Latest on MJJC

KJ vs AEG Trial outcome : Possible Appeal [closed]

Status
Not open for further replies.
Re: KJ vs AEG Trial outcome : Appeal

Ivy thanks for the above. I was pronouncing the word "c-ah see" so it is good to know the proper way to say it.

I think behind Panish's argument was that the instruction form was difficult for the jurors to understand, or that it forced them to stop deliberating and prevented them from deliberating on certain topics. Now we see that the idea behind CACI was to make the jury instructions more understandable for the average juror. I guess he wanted to revert to a more complicated form, which would make sense since this case is screwy.
 
ivy;3949681 said:
Are the CACI mandatory?
The Judicial Council has not mandated use of CACI to the exclusion of other jury instructions. However, under rule (2.1050) of the California Rules of Court, the CACI instructions are designated as the “official instructions for use in the state of California.” The rule further states that use of the new instructions is “strongly encouraged” and they are recommended for use unless a judge “finds that a different instruction would more accurately state the law and be understood by jurors.” Rule (2.1050(a)(e).) So CACI instructions are clearly preferred, and there is an affirmative burden to make a legal case for using a non-CACI instruction if there is a CACI instruction on the subject.

Can special instructions still be proposed?
Special instructions may be proposed under Code of Civil Procedure § 609, but they must conform to the format requirements of rule (2.1055). If there is no CACI instruction on a subject on which the trial judge determines that the jury should be instructed, or if a CACI instruction cannot be modified to submit the issue properly, another instruction may be given on that subject. The instruction should be accurate, brief, understandable, impartial, and free from argument. Rule (2.1050(e).)

Why did the Judicial Council authorize drafting new plain English jury instructions?
In 1996 the Blue Ribbon Commission on Jury System Improvement concluded "jury instructions as presently given in California and elsewhere are, on occasion, simply impenetrable to the ordinary juror." The commission recommended that jury instructions be redrafted in more understandable language. In response, the Judicial Council created the Task Force on Jury Instructions in 1997, and directed that it draft comprehensive, legally accurate jury instructions that are readily understood by the average juror.

Does CACI change the law in California?
No, the CACI instructions do not change the law. In drafting the new instructions, the Task Force was charged with accurately stating existing law in a way that is understandable to the average juror. The articulation and interpretation of California law remains within the purview of the Legislature and courts of review. Rule (2.1050(b).)

What is the status of BAJI?
BAJI no longer is officially approved by state court rules. Los Angeles Superior Court's BAJI Committee has disbanded. The Thomson-West company, who owns the BAJI copyright, continues to publish and update BAJI.

http://www.courts.ca.gov/partners/315.htm
Click to expand...

These bolded statements gives the plaintiffs a chance. If the judge does not believe she made an error, the plaintiffs can appeal. I hope they will be successful.
 
Re: KJ vs AEG Trial outcome : Appeal

^^

The biggest hurdle would be "there is an affirmative burden to make a legal case for using a non-CACI instruction if there is a CACI instruction on the subject.". We have seen the documents, they never did that. Panish mentioned BAJI in passing with saying "I don't say pick BAJI". Boyle mentioned modification of the questions during a hearing but dropped it quickly. They did not file motions, oppositions and so on with references/citations/examples why the modification was needed or why BAJI was better than CACI and force the judge make a ruling / determination before the deliberations started. To the contrary they too submitted verdict form drafts based on CACI. So at least to me personally that's not making a legal case. The only thing they are doing is after the verdict they are arguing that there was a mistake.

Even without that it would not be easy to argue why a no longer court approved and harder to understand instructions would be better than official, preferred and plain language instructions. Funny enough if the argument is that these 12 jurors weren't able to understand plain language of what "unfit and incompetent" was, how would they ever be able to understand a harder legalese that is described as " simply impenetrable to the ordinary juror" ?
 
Re: KJ vs AEG Trial outcome : Appeal

Ivy, I do not have access to the BAJI so I do not know the language of it. Your post suggest it has continued to be published and updated. I do not know if that language is still difficult.
 
Re: KJ vs AEG Trial outcome : Appeal

If they had used something else than Caci and lost, the outcome would have been the same. Panish and Co would be complaining about too simple form - jury didn't understand to complexity of the case, Caci - too hard to understand and so on.
 
Mneme;3949633 said:
I do not know why you come with this muzikfactory interwiew? These events were before Michael's dead
Click to expand...

