elusive moonwalker
Guests
Re: KJ vs AEG Trial outcome : Appeal
Whats kj bothered for. she will only ask the estate to pay it
Whats kj bothered for. she will only ask the estate to pay it
Latest on MJJC
- Latest Michael Jackson News
- Click Here to Join Our Community
- Follow us on Twitter
- Wanna talk Michael? Come join the chat rooms
- The Michael Jackson Chart Watch
- Become an MJJC Patron
- Join the Premium Member Group and Get Lot's of Extra's
- Major Love Prayer - Worldwide Monthly Prayer Every 25th
- MJJC Exclusive Q&A - We talk to the family and those in and around Michael
- Join us in the Chat Rooms
- Find us on Facebook
KJ vs AEG Trial outcome : Possible Appeal [closed]
- Thread starter ivy
- Start date
- Status
Victory22
Proud Member
Re: KJ vs AEG Trial outcome : Appeal
KJ likes to play pretend and that's why she has no credibility anymore. :no:
KJ likes to play pretend and that's why she has no credibility anymore. :no:
Last edited:
Re: KJ vs AEG Trial outcome : Appeal
fit and competent doesn't equal to being not negligent. You can be very fit and competent to drive a car but that doesn't mean that you wouldn't do an accident. Q2 clearly states " the work for which he was hired" and the jurors were clear in their comments that they believed that to be "general care". Jury saying Murray was fit an competent for general medical care doesn't mean he was fit and competent for Propofol administration.
Nope. First of all this trial did not include any determination on Murray's part. This verdict only means that AEG could not foresee Murray's actions.
There are millions of negligent hiring lawsuits, if you remember I posted around 30 of them in which courts/jurors have determined the employer wasn't negligent in hiring because they couldn't have known. It doesn't mean those lawsuits place the blame on the victim, to the contrary the blame stays with the employee as an individual.
fit and competent doesn't equal to being not negligent. You can be very fit and competent to drive a car but that doesn't mean that you wouldn't do an accident. Q2 clearly states " the work for which he was hired" and the jurors were clear in their comments that they believed that to be "general care". Jury saying Murray was fit an competent for general medical care doesn't mean he was fit and competent for Propofol administration.
Nope. First of all this trial did not include any determination on Murray's part. This verdict only means that AEG could not foresee Murray's actions.
There are millions of negligent hiring lawsuits, if you remember I posted around 30 of them in which courts/jurors have determined the employer wasn't negligent in hiring because they couldn't have known. It doesn't mean those lawsuits place the blame on the victim, to the contrary the blame stays with the employee as an individual.
Tygger
Proud Member
- Joined
- Jul 17, 2012
- Messages
- 2,316
- Points
- 0
The jurors’ affidavits were also clear that there was a conflicted doctor and that they were conflicted by the “clear” wording of question two as many posters here were. Propofol and it's negligent administration is hindsight. AEG only had to be aware the doctor was compromised and that meant Michael, as the patient, was not first.ivy;3941064 said:
It is a little more than that. As per this verdict, Michael is considered responsible for his own passing. This trial was about AEG being held accountable for Michael’s wrongful death because of the doctor they hired. If the doctor is fit and competent, there is no negligent hiring. If AEG is not responsible for their fit and competent employee, then who is responsible for the passing of Michael, the secretive addict no one says no to?
The comments some jurors made to the media after the verdict about Michael being an addict no one said no to were glossed over by some posters because the verdict the jurors rendered was preferred. Many glossed over Juror #27’s post where he stated he would give Michael 99% responsibility to AEG’s 1% if he had to award damages.
Re: KJ vs AEG Trial outcome : Appeal
It's due Monday. Hopefully court scans it quickly and I can get it before Christmas holiday. Otherwise we'll have to wait.
It's due Monday. Hopefully court scans it quickly and I can get it before Christmas holiday. Otherwise we'll have to wait.
Bubs
Proud Member
- Joined
- Jan 19, 2012
- Messages
- 7,856
- Points
- 0
Re: KJ vs AEG Trial outcome : Appeal
Ivy, do you know about this tax costs, what is it?
Future Hearings
01/03/2014 at 08:46 am in department 28 at 111 North Hill Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012
Motion for New Trial
04/14/2014 at 08:46 am in department 28 at 111 North Hill Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012
Motion to Tax Costs
Ivy, do you know about this tax costs, what is it?
Future Hearings
01/03/2014 at 08:46 am in department 28 at 111 North Hill Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012
Motion for New Trial
04/14/2014 at 08:46 am in department 28 at 111 North Hill Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012
Motion to Tax Costs
Re: KJ vs AEG Trial outcome : Appeal
That's when the judge will look to AEG request for costs and Jacksons request to not pay some of them - that's tax costs.
That's when the judge will look to AEG request for costs and Jacksons request to not pay some of them - that's tax costs.
Michael Jackson Case Could Have Set Scary Precedent
Share us on:TwitterFacebookLinkedIn 0 Comments
Law360, New York (October 08, 2013, 1:57 PM ET) --
Ryan Kerns
Ryan Kerns
“Plaintiffs want you to hold a concert promoter responsible for Michael Jackson’s overdose.”
This is how AEG Live LLC’s attorney, Marvin Putnam, started his closing argument. With all of the emotion swirling around the tragedy of Michael Jackson’s death and the subsequent civil lawsuit filed by his mother, Katherine Jackson, this is the scary precedent that gets lost. Can the law hold a concert promoter responsible for the drug overdose of an artist at the hands of his criminally culpable doctor?
