leaving the house with an alcoholic with the liquor cabinet unlock. Yes, they may go in and drank themselves to death, but why did you leave the house without locking the cabinet knowing that person is an alcoholic?

The above isn't legally, true, but Murray is a doctor. He took a oath that clearly states, 'do no harm'. So why did he think as a doctor that it was okay to leave who he is calling an addict alone with several drugs for any length of time? What made it okay to give a drug like this at home without any of the proper medical equipment so even if Michael did overdose himself, he could had saved him? Why did he lie to the MTs about the drugs to begin with if Murray gave him the proper amount and Michael gave himself more without his knowledge? He didn't even suggest this possibility in any police interview. If he was an addict, why did Murray give him lopz, a highly addictive sleep medication? Finally, if Michael was an addict why did he tell Kenny, AEG, and the insurance company that Michael was fine and fit to do TII? As a doctor, wouldn't it be your duty to tell these people that your patient isn't well and maybe they should wait to go forward? Murray's defense never once said that Murray tried to stop TII despite Michael supposedly being ill and addicted to drugs.

Even if Michael was an addict, how does that excuse any of the above. To me, this makes Murray look even more amoral since it shows he clearly chose the money over his patients well-being.
Click to expand...

I agree with everything you said.

The jury is quite interesting, and I guess it was impossible to find 12 people without at least a few being an MJ fan. That most of them have family members who are/were alcoholics doesn't surprise me, alcoholism is a big problem, bigger than drug addiction, there is at least one alcoholic in most families, I guess.
 
A More detailed report

Jury Seated in Conrad Murray Trial
FOX 11 News video report.

Reporter:
Hal Eisner

Los Angeles - A seven-man, five-woman jury was chosen Friday to hear the trial of Michael Jackson's personal physician, who is charged with involuntary manslaughter for the pop superstar's 2009 death.

Six other people -- four women and two men -- were sworn in as alternate jurors soon afterward, but one of the alternate jurors was quickly dismissed after she was brought back into the downtown Los Angeles courtroom and spoke privately with attorneys and Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Michael E. Pastor. No reason for the dismissal was publicly announced.

The judge instructed jurors to return to court Tuesday morning, when attorneys are expected to give their opening statements in Dr. Conrad Murray's trial.

Before excusing jurors, the judge advised them again not to "read, listen to or watch any news report or any other commentary about this case from any source" and to "keep an open mind throughout the trial."

Questioned individually by the judge about whether they would follow his instructions, each of the jurors promised that they would.

Pastor noted earlier that the trial will be televised, although the jury selection process was not, and promised them that "at no time will jurors be photographed or filmed or otherwise recorded."

"We take your privacy seriously," he said.

Murray, 58, watched jurors attentively from across the courtroom as they were questioned, at one point pushing his chair out to get a better look.

The lengthy day of questioning began with 84 prospective jurors, 10 of whom were quickly dismissed for hardship reasons.

The jury was empaneled after attorneys from each side had used the maximum 10 peremptory challenges -- in which they can excuse a juror without having to state a reason. The alternates were chosen after the defense used all of its six peremptory challenges, while the prosecution dismissed four prospective alternates.

Jury questionnaires released after the 12 jurors were chosen show that just over half of them responded affirmatively to a question about whether they had ever considered themselves a fan of Jackson or the Jackson family.

A 32-year-old man wrote on his questionnaire that he owned two or three of Jackson's records, and a 54-year-old woman wrote that she "loved his music as a very young girl, as an adult not so much." Another panelist, a 54-year-old man, wrote that he thought Jackson was a "gifted performer."

All of the jurors checked off that they had no feeling or opinion about Murray and that they had not closely followed the case, but some wrote that they had been interested in other high-profile trials including the case against O.J. Simpson and the recent trial of Casey Anthony in Florida.

The jurors -- who live throughout Los Angeles County -- range in age from their 30s to 50s and include high school graduates, those who have attended some college or have a college degree and one with an MBA.

Most checked off that it didn't matter if they were chosen for the jury but that they would be prepared to serve. One wrote that he wanted to serve because "I find the process interesting," and another wrote that it was her "duty as an American" to serve.

During the first round of questioning, defense attorney Edward Chernoff asked the group if they could honestly say they had never read, heard or seen anything about Jackson's lifestyle, family or personality, or about his own client. None raised their hands.

