Sharon B. Sidney
Proud Member
- Joined
- Jul 25, 2011
- Messages
- 380
- Points
- 0
<!-- google_ad_section_start(name=default) -->
Wednesday, February 2, 2011
Evidentiary Hearing Possibilities
Conrad Murray added the claim that he was an innocent man into his plea of not guilty to judge Pastor at his arraignment hearing and once a date was set for trial judge Pastor placed the evidentiary hearing on calendar for Feb. 7<SUP>th</SUP>. After much debate between the judge and attorneys on which day would work best it seems the time most convenient for them was the least convenient for Conrad Murray who had questionably already filed a waiver of personal appearance that would allow him to not be present during the week of the 7<SUP>th</SUP> due to his “plans” to be in Houston, Texas. At the proceeding Dr. Murray went further to give up his right to appear at future proceedings as well and allowed the courts to have procedures continue even as if he had appeared. This of course means that defense attorneys for Murray can make determinations concerning his trial without his consent when he is not required to be present which is akin to having given someone power of attorney.
Judge Pastor informed the court that he anticipates having a larger jury pool and more jury alternates than usual with no plans on allowing attorneys to prescreen them due to time issues. He also stated that he does not want to waste time and that he will be conducting one or two other trails within this period.
During the arraignment the people also informed judge Pastor that they had not received any evidentiary evidence from the defense. Judge Pastor informed both parties they must file full discovery at least thirty days before trial date and that he wants timeline readiness and motions from media concerning cameras in the courtroom to be heard on the 7<SUP>th</SUP>.
What was not discussed is whether or not Conrad Murray had pre planned not to attend his evidentiary hearing ahead of time due to the possibility that the defense has no evidence to present. Furthermore we did not hear if the judge would consider omitting having a jury altogether since he’s not wanting to “waste time.”
With Conrad Murray having waived his rights to be present and all things being as if he had appeared his attorneys can consent on his behalf to waive his right to a jury trial.
It is not improbable that the attorneys may deem it feasible to simply allow judge Pastor to make the ruling on whether or not Conrad Murray is guilty of accidental manslaughter. By opting not to have a jury attorneys could argue the unnecessary hard ship such a trial would place on jurors and the expense it would bare as well as how time could be saved from not selecting a panel of jurors.
Many parties have been outraged with their attorneys for giving up their rights to a trial by jury on a day they were not present and without their knowledgeable consent due to “waivers of personal appearances” and have only come to find their fates placed in the hands of one man or woman on the judge stand.
Murray however may be delighted at the thought of not having to appear or be heard by a jury of his peers. Think about it, Mr. Chernoff, Murrays attny. said in his closing remarks that a jury of Murray’s peers had not given their professional opinions on what Murray had done concerning care for Michael Jackson. If while in Murray’s perhaps convenient absence Chernoff waives Murrays right for a trial by jurors, Conrad Murray would then be primed to claim he has no other recourse but to plea bargain by claiming he’d lost his right to be heard by a jury of his peers which his defense has already stated is something he is in need of.
With a hurried judge not wanting to “waste time,“ a defense team yet to present “any evidentiary evidence” and a prosecution with the pressure of having to prepare for trial without any discovery, a larger than usual jury selection, questions to prepare for and no opportunity to pre scan jurors how could the people uphold the need to fight for justice in the Conrad Murray trial if pressured to consent to a motion of foregoing jurors?
Perhaps this case is one that the Department of Justice should look into to, not only to see if the court is prepping the situation where Conrad Murray would deceitfully lose his right that he has requested to a trial by jury but also to see if fraud is taking place if said parties have secretly conspired and agreed to relinquish his rights of such.
It would be wise for Michael Jackson’s family, fans and supporters as well as media representatives to be present and watching what transpires in court on the 7<SUP>th</SUP>.
Please pray!
Posted by Spirit & Truth
http://sharonbsidney.blogspot.com/
http://twitter.com/#!/SharonBSidney
Wednesday, February 2, 2011
Evidentiary Hearing Possibilities
Conrad Murray added the claim that he was an innocent man into his plea of not guilty to judge Pastor at his arraignment hearing and once a date was set for trial judge Pastor placed the evidentiary hearing on calendar for Feb. 7<SUP>th</SUP>. After much debate between the judge and attorneys on which day would work best it seems the time most convenient for them was the least convenient for Conrad Murray who had questionably already filed a waiver of personal appearance that would allow him to not be present during the week of the 7<SUP>th</SUP> due to his “plans” to be in Houston, Texas. At the proceeding Dr. Murray went further to give up his right to appear at future proceedings as well and allowed the courts to have procedures continue even as if he had appeared. This of course means that defense attorneys for Murray can make determinations concerning his trial without his consent when he is not required to be present which is akin to having given someone power of attorney.
Judge Pastor informed the court that he anticipates having a larger jury pool and more jury alternates than usual with no plans on allowing attorneys to prescreen them due to time issues. He also stated that he does not want to waste time and that he will be conducting one or two other trails within this period.
During the arraignment the people also informed judge Pastor that they had not received any evidentiary evidence from the defense. Judge Pastor informed both parties they must file full discovery at least thirty days before trial date and that he wants timeline readiness and motions from media concerning cameras in the courtroom to be heard on the 7<SUP>th</SUP>.
What was not discussed is whether or not Conrad Murray had pre planned not to attend his evidentiary hearing ahead of time due to the possibility that the defense has no evidence to present. Furthermore we did not hear if the judge would consider omitting having a jury altogether since he’s not wanting to “waste time.”
With Conrad Murray having waived his rights to be present and all things being as if he had appeared his attorneys can consent on his behalf to waive his right to a jury trial.
It is not improbable that the attorneys may deem it feasible to simply allow judge Pastor to make the ruling on whether or not Conrad Murray is guilty of accidental manslaughter. By opting not to have a jury attorneys could argue the unnecessary hard ship such a trial would place on jurors and the expense it would bare as well as how time could be saved from not selecting a panel of jurors.
Many parties have been outraged with their attorneys for giving up their rights to a trial by jury on a day they were not present and without their knowledgeable consent due to “waivers of personal appearances” and have only come to find their fates placed in the hands of one man or woman on the judge stand.
Murray however may be delighted at the thought of not having to appear or be heard by a jury of his peers. Think about it, Mr. Chernoff, Murrays attny. said in his closing remarks that a jury of Murray’s peers had not given their professional opinions on what Murray had done concerning care for Michael Jackson. If while in Murray’s perhaps convenient absence Chernoff waives Murrays right for a trial by jurors, Conrad Murray would then be primed to claim he has no other recourse but to plea bargain by claiming he’d lost his right to be heard by a jury of his peers which his defense has already stated is something he is in need of.
With a hurried judge not wanting to “waste time,“ a defense team yet to present “any evidentiary evidence” and a prosecution with the pressure of having to prepare for trial without any discovery, a larger than usual jury selection, questions to prepare for and no opportunity to pre scan jurors how could the people uphold the need to fight for justice in the Conrad Murray trial if pressured to consent to a motion of foregoing jurors?
Perhaps this case is one that the Department of Justice should look into to, not only to see if the court is prepping the situation where Conrad Murray would deceitfully lose his right that he has requested to a trial by jury but also to see if fraud is taking place if said parties have secretly conspired and agreed to relinquish his rights of such.
It would be wise for Michael Jackson’s family, fans and supporters as well as media representatives to be present and watching what transpires in court on the 7<SUP>th</SUP>.
Please pray!
Posted by Spirit & Truth
http://sharonbsidney.blogspot.com/
http://twitter.com/#!/SharonBSidney