After a hard-fought and contentious five-month trial, the verdict in the Katherine Jackson v. AEG Live civil negligence lawsuit rested in the hands of 12 jurors, and after listening to closing arguments, that’s exactly where Katherine Jackson’s attorney Brian Panish wanted it.
There was potentially more than $1 billion at stake in this lawsuit. That number may strike some people as fair and others as outrageous. It is extremely difficult, if not impossible, to quantify the value of a human life and what that person means to his or her children and family.
The calculations become even more complex and the figures even more staggering when a jury attempts to calculate the future earning potential of a superstar entertainer like Michael Jackson. AEG Live announced that 750,000 tickets for Michael Jackson’s This Is It tour sold out in only four hours, so it is evident that Jackson could still earn at the highest level.
Much of this case came down to a battle between law and emotion, and this is borne about by the stylistic difference of the two lead attorneys.
Putnam played the part of law professor in closing arguments, using charts and graphs and discussing the technicalities of contract and negligence law. Panish’s closing arguments were filled with pleas for justice, professionally edited videos of Jackson’s life, poems written to his mother and tear-jerking tributes.
Panish’s presentation was highly effective, tears were flowing in the courtroom, and even though he told the jury at the outset that they were not allowed to consider sympathy in their verdict, he did his best to engender as much of it as possible.
Undoubtedly, Michael Jackson’s death was a tragedy, and one that could have been avoided if Dr. Conrad Murray had not violated his Hippocratic Oath by providing Jackson with a dangerous drug, propofol, which according to expert testimony should only be used by an anesthesiologist in an operating room, and which the Los Angeles coroner determined caused Jackson’s death by overdose.
For his conduct, Murray was convicted of involuntary manslaughter and sentenced to the maximum of four years in prison. There is some degree of justice there.
In this civil case, however, Katherine Jackson asked for more than $1 billion from the concert promoter. The dollar amount isn’t what was most concerning about the potential verdict in this case. After all, as Panish reiterated often in his closing, AEG Live is in the business of making money — and they do have a lot of money.
The danger in returning a verdict in favor of the plaintiff and awarding a significant amount of damages was the potential to create unreasonable standards for businesses to operate and a loss of privacy rights for employees and independent contractors. How thorough of an investigation is a concert promoter required to undertake?
I want to focus on two of the requirements included in the jury instructions that the plaintiff must prove in order to sustain a claim of negligent hiring or supervision against AEG Live.
First, plaintiff must prove that Murray was “unfit or incompetent to perform the work for which he was hired” and second, that AEG Live “knew or should have known that Dr. Murray was unfit or incompetent, and that this put others at risk of harm.”
“Propofol might not be the best idea,” Panish said during his rebuttal argument. “But if you have a competent doctor, you’re not going to die.”
Murray was a medical doctor who previously had never received a malpractice claim against him, was fully accredited and licensed, attended a respected medical school, and had reputable internships and residencies. He was also personally chosen by Michael Jackson. No evidence of incompetency as a doctor was shown during trial, only evidence of bad decisions made in private with Jackson.
Murray ended up betraying his oath and occupation with his actions that led to Jackson’s death, but how can we say that he was incompetent? And even further, how can we say AEG Live should somehow have known? These questions did not have satisfactory answers during trial.
Two of Panish’s key arguments were that AEG Live should have discovered Murray’s financial problems or somehow figured out that he was providing unethical treatment.
Requiring a concert promoter to complete a financial background check on a doctor or invade the doctor-patient relationship to check on the private decisions of a performer places an unreasonable burden on the promoter and permits a highly intrusive invasion of privacy into the artist’s life.
I don’t think I’ll receive too much opposition when I say that a recreational drug culture exists in the music industry. Decades of rock star decadence have been portrayed in movies, documentaries and all too often, in obituaries. It is also not debated that many famous musicians bring doctors on tour with them. The examples of the Rolling Stones, John Denver and Celine Dion were presented by Putnam during his closing.
Should the law require any company promoting a concert to inquire into the specific treatment those doctors are providing? Is this not why we have doctor-patient confidentiality? There are any number of medical ailments, concerns or treatments that any person would want kept private.
A concert promoter should not be required to observe treatments in the privacy of an artist’s house just on the off chance the doctor will commit a criminal act.
This argument becomes even more problematic for Panish if you consider that requirement from Michael Jackson’s perspective. If AEG Live had inquired further into Murray’s treatment or asked to observe his late-night medical sessions, should Jackson have even let them observe?
It seems pretty clear he wouldn’t want them to, as evidenced by the locked doors, security and secrecy; but, if AEG Live did inquire, should Jackson let them in to his private chambers? He was in his private bedroom with his private doctor.
What right does a concert promoter have to violate his privacy in such an intrusive fashion? So why should the law require that AEG Live investigate at this level?
A verdict in favor of Katherine Jackson could have established a precedent whereby the law would require that all employers as well as any party hiring independent contractors (like a plumber or electrician, to use the examples brought up during closing arguments) be responsible for the bad decisions and drug use of others.
Individuals are allowed to make their own decisions. Michael Jackson was not a juvenile. He was a 50-year-old man, and he made a bad decision choosing to allow Murray to administer propofol.