It wasn't really for you, but for people who read and perhaps aren't informed what was going on.
The interview was interesting because he was telling with whom he was dealing that concert, not Joe, but KJ.
He brought KJ's name many times and Joe's name only once, so it shows who is running the show in the background.
Many family fans are saying that people are misleading KJ and she doesn't have a clue what was going on. They are wrong.

I agree that interview was biased against Frank, but that is irrelevant for my point.

Mneme;3949633 said:
Further.... I read in the interview Terry Harvey, who contributed on MJ autopsy program on channel 5, was partner with Allgood in the reunion matter. He is a "long-time friend" from Joe & Katherine Jackson. What a coincidence!
And to the rhight time on May 13, 2013 there was a long article in the british newspaper 'mirror' with him for supporting Mrs. Jackson in her AEG suit.
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/michael-jackson-could-not-sing-1886104
True friendship is never ending.
Click to expand...

Another article from James Desborough. They are happy big family, Desborough, Terry H, Joe and KJ.
I know mirror is a worst kind of tabloid, but I take a bite.
"Harvey and partners AllGood Entertainment offered Jackson a Dallas 2009 comeback show, on the provision he went to rehab. But the singer chose AEG’s gigs in London."

Who are these people who thinks they can dictate Michael?

"Harvey claims he spoke to Jackson in his last few weeks over the deal with AllGood.
He said: “It was part of the contract for Michael to get clean. His mother Katherine and father Joe knew that, and we made it clear to everyone close to him."

Well, KJ testified she didn't know anything.

I don't know whether to puke or curse after reading that article :puke: If TH really spoke to Joe and KJ about Michael's drug addiction (alleged), shouldn't they have sued themselves for not doing anything to save Michael or warn AEG?
 
Tygger;3950009 said:
Ivy, I do not have access to the BAJI so I do not know the language of it. Your post suggest it has continued to be published and updated. I do not know if that language is still difficult.
Click to expand...

you don't need the access to it to know that the language is harder, that's the whole reason that they came up with CACI

see this part

"In 1996 the Blue Ribbon Commission on Jury System Improvement concluded "jury instructions as presently given in California and elsewhere are, on occasion, simply impenetrable to the ordinary juror." The commission recommended that jury instructions be redrafted in more understandable language."

So in 1996 they decided that the juror instructions - BAJI- was sometimes impenetrable meaning impossible to understand for an ordinary juror.


"In response, the Judicial Council created the Task Force on Jury Instructions in 1997, and directed that it draft comprehensive, legally accurate jury instructions that are readily understood by the average juror."

and then they created a taskforce in 1997. CACI was accepted in 2003. So they took 6 years to draft a what they call as "plain-English" version that could be easily understood by average juror.

Yes it is being published and updated but by the publisher and not by the judicial body. and no they aren't changing the language of the already existing instructions, they are updating according to the law changes.


and let me give some relevant examples

During the appeal process of Heiner vs Kmart. (Heiner was a customer who was injured during an altercation with a Kmart Security guard and sued Kmart for negligent hiring/retention/supervision)

Kmart Has Waived Its Claim of Instructional Error.
For the first time in this litigation, Kmart argues in its reply brief that the trial court committed prejudicial error by “refusing” to instruct the jury with BAJI No. 14.60. It appears that Kmart requested this instruction on the issue of speculative damages, but raised no objection when the trial court failed to read it to the jury. We will not spend any judicial resources resolving this untimely claim. It has been doubly waived. (Williams v. City of Belvedere (1999) 72 Cal.App.4th 84, 92, fn. 2.)


So the Appeal court have decided arguing jury instruction error during appeal was untimely and pointed out how Kmart did not raise any objections during the trial.

and another example

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-01539/pdf/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-01539-14.pdf

GM files a brief asking for BAJI saying CACI is underdeveloped, Takata submits 41 BAJI instructions. So defendants make it clear that not only they prefer BAJI but they also file a brief arguing why CACI isn't enough. Plaintiffs oppose in their reply brief saying CACI is appropriate. Judge takes time to read and rule on the dispute deciding to use CACI and use BAJI when there's no CACI instruction.

now do you think that Jacksons satisfied the affirmative burden to make legal case of why not use CACI?
 
Bubs;3950091 said:
It wasn't really for you, but for people who read and perhaps aren't informed what was going on.