Deputy District Attorney David Walgren asked one of the potential jurors why she had put an exclamation mark on her jury questionnaire after responding "No" to a question about whether she had seen `This Is It," the documentary made from rehearsal footage of the singer in the days before his death from propofol intoxication on June 25, 2009, at the age of 50.

"That was an emphatic 'No.' I wasn't interested," said the woman, who was later dismissed by the defense.

The judge told the group that today's proceedings were an opportunity for the attorneys to ask follow-up questions stemming from the detailed 30-page questionnaires the prospective jurors filled out earlier this month, noting that none of the questions were designed to embarrass or humiliate them.

"It's not going to take all that long," he said, with Walgren later referring to a comment he had heard light-heartedly comparing the process to speed dating.

Chernoff also noted that "there is a lot of publicity involved in this case," and that it "may be an interesting case" and may be "fascinating" for those who like science.

The defense attorney asked if anyone wanted to be a juror on the trial because of either Jackson or Murray. No one raised their hand.

When asked to describe Jackson's personality, one woman said she remembered him "as a child, his dancing, his music" and remembered The Jackson 5, the group comprised of a young Jackson and four of his older brothers. She said she did not still think of him as a child. That woman remained on the panel.

In his questioning, Walgren quizzed potential jurors on what they would do if they were left with unanswered questions during the trial and whether they believed they could be fair.

"I feel I'd be fair ... Everything I hear will be the first time," one man said after Walgren noted that he reported in his questionnaire that he knew very little about the case. He was later dismissed by the defense.

Among the jurors who were dismissed was a nurse who got visibly emotional under questioning by Chernoff. She was called to a private, sidebar conversation with the judge and attorneys, after which she and another prospective juror were excused by the judge.

Murray is accused of administering propofol, a powerful anesthetic, to Jackson to help him sleep, then failing to properly monitor him.

The defense has suggested Jackson -- who was preparing for a series of comeback concerts in London -- could have given himself a larger dose of propofol by orally ingesting it while the doctor was out of the singer's bedroom in a rented Holmby Hills home.

Murray has been free on $75,000 bail since being charged in February 2010.

After finding there was enough evidence to require Murray to stand trial, Pastor ordered the cardiologist to "immediately cease and desist" practicing medicine in California while the criminal proceedings are pending.

Last month, the judge denied the defense's request to sequester jurors during what is expected to be a highly publicized trial that could last four to five weeks.

The judge said Aug. 25 that he has "tremendous faith in the jury system" and noted that jurors -- who will eat their snacks and meals in a jury room -- would be subject to "very strict rules and regulations."


Read more: http://www.myfoxla.com/dpp/news/loc...tinues-in-murray-trial-20110923#ixzz1YtEbwHg4
 
A Look at the Conrad Murray Trial Jury
Published : Friday, 23 Sep 2011, 7:43 PM PDT
Text Story by:
Associated Press

jackson-case-eisner.MyFoxLA_thumbs_tmb0001_20110906125500_640_480.JPG

Los Angeles - The seven men and five women who make up the jury that will hear the Michael Jackson manslaughter case against Dr. Conrad Murray are a reflection of Los Angeles -- cutting across multiple ethnic lines, ages and occupations.
Here's snippets of how they described themselves in a 30-page questionnaire used during jury selection:
Male, 51, Hispanic
A mail carrier who occasionally watches "Law & Order," he stated he did not think the justice system treats the famous or wealthy differently from others.

Female, 57, Hispanic
An unemployed former accounting manager who watched parts of the O.J. Simpson case, she indicated she has never bought a Jackson CD.

Male, 45, white
A management consultant who has served on two previous juries, he indicated he was not a Jackson fan but watched the singer's concert film "This is It" because "I was curious."

Male, 32, white
A bookseller who said he'd read about the case primarily in headlines. He watched part of the Simpson trial on TV and was a Jackson fan when he was a child.

Female, 48, white
A paralegal who watched portions of the Casey Anthony trial, she stated she thought the justice system treated celebrities differently because "the court system is so over-burdened that they could not handle the security needed if a celebrity were in jail."

Male, 39, white
A technology worker who indicated he occasionally reads celebrity websites, he considers himself a Jackson fan and owns several CDs by the singer and his family.