After almost three days of deliberations, the jury returned a verdict in favor of AEG, finding that the plantiff was unable to prove that Murray was unfit or incompetent for the job he was hired to do. While reasonable jurors could have reached different conclusions on this question, the jurors performed their duty admirably. What is clear is that had emotion led to a verdict in favor of Katherine Jackson, the law regarding the tort of negligent hiring and supervision would be left in a state of disarray.
--By Ryan Kerns, Wild About Trial
Ryan Kerns is a Los Angeles-based solo practitioner and a contributor to Wild About Trial.
The opinions expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the firm, its clients, or Portfolio Media Inc., or any of its or their respective affiliates. This article is for general information purposes and is not intended to be and should not be taken as legal advice.
http://www.law360.com/articles/478810/michael-jackson-case-could-have-set-scary-precedent
--------------------------------------------------------
Media & Entertainment MVP: O'Melveny's Marvin Putnam
Share us on:TwitterFacebookLinkedInBy Kelly Knaub 0 Comments
Law360, New York (November 15, 2013, 6:33 PM ET) -- In one of the most highly publicized trials of the year, O'Melveny & Myers LLP partner Marvin Putnam convinced a jury that Anschutz Entertainment Group LLC was not liable for Michael Jackson’s death, earning him a spot on Law360’s list of Media and Entertainment MVPs.
Putnam persuaded the six-woman, six-man Los Angeles jury to reject the claims by Jackson’s mother and three children — who had asked for $1.9 billion in damages — that the concert promoter was responsible for the late pop star’s death, during a high-stakes public trial that lasted six months. Jackson’s family accused AEG of negligently hiring and supervising Dr. Conrad Murray, who gave the music legend the fatal overdose of the powerful anesthetic propofol.
The media and entertainment lawyer said one of the biggest challenges of the wrongful death trial was its sheer length.
“You have to become really biopic and focus on nothing else every waking hour but the case,” Putnam told Law360. “And it’s hard to sustain that for any amount of time, so to sustain that for six months is a feat.”
Putnam also said an obvious challenge of the case was having Michael Jackson, a world famous figure of “mythic proportions” whom a lot of people have favorable ideas about, on the other side. It was hard asking a jury to not award damages to Jackson’s grieving mother in what he called “an incredibly sad situation,” but AEG was not at fault, he said.
After Jackson’s mother and children initiated the case last year, the entertainment lawyer also persuaded a Los Angeles Superior Court judge in February 2012 to dismiss a separate wrongful death suit brought by Jackson’s father, Joseph Jackson, without leave to replead. Putnam argued that the separate claims failed to comply with California’s long-held “one action” rule, which mandates that only one wrongful death suit be filed jointly by all heirs and prevents those who do not join from filing claims later.
The win in the Jackson case was part of a string of victories the lawyer scored for AEG and several other clients over the past year.
Putnam convinced a community activist coalition to end its efforts to block AEG’s proposed construction of a $1.5 billion Farmers Field football stadium in downtown Los Angeles earlier this month. The suit, brought by Play Fair at Farmers Field Coalition, had challenged the constitutionality of a law that amended California’s environmental review process. Putnam struck a deal in which AEG agreed to contribute $17 million to numerous community initiatives, including funds to bolster low-income housing in the neighborhood, in exchange for the coalition's dropping the suit.
Putnam said that Los Angeles really wants and needs an NFL team and that he felt honored and privileged to have worked on the case to prevent the potential roadblock.
“It’s difficult when you have a client like AEG that a lot of people can look at and say, hey, I got a payday here for me,” Putnam said. “It’s important to not allow that to happen or else you open the door for that to happen.”
Last October, Putnam represented AEG affiliate Bristol Bay Productions LLC in a $50 million consumer fraud action brought against publisher Simon & Schuster Inc. for artificially inflating book sales. Bristol Bay said it had produced the film “Sahara” after relying on misrepresentations that author Clive Cussler had sold 100 million books, when he actually sold about 40 million.
The case was first dismissed on preclusion grounds because of an earlier suit the author had filed against the publisher, which Putnam successfully tried. But the lawyer argued that the finding was not consistent with long-standing Colorado law and convinced the state’s Supreme Court to grant certiorari on the dismissal. Both parties await the ruling.
In yet another case, Putnam landed a victory for Siegfried Fischbacher and Roy Horn, stars of Las Vegas’ Siegfried & Roy show, when in July the Ninth Circuit ruled in favor of a substantial sanctions award Putnam had obtained against the plaintiff, who appealed on the grounds that the award was unprecedented and misused a federal statute.
Putnam, who has represented the entertainers against a series of harassment claims for years, initially blocked the sale and dissemination of a sex tape through a temporary restraining order and secured the dismissal of a federal action and most of a state action.
He told Law360 his strong oral argument skills come from extensively preparing the case from the beginning by learning what happened, talking to all the people involved and looking at the law broadly and deeply over a period of time. The lawyer also said understanding the personalities in each case is a crucial element of that preparation.
“If you understand the people involved, then you understand what happened and why,” Putnam said.
Putnam began concentrating his practice on the media and entertainment industry 10 years ago, when he moved to Los Angeles and realized it was the best practice in the region. He joined O’Melveny & Myers for its trial team and cutting edge trial litigation, he said. Prior to his work in the entertainment industry, he spent years in high-stakes litigation for corporate clients, including ExxonMobil Corp., Barclays PLC and General Electric Co.