He said: “It was part of the contract for Michael to get clean. His mother Katherine and father Joe knew that, and we made it clear to everyone close to him."
Well, KJ testified she didn't know anything.

I don't know whether to puke or curse after reading that article :puke: If TH really spoke to Joe and KJ about Michael's drug addiction (alleged), shouldn't they have sued themselves for not doing anything to save Michael or warn AEG?
Click to expand...

Thanks, Bubs! Now I understand your reasons better.

Ha-Ha-Ha!!! Which contract? There was no contract. Mr. Branca/Mrs. Weitman would have not won the 300-Million-AllGood complaint if there would been a contract. And more: Why they sued DiLeo if they would been a contract with or draft contract?

It is this really shameless behaviour by K. Jackson, Allocco and their helpers what make one upset....how they twisted and still are twisting their reunion story.
I am glad about every complaint which the executors win but anywhy imo it is pitty that it came not to a trial in the 300 Million suit. Because then they have to had all their "facts" put on des judge's table. Now they can come one day with this lie and the next day with thaht lie.
And always they are the goods who wished only the best for Michael
These people are lie like mad even under oath.
 
Re: KJ vs AEG Trial outcome : Appeal

Mneme said:
Thanks, Bubs! Now I understand your reasons better.

Ha-Ha-Ha!!! Which contract? There was no contract. Mr. Branca/Mrs. Weitman would have not won the 300-Million-AllGood complaint if there would been a contract. And more: Why they sued DiLeo if they would been a contract with or draft contract?

It is this really shameless behaviour by K. Jackson, Allocco and their helpers what make one upset....how they twisted and still are twisting their reunion story.
I am glad about every complaint which the executors win but anywhy imo it is pitty that it came not to a trial in the 300 Million suit. Because then they have to had all their "facts" put on des judge's table. Now they can come one day with this lie and the next day with thaht lie.
And always they are the goods who wished only the best for Michael
These people are lie like mad even under oath.
Click to expand...

I thinking something is still brewing relating Allgood. If I remember correctly, plaintiffs(KJ) asked the estate to hand over all the material they had from Allgood case, but they used none of it during the trial. Me thinks that whatever the estate handed over, is going to be used suing somebody once they find out who has money:)
 
Ivy, if the CACI is more understandable, why were members of this forum confused about the time frame of question two? Why did members of this forum AND members of the jury have to decide if they preferred Panish’s version or Putnam’s version as to the timeframe?

The plaintiffs also complained that the three elements were not defined and BAJI allowed those elements to have separate definitions before deliberations, not after.

The plaintiffs can appeal if the judge does not rule for a new trial. The appeal of the removal of Phillps/Gongaware as defendants is still pending I believe.
 
Re: KJ vs AEG Trial outcome : Appeal

Tygger said:
The plaintiffs also complained that the three elements were not defined and BAJI allowed those elements to have separate definitions before deliberations, not after.
Click to expand...

yes in passing by saying "I don't say pick BAJI". To me making a case - as the examples show- means submitting BAJI instructions, opposing CAJI instructions, filing a brief or ex parte application why BAJI should be used and so on. A brief mention of BAJI with "I'm not saying pick it" isn't really "making a case" in my book. While they should be opposing or submitting BAJI instruction, submitting CACI instructions isn't really "making a case" in my book. Feel free to disagree.

The plaintiffs can appeal if the judge does not rule for a new trial. The appeal of the removal of Phillps/Gongaware as defendants is still pending I believe.
Click to expand...

yes they can appeal. and yes the other appeal is still pending and it would take on average 1-2 years. with only 20% of appeals being successful. Could Jacksons be successful in their appeals? Yes but it will be a long and a hard journey.


and as for the confusion. who was confused? I wasn't. As far as I'm concerned that question did not have a time period or limit us to the time of hiring.

Regardless my point is still the same, if the argument is that plain English CAJI is confusing for the jurors and/or us, then the jurors and/or us would in no way could understand highly legalese BAJI. It's like arguing that a bunch of people cannot grasp the concept of addition (1+3=4) but then expect them to handle a calculus problem. Sorry but if these (hypothetical) people cannot add, they for sure cannot solve a calculus problem.
 
Re: KJ vs AEG Trial outcome : Appeal

Alan Duke ?@AlanDukeCNN 17m
It's final. Judge Palazuelos just filed her denial of the Jackson's new trial motion.
 
Re: KJ vs AEG Trial outcome : Appeal

Now it goes to the California 2nd District Court of Appeal, right? I've read on MCcartney's twitter account that there are two steps for this kind of motions.
 
