Re: KJ vs AEG Trial outcome : Appeal
I was unaware that question one may have been an error as well and may not have been necessary for the verdict form.
of course you would believe and accept everything Jackson lawyers say so there's no surprise there. From an alternative perspective, you can see that the first question made sense as there were 3 parties and a unsigned written contract was involved.
I'll explain further: normally in negligent hiring there would be an employee who is working for the company that does something - such as a delivery guy with a history of violence that punches a customer during a delivery. As you can see in that instance there's no question of if that delivery guy is employed by the company. Majority of the negligent hiring cases would be simpler in nature of employment relationship so there would be no need for Q1 in such instances.
However in this instance, there are 3 parties involved. Doctor being hired for Michael by his request and being paid with his money. A contract that is between AEG and Murray and a contract that needed 3 all 3 parties signatures but only had one signature on it. So it brought the question of if Murray was hired (oral agreement, written agreement) and who hired him. Obviously Jacksons wanted that question not to be on the verdict form because the jury might have returned with Murray wasn't hired as the contract wasn't signed or Murray was hired by Michael decisions. We all know that Jackson lawyers preferred that the jury went into the deliberations with the assumption that Murray was hired by AEG and was an employee. However as the judge pointed out Murray's employment wasn't that clear cut and if he was hired and who hired him was the questions for the jury and that justifies Q1.
I believe the chances for success may be higher than the previously discussed 20% or so for this particular trial.
You know 20% is an average right? That means for every 2 cases an appeal is granted there are 8 others that the appeal is denied. This might be very well the case that the appeal is granted but it doesn't change the fact that the odds are against them. It's a uphill battle.
This new trial motion would be another uphill battle too IMO. It's not just that they need to convince the judge that there was an error but they need to convince the judge that the errors were so significant that they definitely altered the outcome. Assuming AEG is also contacting the jurors for their set of counter affidavits , it might not be easy to prove for Jacksons. For example what if AEG comes with 8 affidavits that says their vote wouldn't have changed if "at any time" was added to the question? I always state that we need to wait for the other side's counter argument before trying to guess who might be successful in their requests.
I think it's hard to accept when something a person has invested a lot of time and energy into ends so abruptly, it must leave a person with a feeling of emptiness. Perhaps it's one reason why juror 27 decided to come and chat with us. I am a little pissed at these 4 jurors, they should have done the job at the time and perhaps discuss the case rather than watch TII (yes I know that's harsh for me to say - but I am frustrated). If they were dissatisfied they could have spoken up prior to the judge reading the verdict out. If this motion is argued I wouldn't want to be in their shoes when questioned by AEG lawyers.
I was talking about this yesterday. I believe in every trial there would be some sort of unhappiness or doubt or regret for the jurors. In our daily lives we make decisions that include our emotions. For example someone can read that "freak" comment on an email and might want to see that person punished for it. But jurors are supposed to make decisions by putting their feelings aside and following a strict set of rules and directions. So I'm not that surprised to see that there are some jurors who might feel unhappy with the outcome. There have been many instances of high profile cases that the jurors made statements that they wanted to vote a certain way but following the law, rules didn't allow them to vote the way they wanted (such as Zimmerman case as a very recent example).
On the other hand I can't really imagine how the remaining 8 jurors feel. They also put months into this trial, assuming they are content with their verdict they are probably not happy with these claims of misconduct and mistaken verdict claims. Even worse at least some of them (mainly the foreman and whomever it was that mentioned Q2 meant at the time of hiring) are being especially getting blamed. It is probably a frustrating thing for everyone involved.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Also now that we have the affidavits can we comment on the original CNN story?
"The jurors, whose sworn statements were attached to a motion for a new trial filed Thursday by Katherine Jackson's lawyers, said
most of the jury wanted to find concert promoter AEG Live liable in Jackson's 2009 death."
I'm curious about how CNN came to the conclusion that "most of the jury" wanted to find AEG Live liable. When you read the affidavits you see first two ones say they wanted to find AEG liable. I'm going to make an assumption here and say those two are the ones who voted "yes" to Q2. The third juror says most believed there was an ethical conflict - which doesn't mean the jury would find AEG liable. For example Foreman during his interviews pointed out the ethical issues but also how he believed AEG could not know. The last affidavit says some jurors were unhappy with the verdict. So I don't get how CNN came to to conclusion that most of the jury wanted to find AEG Live liable.
Also realize item 6 on juror affidavit 1 and item 4 on the juror affidavit 2 are the same? So did the two jurors came up with the exact statements or was there lawyer involvement/guidance in these statements?