The most rewarding part of his job is defending someone’s reputation and good name, he said.
“In the Jackson matter, AEG had been excoriated in the press for years for their supposed hand in Michael Jackson’s death,” Putnam told Law360. “Well, those allegations were without any merit at all, but the world did not know that. It was great to get to show the truth — that AEG had done nothing wrong. I like defending against such scurrilous attacks.”
http://www.law360.com/articles/489159/media-entertainment-mvp-o-melveny-s-marvin-putnam
Share us on:TwitterFacebookLinkedIn 0 Comments
Law360, New York (October 08, 2013, 1:57 PM ET) --
Ryan Kerns
Ryan Kerns
“Plaintiffs want you to hold a concert promoter responsible for Michael Jackson’s overdose.”
This is how AEG Live LLC’s attorney, Marvin Putnam, started his closing argument. With all of the emotion swirling around the tragedy of Michael Jackson’s death and the subsequent civil lawsuit filed by his mother, Katherine Jackson, this is the scary precedent that gets lost. Can the law hold a concert promoter responsible for the drug overdose of an artist at the hands of his criminally culpable doctor?
After a hard-fought and contentious five-month trial, the verdict in the Katherine Jackson v. AEG Live civil negligence lawsuit rested in the hands of 12 jurors, and after listening to closing arguments, that’s exactly where Katherine Jackson’s attorney Brian Panish wanted it.
There was potentially more than $1 billion at stake in this lawsuit. That number may strike some people as fair and others as outrageous. It is extremely difficult, if not impossible, to quantify the value of a human life and what that person means to his or her children and family.
The calculations become even more complex and the figures even more staggering when a jury attempts to calculate the future earning potential of a superstar entertainer like Michael Jackson. AEG Live announced that 750,000 tickets for Michael Jackson’s This Is It tour sold out in only four hours, so it is evident that Jackson could still earn at the highest level.
Much of this case came down to a battle between law and emotion, and this is borne about by the stylistic difference of the two lead attorneys.
Putnam played the part of law professor in closing arguments, using charts and graphs and discussing the technicalities of contract and negligence law. Panish’s closing arguments were filled with pleas for justice, professionally edited videos of Jackson’s life, poems written to his mother and tear-jerking tributes.
Panish’s presentation was highly effective, tears were flowing in the courtroom, and even though he told the jury at the outset that they were not allowed to consider sympathy in their verdict, he did his best to engender as much of it as possible.
Undoubtedly, Michael Jackson’s death was a tragedy, and one that could have been avoided if Dr. Conrad Murray had not violated his Hippocratic Oath by providing Jackson with a dangerous drug, propofol, which according to expert testimony should only be used by an anesthesiologist in an operating room, and which the Los Angeles coroner determined caused Jackson’s death by overdose.
For his conduct, Murray was convicted of involuntary manslaughter and sentenced to the maximum of four years in prison. There is some degree of justice there.
In this civil case, however, Katherine Jackson asked for more than $1 billion from the concert promoter. The dollar amount isn’t what was most concerning about the potential verdict in this case. After all, as Panish reiterated often in his closing, AEG Live is in the business of making money — and they do have a lot of money.
The danger in returning a verdict in favor of the plaintiff and awarding a significant amount of damages was the potential to create unreasonable standards for businesses to operate and a loss of privacy rights for employees and independent contractors. How thorough of an investigation is a concert promoter required to undertake?
I want to focus on two of the requirements included in the jury instructions that the plaintiff must prove in order to sustain a claim of negligent hiring or supervision against AEG Live.
First, plaintiff must prove that Murray was “unfit or incompetent to perform the work for which he was hired” and second, that AEG Live “knew or should have known that Dr. Murray was unfit or incompetent, and that this put others at risk of harm.”
“Propofol might not be the best idea,” Panish said during his rebuttal argument. “But if you have a competent doctor, you’re not going to die.”
Murray was a medical doctor who previously had never received a malpractice claim against him, was fully accredited and licensed, attended a respected medical school, and had reputable internships and residencies. He was also personally chosen by Michael Jackson. No evidence of incompetency as a doctor was shown during trial, only evidence of bad decisions made in private with Jackson.
Murray ended up betraying his oath and occupation with his actions that led to Jackson’s death, but how can we say that he was incompetent? And even further, how can we say AEG Live should somehow have known? These questions did not have satisfactory answers during trial.
Two of Panish’s key arguments were that AEG Live should have discovered Murray’s financial problems or somehow figured out that he was providing unethical treatment.
Requiring a concert promoter to complete a financial background check on a doctor or invade the doctor-patient relationship to check on the private decisions of a performer places an unreasonable burden on the promoter and permits a highly intrusive invasion of privacy into the artist’s life.
I don’t think I’ll receive too much opposition when I say that a recreational drug culture exists in the music industry. Decades of rock star decadence have been portrayed in movies, documentaries and all too often, in obituaries. It is also not debated that many famous musicians bring doctors on tour with them. The examples of the Rolling Stones, John Denver and Celine Dion were presented by Putnam during his closing.
Should the law require any company promoting a concert to inquire into the specific treatment those doctors are providing? Is this not why we have doctor-patient confidentiality? There are any number of medical ailments, concerns or treatments that any person would want kept private.
A concert promoter should not be required to observe treatments in the privacy of an artist’s house just on the off chance the doctor will commit a criminal act.