Female, 54, Hispanic
An office management worker who occasionally watched the Anthony trial, she indicated she was a Jackson fan when she was younger, but not anymore.

Male, 42, Hispanic
A school bus driver who gets most of his news from the radio, he has never bought any Jackson music.

Male, 54, African American
A technical director in the entertainment industry, he indicated he had watched parts of several celebrity trials and came to the conclusion, "The system isn't as black and white as it seems, but it works based on the law."

Female, 43, white
A British-born marketing executive and new U.S. citizen, she indicated she had mostly read stories about Jackson's children in magazines and viewed jury service as a "privilege and my civic duty to do the right thing."

Female, 36, Hispanic
A customer service representative who watched portions of the Anthony trial, she also considered herself a Jackson fan.

Male, 54, white
A college professor and former animator, he considers Jackson a "gifted performer" and indicated he knew about Murray and how the singer died.


Read more: http://www.myfoxla.com/dpp/news/local/a-look-at-the-conrad-murray-trial-jury-20110923#ixzz1YtFmdthY
 
@tracybryla.....will you please stop spamming the thread with irrelevant stuff

okay...I see the mods have taken care of it
 
I would've hoped some medical professionals would've been on there.
 
After reading about Walgreen's comments I think there is alot of hope for a conviction.
 
Jurors selected to hear case against Michael Jackson's doctor
Seven men and five women will weigh the manslaughter case against Dr. Conrad Murray.

The jury will hear opening statements in the manslaughter case against Dr. Conrad Murray on Tuesday. (Mark Boster / Los Angeles Times)

By Harriet Ryan and Victoria Kim, Los Angeles Times
September 24, 2011

Lawyers finalized a jury to decide the guilt of Michael Jackson's personal physician during proceedings Friday that suggested the trial will be a battle over the role the singer had in his own death.

The panel of seven men and five women will hear opening statements in the manslaughter case against Dr. Conrad Murray on Tuesday. In their questions to potential jurors, prosecutors and defense attorneys laid the groundwork for their vastly different views of the physician's culpability.

The defense is expected to argue Jackson was a desperate addict who gave himself the fatal dose of the surgical anesthetic propofol. Defense attorney Ed Chernoff pounced when one female juror said she thought of the singer "as a child."

Was he so childlike he was incapable of making decision? the attorney asked. No, she replied. The juror was excused.

Turning to the group, he asked, "Does anybody think that Michael Jackson should be held to a different standard of responsibility?" No hands were raised.

A prosecutor focused his questions on whether panelists could convict Murray if they found Jackson had contributed to his own death. Deputy Dist. Atty. David Walgren asked would-be jurors to consider a hypothetical situation in which a reckless driver runs a red light and kills a pedestrian who was "also not being safe as he could be and steps out in front of a car."

"You could say the driver is not 100% responsible, but he did play a substantial role," Walgren said, echoing the wording of the involuntary manslaughter charge. "Could you find him guilty?" he asked juror after juror.

All said they could, but one man asked if the pedestrian had used a crosswalk. Prosecutors later dismissed that juror.

Chernoff later built on Walgren's analogy, proposing scenarios in which a person parachutes off a plane onto the road ahead of the driver, or suddenly runs in front of the car. He made the case that the driver would be culpable only if the pedestrian's death was a "natural and probable consequence" of his actions.

Extensive questionnaires filled out by the jurors were released at the end of the day after the panel was seated. The final 12 range in age from 32 to 57 and cover a gamut of professions, including a letter carrier, a management consultant, a school bus driver, a paralegal and a former animator. Five alternates also were selected.

Half the panelists had responded on the questionnaires that they had considered themselves fans of Jackson or his family at some point.

"When I was a kid I liked the Jackson Five," one of the jurors wrote in his questionnaire. "Things change as you get older. I'm more of a Jay-Z fan."

Several jurors said they had followed previous high-profile cases. Three said they had followed the O.J. Simpson trial — "Who didn't?" one of them wrote — and three said they followed parts of Casey Anthony's murder trial in Florida.

During questioning from attorneys Friday, one juror said she watched "bits and pieces" of the Anthony trial.

"It was on a lot. It was kind of hard not to see it," she said.

Another juror, the animator, told the judge he was briefly introduced to Jackson three decades ago on the Disney lot.