Anthony McCartney @mccartneyAP
Updated story on the ruling in the Jackson/AEG case coming soon, but judge found no evidence of juror confusion or improper verdict form

--------------------

Judge rejects bid for new trial in Michael Jackson's mother's lawsuit against promoter AEG
Judge rejects bid for new Michael Jackson trial

By ANTHONY McCARTNEY | ASSOCIATED PRESS | 1 hour, 15 minutes ago in Money, Entertainment

LOS ANGELES (AP) — A judge on Monday rejected a bid by Michael Jackson's mother for a new trial in her lawsuit claiming the promoter of her son's ill-fated comeback concerts was negligent in his death.

Superior Court Judge Yvette Palazuelos ruled that jurors were given proper instructions and there were no errors in her trial rulings that would warrant a retrial.

A jury determined in October that AEG Live was not liable for Jackson's June 2009 death despite hiring the doctor who was convicted of giving the superstar an overdose of a powerful anesthetic.

Katherine Jackson's lawyers argued that jurors were given an improper verdict form that was contrary to state law and didn't allow them to consider all the issues in the case after five months of testimony last year.

AEG's lawyers argued that there was no mistake in the verdict form and the motion for a new trial should be denied.

Attorneys for the Jackson family matriarch could pursue an appeal to a higher state court.

AEG Live's attorney Marvin Putnam praised Monday's ruling.

"We were confident that the court would uphold the jury's verdict," he wrote in a statement. "This is also fantastic news for the taxpayers of California, who won't have their hard-earned money wasted retrying plaintiffs' baseless claims. Enough is enough."

Kevin Boyle, an attorney for Katherine Jackson and her grandchildren, said the case was far from over.

""We believe there are numerous ways that we can win on appeal," Boyle wrote in an email.

Katherine Jackson sued AEG Live on behalf of herself and her son's three children, accusing the concert promoter of hiring former cardiologist Conrad Murray and creating a conflict of interest in his care of the pop superstar.

Murray, who was deeply in debt, was expecting to be paid $150,000 a month to care for Jackson while he prepared for a planned series of comeback concerts in London's O2 Arena. The singer died on June 25, 2009, after receiving an overdose the anesthetic propofol, which Murray was giving Jackson as a sleep aid.

Murray was convicted of involuntary manslaughter in 2011 and released in October after serving two years.

The trial offered a look into Jackson's personal life as well as his routines as an entertainer and medical treatments for a variety of ailments.

Jurors who spoke after the verdict said their verdict did not mean they thought Murray was ethical in his care of Jackson. But they determined he was fit and competent to serve as the singer's doctor when he was hired.

AEG Live executives denied any wrongdoing throughout the trial and said there was no way they could have known that Murray was giving Jackson propofol in the bedroom of his rented mansion.
 
Re: KJ vs AEG Trial outcome : Appeal

Mary93 said:
Now it goes to the California 2nd District Court of Appeal, right? I've read on MCcartney's twitter account that there are two steps for this kind of motions.
Click to expand...

TMZ claims thats been done.

"Katherine Jackson just got shut down by an L.A. judge ... who REJECTED her bid for a new trial in the Michael Jackson wrongful death case.

Katherine's recourse now is to take up her beef with the California Court of Appeal. She's already filed legal docs with the court".
 
Re: KJ vs AEG Trial outcome : Appeal

ivy said:
Alan Duke ?@AlanDukeCNN 17m
It's final. Judge Palazuelos just filed her denial of the Jackson's new trial motion.
Click to expand...

To the arguments or lack of arguments the judge said:

 
I'm going to post the AP article here for discussion

Judge rejects bid for new Michael Jackson trial


LOS ANGELES (AP) — A judge on Monday rejected a bid by Michael Jackson’s mother for a new trial in her lawsuit claiming the promoter of her son’s ill-fated comeback concerts was negligent in his death.

Superior Court Judge Yvette Palazuelos ruled that jurors were given proper instructions and there were no errors in her trial rulings that would warrant a retrial.

A jury determined in October that AEG Live was not liable for Jackson’s June 2009 death despite hiring the doctor who was convicted of giving the superstar an overdose of a powerful anesthetic.

Katherine Jackson’s lawyers argued that jurors were given an improper verdict form that was contrary to state law and didn’t allow them to consider all the issues in the case after five months of testimony last year.