This argument becomes even more problematic for Panish if you consider that requirement from Michael Jackson’s perspective. If AEG Live had inquired further into Murray’s treatment or asked to observe his late-night medical sessions, should Jackson have even let them observe?
It seems pretty clear he wouldn’t want them to, as evidenced by the locked doors, security and secrecy; but, if AEG Live did inquire, should Jackson let them in to his private chambers? He was in his private bedroom with his private doctor.
What right does a concert promoter have to violate his privacy in such an intrusive fashion? So why should the law require that AEG Live investigate at this level?
A verdict in favor of Katherine Jackson could have established a precedent whereby the law would require that all employers as well as any party hiring independent contractors (like a plumber or electrician, to use the examples brought up during closing arguments) be responsible for the bad decisions and drug use of others.
Individuals are allowed to make their own decisions. Michael Jackson was not a juvenile. He was a 50-year-old man, and he made a bad decision choosing to allow Murray to administer propofol.
After almost three days of deliberations, the jury returned a verdict in favor of AEG, finding that the plantiff was unable to prove that Murray was unfit or incompetent for the job he was hired to do. While reasonable jurors could have reached different conclusions on this question, the jurors performed their duty admirably. What is clear is that had emotion led to a verdict in favor of Katherine Jackson, the law regarding the tort of negligent hiring and supervision would be left in a state of disarray.
--By Ryan Kerns, Wild About Trial
Ryan Kerns is a Los Angeles-based solo practitioner and a contributor to Wild About Trial.
The opinions expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the firm, its clients, or Portfolio Media Inc., or any of its or their respective affiliates. This article is for general information purposes and is not intended to be and should not be taken as legal advice.
http://www.law360.com/articles/478810/michael-jackson-case-could-have-set-scary-precedent
--------------------------------------------------------
Media & Entertainment MVP: O'Melveny's Marvin Putnam
Share us on:TwitterFacebookLinkedInBy Kelly Knaub 0 Comments
Law360, New York (November 15, 2013, 6:33 PM ET) -- In one of the most highly publicized trials of the year, O'Melveny & Myers LLP partner Marvin Putnam convinced a jury that Anschutz Entertainment Group LLC was not liable for Michael Jackson’s death, earning him a spot on Law360’s list of Media and Entertainment MVPs.
Putnam persuaded the six-woman, six-man Los Angeles jury to reject the claims by Jackson’s mother and three children — who had asked for $1.9 billion in damages — that the concert promoter was responsible for the late pop star’s death, during a high-stakes public trial that lasted six months. Jackson’s family accused AEG of negligently hiring and supervising Dr. Conrad Murray, who gave the music legend the fatal overdose of the powerful anesthetic propofol.
The media and entertainment lawyer said one of the biggest challenges of the wrongful death trial was its sheer length.
“You have to become really biopic and focus on nothing else every waking hour but the case,” Putnam told Law360. “And it’s hard to sustain that for any amount of time, so to sustain that for six months is a feat.”
Putnam also said an obvious challenge of the case was having Michael Jackson, a world famous figure of “mythic proportions” whom a lot of people have favorable ideas about, on the other side. It was hard asking a jury to not award damages to Jackson’s grieving mother in what he called “an incredibly sad situation,” but AEG was not at fault, he said.
After Jackson’s mother and children initiated the case last year, the entertainment lawyer also persuaded a Los Angeles Superior Court judge in February 2012 to dismiss a separate wrongful death suit brought by Jackson’s father, Joseph Jackson, without leave to replead. Putnam argued that the separate claims failed to comply with California’s long-held “one action” rule, which mandates that only one wrongful death suit be filed jointly by all heirs and prevents those who do not join from filing claims later.
The win in the Jackson case was part of a string of victories the lawyer scored for AEG and several other clients over the past year.
Putnam convinced a community activist coalition to end its efforts to block AEG’s proposed construction of a $1.5 billion Farmers Field football stadium in downtown Los Angeles earlier this month. The suit, brought by Play Fair at Farmers Field Coalition, had challenged the constitutionality of a law that amended California’s environmental review process. Putnam struck a deal in which AEG agreed to contribute $17 million to numerous community initiatives, including funds to bolster low-income housing in the neighborhood, in exchange for the coalition's dropping the suit.
Putnam said that Los Angeles really wants and needs an NFL team and that he felt honored and privileged to have worked on the case to prevent the potential roadblock.
“It’s difficult when you have a client like AEG that a lot of people can look at and say, hey, I got a payday here for me,” Putnam said. “It’s important to not allow that to happen or else you open the door for that to happen.”
Last October, Putnam represented AEG affiliate Bristol Bay Productions LLC in a $50 million consumer fraud action brought against publisher Simon & Schuster Inc. for artificially inflating book sales. Bristol Bay said it had produced the film “Sahara” after relying on misrepresentations that author Clive Cussler had sold 100 million books, when he actually sold about 40 million.
The case was first dismissed on preclusion grounds because of an earlier suit the author had filed against the publisher, which Putnam successfully tried. But the lawyer argued that the finding was not consistent with long-standing Colorado law and convinced the state’s Supreme Court to grant certiorari on the dismissal. Both parties await the ruling.
In yet another case, Putnam landed a victory for Siegfried Fischbacher and Roy Horn, stars of Las Vegas’ Siegfried & Roy show, when in July the Ninth Circuit ruled in favor of a substantial sanctions award Putnam had obtained against the plaintiff, who appealed on the grounds that the award was unprecedented and misused a federal statute.