One panelist who was not selected was civil rights attorney Connie Rice. The prosecution excused Rice, a longtime critic of the Los Angeles Police Department, the lead agency in the death investigation.

On her questionnaire, Rice wrote that she knew plenty of people treated badly by law enforcement because "our police abuse class-action cases in the 1990s were full of clients who were treated unconstitutionally and unfairly."

Now, however, she has a positive view of those agencies, Rice wrote, noting that she had worked with both the LAPD and the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department.

"After 15 years of being opponents, we are now allies," she wrote.

Rice wrote that she was a fan of Jackson, having grown up "to his music."

"He was a once in a generation talent," she wrote.

In court, Walgren questioned Rice whether she could abide by jurors' "limited role" and accept that there may be unanswered questions in a case.

Rice said she could.

"Extraneous information or other considerations or possibilities, they don't play any role after you have the evidence," she said.

More than 80 news outlets from around the world have applied to cover the trial, a number that eclipsed the previous record of 52 for the Chris Brown domestic violence case.

To dole out coveted seats in the courtroom, officials held a lottery at the front door of the courthouse. One of a throng of sheriff's deputies standing watch in the hallway cautioned Jackson fans about their attire. The deputy told two women wearing red T-shirts with the message "JUSTICE 1958-2009" that they would have to cover it up.

"You can't have shirts that say 'Peace,' 'Justice' or anything like that," the deputy told them.

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-conrad-murray-20110924,0,5161411,full.story
 
"You can't have shirts that say 'Peace,' 'Justice' or anything like that," the deputy told them.
Click to expand...

I don't understand that. (Just like I dont understand why the fans weren't allowed to stare at Murray.)

Is there some kind of a rule about what you can and can't wear to court?
 
How in the heck does Chernoff not think Murray is culpable at all? Murray gave MJ anesthesia as a sleep aid and left his patient alone without any monitoring equipment to warn him and yet Chernoff doesn't think Murray is culpable? Murray is a doctor. He's the one that should be held up to a different standard. He is a trained specialist whose job is to save lives not endanger them and kill them. I wish Walgren would've asked the jurors what do they believe a role of a doctor is?
 
jaydom7 said:
How in the heck does Chernoff not think Murray is culpable at all?
Click to expand...

I wouldnt pay much attention to that kind of stuff; to me it's just Chernoff being a defense lawyer, doing his job. I wonder if he really think that way deep inside, personally. Not that it matters much though
 
"You can't have shirts that say 'Peace,' 'Justice' or anything like that," the deputy told them.
Click to expand...
JMie said:
I don't understand that. (Just like I dont understand why the fans weren't allowed to stare at Murray.)

Is there some kind of a rule about what you can and can't wear to court?
Click to expand...

I understand it. A courtroom is *supposedly* (we can at least pretend for a second, right?) not the place of talking heads, blog wars and other things. Pastor has made himself clear on that.

I love my avatar, but I certainly wouldn't wear it to a court appearance- heck, even during the last two MJ videos that were filmed they were pretty selective about your attire. (for other reasons, legally, such a certains brands etc)
I remember one person that came to the "Hold My Hand" video shoot with a shirt on depicting a raised middle finger- guess what, she's definitely not in any shot.

Anybody remember Mesereau discussing the question of MICHAEL's attire in 2005? He said he didn't want him to change who he was, or present Michael any differently than Michael being himself- and the suits that Michael wore were GENIUS. Attire matters. Or did anyone see Michael with a Leothong on? Nope.

People get thrown out of courtrooms all the time if a judge deems the behavior inappropriate, very simple.
The Justice 4 MJ group is not the first one to find that out- I've sat in enough courtrooms to have seen judges that do not tolerate "subtle messages" that push ANY side. None.

And yes, I have seen bailiffs who were sent to aid both those who felt threatened, as well as those, who disciplined court attendees.
That is nothing unusual- how many people do you think in the history of the law have tried to send 'subtle messages'?
Judges reprimand stuff like this every.single.day. The simple statement that the group came to 'make him feel uncomfortable' would be enough to bar them from the court room permanently- if 'making somebody feel uncomfortable' is your reason for attending- then you have no place in said court room.