AEG’s lawyers argued that there was no mistake in the verdict form and the motion for a new trial should be denied.

Attorneys for the Jackson family matriarch say they will appeal to a higher state court.

Jurors decided the case on a question about whether evidence showed former cardiologist Conrad Murray was unfit or incompetent to serve as Jackson’s physician while he prepared for a series of 50 concerts at London’s O2 Arena. Katherine Jackson’s attorneys argued the question unfairly restricted deliberations, but Palazuelos disagreed.

“Question Two does not restrict jurors to the consideration of Dr. Murray’s competence at the time of hiring only,” the judge wrote.

She also determined that there was no evidence that the panel was confused by the verdict form, noting that jurors often wrote her notes about scheduling concerns and to ask for supplies during deliberations.

“The court finds no jury confusion based on the admissible evidence,” Palazuelos ruled.

AEG Live’s attorney Marvin Putnam praised Monday’s ruling.

“We were confident that the court would uphold the jury’s verdict,” he wrote in a statement. “This is also fantastic news for the taxpayers of California, who won’t have their hard-earned money wasted retrying plaintiffs’ baseless claims. Enough is enough.”

Kevin Boyle, an attorney for Katherine Jackson and her grandchildren, said the case was far from over.

“We believe there are numerous ways that we can win on appeal,” Boyle wrote in an email.

Katherine Jackson sued AEG Live on behalf of herself and her son’s three children, accusing the concert promoter of hiring Murray and creating a conflict of interest in his care of the pop superstar.

Murray, who was deeply in debt, was expecting to be paid $150,000 a month to care for Jackson while he prepared for a planned series of comeback concerts in London’s O2 Arena. The singer died on June 25, 2009, after receiving an overdose the anesthetic propofol, which Murray was giving Jackson as a sleep aid.

Murray was convicted of involuntary manslaughter in 2011 and released in October after serving two years.

The trial offered a look into Jackson’s personal life as well as his routines as an entertainer and medical treatments for a variety of ailments.

Jurors who spoke after the verdict said their verdict did not mean they thought Murray was ethical in his care of Jackson. But they determined he was fit and competent to serve as the singer’s doctor when he was hired.

AEG Live executives denied any wrongdoing throughout the trial and said there was no way they could have known that Murray was giving Jackson propofol in the bedroom of his rented mansion.
 
Re: KJ vs AEG Trial outcome : Appeal

Mary93 said:
Now it goes to the California 2nd District Court of Appeal, right? I've read on MCcartney's twitter account that there are two steps for this kind of motions.
Click to expand...

Yes

Vici said:
TMZ claims thats been done.

"Katherine Jackson just got shut down by an L.A. judge ... who REJECTED her bid for a new trial in the Michael Jackson wrongful death case.

Katherine's recourse now is to take up her beef with the California Court of Appeal. She's already filed legal docs with the court".
Click to expand...

Appeal court system isn't showing a new appeal filed yet.

In the future refer to the first post of this thread, it has links to all of the ongoing and previously filed motions/appeals and I update the status whenever there's a development. Currently the only active appeal is the one about dismissal of Phillips and Gongaware
 
How about this: &#8220;We believe there are numerous ways that we can win on appeal,&#8221; Boyle wrote in an email. <--so funny. Give us one way Boyle with good legal arguments. It seems to me that when they make an argument, they do not focus on the legal points that will make them win. I wonder if they are just continuing this case to get a monthly fee for a few years? Their arguments seem so halfhearted and then they resort to platitudes.

You know that is a good point the judge made about the jurors asking her for things. If they could ask her questions, it is obvious they could ask for clarity on questions they did not understand.
 
Last edited:
Re: KJ vs AEG Trial outcome : Appeal

Good work, Judge Palazuelos! :) She is right that there was 'no admissible evidence' (meaning the 4 juror affidavits submitted that they tried to pass off as 'evidence') to indicate juror confusion. A friend compared this to someone who takes a test and 2 days later wants to change their answer. That's the answer given at the time (talk about 'the time of hire'--how about 'the time of deliberation'?).

There was no 'admissible evidence' but Panish et al will keep trying b/c there is no penalty except wasting time and $, and in their eyes it's a chance worth taking (I guess). Hope it will all end in the near future!
 
Re: KJ vs AEG Trial outcome : Appeal

"time of deliberation" -- jamba

Excellent!