Putnam, who has represented the entertainers against a series of harassment claims for years, initially blocked the sale and dissemination of a sex tape through a temporary restraining order and secured the dismissal of a federal action and most of a state action.
He told Law360 his strong oral argument skills come from extensively preparing the case from the beginning by learning what happened, talking to all the people involved and looking at the law broadly and deeply over a period of time. The lawyer also said understanding the personalities in each case is a crucial element of that preparation.
“If you understand the people involved, then you understand what happened and why,” Putnam said.
Putnam began concentrating his practice on the media and entertainment industry 10 years ago, when he moved to Los Angeles and realized it was the best practice in the region. He joined O’Melveny & Myers for its trial team and cutting edge trial litigation, he said. Prior to his work in the entertainment industry, he spent years in high-stakes litigation for corporate clients, including ExxonMobil Corp., Barclays PLC and General Electric Co.
The most rewarding part of his job is defending someone’s reputation and good name, he said.
“In the Jackson matter, AEG had been excoriated in the press for years for their supposed hand in Michael Jackson’s death,” Putnam told Law360. “Well, those allegations were without any merit at all, but the world did not know that. It was great to get to show the truth — that AEG had done nothing wrong. I like defending against such scurrilous attacks.”
http://www.law360.com/articles/489159/media-entertainment-mvp-o-melveny-s-marvin-putnam
How They Won It: O'Melveny Bests Michael Jackson Death Suit
Share us on:TwitterFacebookLinkedInBy Stewart Bishop 0 Comments
Law360, New York (December 03, 2013, 7:21 PM ET) -- To beat back the $1.5 billion lawsuit alleging AEG Live LLC was liable for the death of pop icon Michael Jackson due to the concert promoter’s hiring of the doctor found to be complicit in Jackson's overdose, attorneys from O'Melveny & Myers LLP say they capitalized on the plaintiffs’ overreach and stuck to the facts.
After a marathon trial that lasted nearly six months, a California jury in October rejected the claims from Jackson’s family that AEG was negligent in hiring and supervising Conrad Murray, the doctor who gave Jackson a fatal overdose of the powerful anesthetic propofol.
The Los Angeles Superior Court jury found that while AEG had hired Murray, the doctor was not unfit or incompetent to perform the work for which he was hired. The verdict concluded a high-stakes wrongful-death trial in which Jackson's mother and three children based their damages figure on an estimate of what Jackson would have earned from new music, tours, endorsements and a Las Vegas show if he had lived.
Lead AEG attorney Marvin Putnam says that after O’Melveny managed to trim all the counts from the case except for the negligent hiring and supervision claim, it became apparent that AEG couldn't lose if it ensured that the jury saw the whole picture, as opposed to the snippets of fact and outright falsities being pushed by the plaintiffs.
“We believed the only way the plaintiffs could win is by telling half-truths and misrepresentations about what had actually occurred,” Putnam told Law360. “We said this from the very beginning and preached it really consistently throughout the case.”
Once AEG knew they the case would be proceeding only on the one count, the plaintiffs were left with a very specific list of what they had to establish, O'Melveny’s Jessica Stebbins Bina said. But with Murray tainted by his 2011 involuntary manslaughter conviction for his role in Jackson’s death, the O'Melveny team would have to paint a very real-world and nuanced portrait of Murray as someone who bore responsibility in Jackson’s death but at the same time was a competent doctor, fit to perform the job for which he was hired.
“What we were trying to do was present him as a real person, not some cardboard cutout of an evil doctor,” Putnam said. “Here’s someone who by all accounts had been a very capable and accomplished cardiologist.”
Furthermore, the O’Melveny attorneys stressed at trial that there was no evidence that anyone at AEG knew that Murray was administering doses of propofol to Jackson.
Putnam had argued to the jury that Murray's secret treatment for Jackson's insomnia with propofol was “far outside his job description and something no one would expect [him] to do.”
“The job for which he was hired most certainly was not to provide Michael Jackson with propofol,” Putnam said. “It was to be a general practitioner.”
He noted that Jackson had not asked for an anesthesiologist to keep him fit as he prepared for his “This Is It” comeback concerts in London, and that AEG had no idea Murray “would be administering a hospital-grade anesthetic to Mr. Jackson behind closed doors.”
Jackson's family had also argued that by paying the financially distressed Murray $150,000 per month to make sure Jackson performed the concerts it was promoting, AEG had created a conflict of interest that caused Murray to make poor medical decisions including administering the fatal overdose.
“Their argument was that he was unfit and incompetent because he had personal financial problems making him subject to manipulation,” Bina said. “I believe the jury could and did rightly reject the argument that personal debt makes you more likely to commit a crime.”
Throughout the trial, Putnam said the defense team was constantly battling misinformation and sometimes lies from the other side, which misstated facts about Jackson’s long history with propofol.
“It was really clear from the beginning that they were going to wave these incomplete documents in the jury’s face and make unsubstantiated claims,” Putnam said. “Then we would come back and say, ‘No, this is what really happened.’ And we asked the jury to reserve judgment until the end.”
Despite a belief on the AEG side that the facts were in their favor, Bina said one challenge of the case was to deal with its immense tragedy, including the effect of Jackson’s death on his family.
“I think the hardest thing to overcome was the sheer sadness of the situation. Here you have three kids who have lost their only active parent,” Bina said. “We laid it out for the jury that, yes, it’s sad, but that doesn’t make his concert promoter responsible for what happened.”