This does not translate into ANY sympathy for Murray whatsoever- it simply illustrates that most decent judges will.not.tolerate pep rally behavior by ANYONE- remember that he cut Murray's "I am an innocent man" speech short as well?
It's also easy to understand that the judge is well aware of the assumption that the group is there to 'watch' him to 'make sure Justice is being served'- while I understand the thought, put yourself in the judge's position who was assigned that case- knowing that half the people attending would like to smack your fingers preemptively. Take a cure from Mesereau who likes to say what it is that he likes about judges he deals with- THAT'S diplomacy in action. He doesn't sounds like he's making something up- he just says what he appreciates since honey does catch a lot more flies.

I like the judge so far. I have a feeling this is gonna end in restraining orders for some people if they keep up this type of activity.
Wear your shirts outside the building and show it to every camera. Just be aware that as soon as you enter a court building you're in a court room.
Heck, most people are well aware that even at work they dress differently then at home. Most of us hold jobs, are adults and wouldn't dream of acting like that in their place of employment, either.

Yelling, hissing etc can easily be construed as harassment and a treat- and if I look around this forum how many people are openly condoning 'throwing rotten eggs'- then it makes me worry. People are human and need to vent- but they also need to understand that a court room is not the place for "payback"- this trial is about Murray and Murray only. This whole "this trial is about Conrad Murray and not Michael Jackson" goes both ways since a lot of people are acting as if "Justice for Michael" means righting a wrong in form of "payback time".

Perhaps it would be wiser for MJ fans to dress all in white- in memory of Michael? That would be both acceptable, as well as classy and not disturbing. Or dress all in black with a red scarf and a white rose on the jacket- etc- create a symbolism that makes sense and still can be understood, don't just don a single white glove. Be creative. I understand that a judge doesn't want to look at t-shirts depicting blood dripping.

Hateful stares, yelling and screaming are not acceptable. Due process means that EVERYONE has a right to a fair trial. Even those whom you despise. Getting thrown out of a courtroom is not a Gandi style badge of honor for civil disobedience- it simply means you threw a tantrum. Nobody expects tears of joys from people attending, but the fact that they got kicked out means there was more at play than 'a little bit of disdain' on someone's face.

Michael_Jackson_hands_2gether.jpg

​
Michael communicated a great deal (repeatedly!) without ever shouting that the final day of judgement is gonna come!
Namaste.
 
Last edited:
ivy said:
A prosecutor focused his questions on whether panelists could convict Murray if they found Jackson had contributed to his own death. Deputy Dist. Atty. David Walgren asked would-be jurors to consider a hypothetical situation in which a reckless driver runs a red light and kills a pedestrian who was "also not being safe as he could be and steps out in front of a car."

"You could say the driver is not 100% responsible, but he did play a substantial role," Walgren said, echoing the wording of the involuntary manslaughter charge. "Could you find him guilty?" he asked juror after juror.
Click to expand...

Ok, that makes a lot more sense than what was posted here yesterday, there is no drunk driver (which makes the scenario less complicated) and there is a red light.

ivy said:
Chernoff later built on Walgren's analogy, proposing scenarios in which a person parachutes off a plane onto the road ahead of the driver, or suddenly runs in front of the car. He made the case that the driver would be culpable only if the pedestrian's death was a "natural and probable consequence" of his actions.
Click to expand...

Ok, and here we have the imprudent patient not paying attention, just running into the needle that the poor doctor was holding, the doctor didn't even see him coming! Pedestrians falling out of the sky, happens every day, just like patients running into needles.
 
Milka said:
Ok, that makes a lot more sense than what was posted here yesterday, there is no drunk driver (which makes the scenario less complicated) and there is a red light.



Ok, and here we have the imprudent patient not paying attention, just running into the needle that the poor doctor was holding, the doctor didn't even see him coming! Pedestrians falling out of the sky, happens every day, just like patients running into needles.
Click to expand...

Exactly!! Chernoff is basically saying Murray isn't culpable and Murray, a heart specialist, had no clue what he was doing with the needles and meds and MJ just ran into him and forced him to do it right?

Lord I hope the jurors look at Murray as the irresponsible jerk that he is. How will Chernoff say Murray was so helpless and clueless, yet Murray found plenty of time to mack with his women on the phone while poor MJ was comatosed or dead. There is no way for Chernoff to get around Murrays lies to the EMTs/Doctors or the fact that Murray was talking on the phone while MJ was dying.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top