I just reread all the jury affidavits and I'm sorry, I just don't believe the 3 expressing surprise that the "no" ended things. Still shaking my head at Chang's tactics too.
 
another article with detailed comments from Putnam

Katherine Jackson loses new-trial bid in AEG suit over Michael Jackson&#8217;s death

Though the Monday ruling from Judge Yvette M. Palazuelos wasn't in her favor, matriarch Katherine Jackson isn't giving up on her wrongful death lawsuit against show promoter AEG Live, her lead lawyer told the Daily News.

BY NANCY DILLON / NEW YORK DAILY NEWS

A Los Angeles judge has rejected a request from Michael Jackson's mother and three kids for a new trial in their wrongful death lawsuit against concert promoter AEG Live.

A jury previously found AEG Live not liable for more than $1 billion in requested damages after a five-month trial that ended in October.

Though the Monday ruling from Judge Yvette M. Palazuelos wasn't in her favor, matriarch Katherine Jackson isn't giving up, her lead lawyer told the Daily News.

"This isn't over as we intend to have several issues decided by the court of appeal," lawyer Brian Panish vowed.

"We couldn't be more pleased with the court's ruling," AEG's lead lawyer Marvin Putnam said Monday.

"We were confident that the court would uphold the jury's verdict, the product of five months of their careful focus and attention," he said.

"This is also fantastic news for the taxpayers of California, who won't have their hard-earned money wasted retrying plaintiffs' baseless claims. Enough is enough," he added.

The jury of six men and six women agreed Oct. 2 that AEG Live had hired Dr. Conrad Murray as Michael Jackson's personal physician for his ill-fated "This Is It" concert series.

But they said Murray appeared competent on paper, so AEG had no reason to suspect early on that he'd go rogue and give Jackson surgery-strength anesthetic propofol as a sleep aid in a private bedroom.

Murray was convicted of involuntary manslaughter and sentenced to four years behind bars after Jackson died from a propofol overdose in June 2009.

The doctor was released from jail late last year, just weeks after the verdict in the AEG trial.

Katherine Jackson brought her request for a new trial in early December, claiming that the jury instructions and verdict form were defective because they halted deliberations the moment jurors found Murray was competent at the time of his hiring.

Her lawyers said the jurors should have been allowed to debate Murray's fitness "during the course of the relationship" with Michael Jackson in the weeks leading up to the King of Pop's death.

One juror said in a declaration that "some of the jurors were stunned and upset after learning that we had to stop deliberations after answering 'no' to Question 2," a question asking if Murray was "unfit" to perform the work for which he was hired.

Murray had no history of malpractice claims at the time he moved to Los Angeles to be Jackson&#8217;s tour doctor.

'In order to protect our jurors from after-the-fact harassment and their deliberative process from misconstruction, the law forbids the courts from considering affidavits discussing the jury's reasoning and mental processes,' AEG attorney Marvin Putnam, right, shown in this Oct. 2 photo, successfully argued against Katherine Jackson's bid for a new trial over Michael Jackson's death.

Putnam said the juror statements filed by Katherine Jackson after the verdict was read were inadmissible under "well-established" California law.

"The court had no choice but to disregard those affidavits. In order to protect our jurors from after-the-fact harassment and their deliberative process from misconstruction, the law forbids the courts from considering affidavits discussing the jury's reasoning and mental processes," he said.

Putnam argued Katherine Jackson's lawyers had approved the jury verdict form before deliberations began.

"There is something called the doctrine of invited error. It basically says that a party cannot create a problem and then complain about the very problem it created later," Putnam said.

"That is precisely what plaintiffs were attempting to do here. Since March of last year they have argued to use the exact language on the jury form that they now suddenly claim for the first time was a misstatement of the law. As the court held, California law doesn't tolerate such bait and switch tactics."



Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com/entertai...h-suit-denied-article-1.1578550#ixzz2qL25eqRL
 
Re: KJ vs AEG Trial outcome : Appeal

ivy said:
Putnam argued Katherine Jackson's lawyers had approved the jury verdict form before deliberations began.

"There is something called the doctrine of invited error. It basically says that a party cannot create a problem and then complain about the very problem it created later," Putnam said.

"That is precisely what plaintiffs were attempting to do here. Since March of last year they have argued to use the exact language on the jury form that they now suddenly claim for the first time was a misstatement of the law. As the court held, California law doesn't tolerate such bait and switch tactics."
Click to expand...
:hysterical::rollin::hysterical:
 
Re: KJ vs AEG Trial outcome : Appeal

Quote Originally Posted by ivy View Post

Putnam argued Katherine Jackson's lawyers had approved the jury verdict form before deliberations began.