The O'Melveny team also had to deal with the ongoing trial of public opinion taking place outside the courtroom on the street and in the press and attempt to ensure that AEG was not being unfairly maligned — no easy task when some news outlets were taking unsupported allegations put forth by the plaintiffs as fact, according to Putnam.
While most news outlets put out accurate coverage, Putnam said CNN’s coverage was woefully misinformative, considering even gossip sites like TMZ and Radar Online were getting it right.
“You have to monitor these things to make sure real outlets get it right,” he said. “With the 24/7 news cycle now, people are being tried in two very different arenas.”
When it came time for closing arguments, Putnam reiterated that it was Jackson who had chosen Murray to treat him as he was preparing for his comeback tour and that it was Jackson who demanded the propofol to help him sleep.
Putnam said Jackson was desperate to proceed with the tour to redeem his public image and that he and his doctor “did everything they could” to conceal from AEG how and for what Murray was treating him at his home in the Holmby Hills neighborhood of Los Angeles.
“AEG Live never would have agreed to finance this tour if it knew Mr. Jackson played Russian roulette every night in his bedroom,” Putnam argued. “Is a concert promoter liable for Michael Jackson's overdose in his bedroom at night behind locked doors ... at the hands of his doctor?”
After AEG had fought the case for more than three years, the jury took just 2 1/2 days to find in its favor.
The plaintiffs are represented by Brian J. Panish, Kevin R. Boyle, Deborah Chang and Robert S. Glassman of Panish Shea & Boyle LLP and Michael Koskoff of Koskoff Koskoff & Bieder PC.
AEG is represented by Marvin S. Putnam, Sabrina H. Strong, Jessica L. Stebbins Bina and Kathryn A. Cahan of O'Melveny & Myers LLP.
The case is Katherine Jackson et al. v. AEG Live LLC et al., case number BC445597, in the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Los Angeles.
--Additional reporting by Matthew Heller. Editing by Elizabeth Bowen.
http://www.law360.com/articles/491433/how-they-won-it-o-melveny-bests-michael-jackson-death-suit
Share us on:TwitterFacebookLinkedInBy Stewart Bishop 0 Comments
Law360, New York (December 03, 2013, 7:21 PM ET) -- To beat back the $1.5 billion lawsuit alleging AEG Live LLC was liable for the death of pop icon Michael Jackson due to the concert promoter’s hiring of the doctor found to be complicit in Jackson's overdose, attorneys from O'Melveny & Myers LLP say they capitalized on the plaintiffs’ overreach and stuck to the facts.
After a marathon trial that lasted nearly six months, a California jury in October rejected the claims from Jackson’s family that AEG was negligent in hiring and supervising Conrad Murray, the doctor who gave Jackson a fatal overdose of the powerful anesthetic propofol.
The Los Angeles Superior Court jury found that while AEG had hired Murray, the doctor was not unfit or incompetent to perform the work for which he was hired. The verdict concluded a high-stakes wrongful-death trial in which Jackson's mother and three children based their damages figure on an estimate of what Jackson would have earned from new music, tours, endorsements and a Las Vegas show if he had lived.
Lead AEG attorney Marvin Putnam says that after O’Melveny managed to trim all the counts from the case except for the negligent hiring and supervision claim, it became apparent that AEG couldn't lose if it ensured that the jury saw the whole picture, as opposed to the snippets of fact and outright falsities being pushed by the plaintiffs.
“We believed the only way the plaintiffs could win is by telling half-truths and misrepresentations about what had actually occurred,” Putnam told Law360. “We said this from the very beginning and preached it really consistently throughout the case.”
Once AEG knew they the case would be proceeding only on the one count, the plaintiffs were left with a very specific list of what they had to establish, O'Melveny’s Jessica Stebbins Bina said. But with Murray tainted by his 2011 involuntary manslaughter conviction for his role in Jackson’s death, the O'Melveny team would have to paint a very real-world and nuanced portrait of Murray as someone who bore responsibility in Jackson’s death but at the same time was a competent doctor, fit to perform the job for which he was hired.
“What we were trying to do was present him as a real person, not some cardboard cutout of an evil doctor,” Putnam said. “Here’s someone who by all accounts had been a very capable and accomplished cardiologist.”
Furthermore, the O’Melveny attorneys stressed at trial that there was no evidence that anyone at AEG knew that Murray was administering doses of propofol to Jackson.
Putnam had argued to the jury that Murray's secret treatment for Jackson's insomnia with propofol was “far outside his job description and something no one would expect [him] to do.”
“The job for which he was hired most certainly was not to provide Michael Jackson with propofol,” Putnam said. “It was to be a general practitioner.”
He noted that Jackson had not asked for an anesthesiologist to keep him fit as he prepared for his “This Is It” comeback concerts in London, and that AEG had no idea Murray “would be administering a hospital-grade anesthetic to Mr. Jackson behind closed doors.”
Jackson's family had also argued that by paying the financially distressed Murray $150,000 per month to make sure Jackson performed the concerts it was promoting, AEG had created a conflict of interest that caused Murray to make poor medical decisions including administering the fatal overdose.
“Their argument was that he was unfit and incompetent because he had personal financial problems making him subject to manipulation,” Bina said. “I believe the jury could and did rightly reject the argument that personal debt makes you more likely to commit a crime.”