That's what I'd always thought too. I couldn't understand trying to make an issue of something which they were involved in. I only knew from reading the very informative posts here in our forum, but it seemed to me that both sides had their say on the form, and that there was agreement. Correct me if I'm wrong.
 
Re: KJ vs AEG Trial outcome : Appeal

Putnam's comment as well as AP's quote of judge with "admissible evidence" makes it sound like the jury affidavits were considered inadmissible. We'll see when the documents become available.
 
Re: KJ vs AEG Trial outcome : Appeal

if KJ had any sense at all, she would fire her clown attorneys immediately and enjoy her retirement in peace while she can. she does not have much time left.

Panish and Boile are acting almost like children and amateurs. they know they can't win this case and appeal yet are willing to push for an appeal. this is sheer madness all because they want to get their hands on AEG money, money which they don't deserve.

even if they want to impress KJ, it's just the wrong way of doing it. in fact me think she'll be far more impressed if they tell her the real story.

I personally think there is a conflict of interests here. Panish and co are acting selfishly without due consideration of their clients interests. who are paying the bills? what was the arrangement? is KJ not paying a dime since she lost? if so, then that explains a lot of Panish and co attitude. utter desperation to recover some lost.
 
Re: KJ vs AEG Trial outcome : Appeal

Passy I was thinking that they are getting some kind of money, because I can't see what is their incentive to continue a case where they are getting a lot of beatings. They know Katherine has an allowance and maybe her legal bills are being paid. Maybe they take a few thousand each month. They must know they won't win an appeal. They could not even show any evidence of errors to gain a new trial.

Jamba I love your friend's comment about trying to change your answers on a test. The fact that Panish helped frame the questions and now claims it was at fault, remind me of the people who bake something to eat, and when it comes out wrong, blame the ingredients, or the oven.

I am glad Putnam pointed out why you can't have affidavits about the jury reasoning, because I was thinking that if lawyers could just go after jurors like that after a verdict, it would turn the seriousness of their duty into a big joke. No one would take a jury seriously if after a verdict they are encouraged to write letters about how they were confused, wished they could spend extra days chatting about other questions, and how they want to change their minds.
 
Last edited:
Re: KJ vs AEG Trial outcome : Appeal

I knew the judge was going to deny Katherine's motion for a new trial. As much as I hated how Michael was repeatedly dragged through the mud during the AEG trial, I really believe that Katherine's team failed to prove that AEG had any responsibility for Michael's death. Katherine seriously needs to give this up and leave it alone. She's not doing any good for Michael at all by letting this nonsense go on and on.
 
Ivy, I understand if there are no documents supporting a brief or an “ex parte” application as you said from the plaintiffs. I do not know what these lawyers said without transcripts and honestly, I do not believe it truly matters. The judge ruled CACI was preferred before deliberations and was against the addition of the words “at any time” to question two. She stated the lawyers could state their interpretation of that question which they did. There is no reason for her to believe there were errors in her own actions.

However, if you have read the posts after the verdict from members here (including Juror # 27) and the articles where jurors were interviewed – particularly Barden who said question two was confusing as per CNN - you would see some were confused about the time frame of question two and it is truly no fault of their own.

The CACI/BAJI debate was not the only issue at hand. There is the issue of the negligence claim and that all three elements were not discussed by jurors. I am quite concerned that a justice system would allow a jury to deliberate on only one element when three elements were presented to them. It is not logical to me so I am very interested in hearing how the judge reasoned that it was acceptable that the jurors only deliberated on hiring and not retention and supervision.

Question please: do you know of any case studies that are more similar to this particular case? For example: are there any case studies where hiring was done retroactively? I am glad the plaintiffs are appealing because there are lingering questions that need to be answered. This case may very well set a precedent for cases following depending on the appellate courts' rulings.

She also determined that there was no evidence that the panel was confused by the verdict form, noting that jurors often wrote her notes about scheduling concerns and to ask for supplies during deliberations.
Click to expand...

That made me laugh!

Asking for supplies and noting scheduling issues may make the judge feel the jurors were comfortable with her however, jurors interviewed after the verdict stated jurors decided not to ask her any questions during deliberations despite having them for their own reasons.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top