Throughout the trial, Putnam said the defense team was constantly battling misinformation and sometimes lies from the other side, which misstated facts about Jackson’s long history with propofol.
“It was really clear from the beginning that they were going to wave these incomplete documents in the jury’s face and make unsubstantiated claims,” Putnam said. “Then we would come back and say, ‘No, this is what really happened.’ And we asked the jury to reserve judgment until the end.”
Despite a belief on the AEG side that the facts were in their favor, Bina said one challenge of the case was to deal with its immense tragedy, including the effect of Jackson’s death on his family.
“I think the hardest thing to overcome was the sheer sadness of the situation. Here you have three kids who have lost their only active parent,” Bina said. “We laid it out for the jury that, yes, it’s sad, but that doesn’t make his concert promoter responsible for what happened.”
The O'Melveny team also had to deal with the ongoing trial of public opinion taking place outside the courtroom on the street and in the press and attempt to ensure that AEG was not being unfairly maligned — no easy task when some news outlets were taking unsupported allegations put forth by the plaintiffs as fact, according to Putnam.
While most news outlets put out accurate coverage, Putnam said CNN’s coverage was woefully misinformative, considering even gossip sites like TMZ and Radar Online were getting it right.
“You have to monitor these things to make sure real outlets get it right,” he said. “With the 24/7 news cycle now, people are being tried in two very different arenas.”
When it came time for closing arguments, Putnam reiterated that it was Jackson who had chosen Murray to treat him as he was preparing for his comeback tour and that it was Jackson who demanded the propofol to help him sleep.
Putnam said Jackson was desperate to proceed with the tour to redeem his public image and that he and his doctor “did everything they could” to conceal from AEG how and for what Murray was treating him at his home in the Holmby Hills neighborhood of Los Angeles.
“AEG Live never would have agreed to finance this tour if it knew Mr. Jackson played Russian roulette every night in his bedroom,” Putnam argued. “Is a concert promoter liable for Michael Jackson's overdose in his bedroom at night behind locked doors ... at the hands of his doctor?”
After AEG had fought the case for more than three years, the jury took just 2 1/2 days to find in its favor.
The plaintiffs are represented by Brian J. Panish, Kevin R. Boyle, Deborah Chang and Robert S. Glassman of Panish Shea & Boyle LLP and Michael Koskoff of Koskoff Koskoff & Bieder PC.
AEG is represented by Marvin S. Putnam, Sabrina H. Strong, Jessica L. Stebbins Bina and Kathryn A. Cahan of O'Melveny & Myers LLP.
The case is Katherine Jackson et al. v. AEG Live LLC et al., case number BC445597, in the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Los Angeles.
--Additional reporting by Matthew Heller. Editing by Elizabeth Bowen.
http://www.law360.com/articles/491433/how-they-won-it-o-melveny-bests-michael-jackson-death-suit
Petrarose
Proud Member
- Joined
- Jul 25, 2009
- Messages
- 9,574
- Points
- 0
Good reports ^^. It is good to read articles that sum up our points from discussions during the trial.
This: "While most news outlets put out accurate coverage, Putnam said CNN’s coverage was woefully misinformative, considering even gossip sites like TMZ and Radar Online were getting it right.
“You have to monitor these things to make sure real outlets get it right,” he said. “With the 24/7 news cycle now, people are being tried in two very different arenas.” Very true and Michael was a victim of this--being tried in two different arenas with misquoted and misleading information.
This: "While most news outlets put out accurate coverage, Putnam said CNN’s coverage was woefully misinformative, considering even gossip sites like TMZ and Radar Online were getting it right.
“You have to monitor these things to make sure real outlets get it right,” he said. “With the 24/7 news cycle now, people are being tried in two very different arenas.” Very true and Michael was a victim of this--being tried in two different arenas with misquoted and misleading information.
elusive moonwalker
Guests
Re: KJ vs AEG Trial outcome : Appeal
well we know cnn's agenda through its reporters closeness to the fmaily
well we know cnn's agenda through its reporters closeness to the fmaily
Bubs
Proud Member
- Joined
- Jan 19, 2012
- Messages
- 7,856
- Points
- 0
Both good articles, thanks Ivy for posting them.
"While most news outlets put out accurate coverage, Putnam said CNN’s coverage was woefully misinformative, considering even gossip sites like TMZ and Radar Online were getting it right."
Has this been tweeted to Duke? That is what you get when you sell your professional integrity for few inside scoops from "friends". Duke went to same road as Demon D and some others.
"While most news outlets put out accurate coverage, Putnam said CNN’s coverage was woefully misinformative, considering even gossip sites like TMZ and Radar Online were getting it right."
Has this been tweeted to Duke? That is what you get when you sell your professional integrity for few inside scoops from "friends". Duke went to same road as Demon D and some others.
Re: KJ vs AEG Trial outcome : Appeal
Got AEG's reply to Jacksons motion for a new trial. Will do a summary and post documents later tonight or tomorrow.
As a teaser (lol) let me say that AEG got 7 juror affidavits (so much for Jacksons and CNN claiming most of the jurors wanted to find AEG liable), claim lawyer misconduct for Jackson lawyers and basically saying Jacksons whole motion is meritless.
Got AEG's reply to Jacksons motion for a new trial. Will do a summary and post documents later tonight or tomorrow.
As a teaser (lol) let me say that AEG got 7 juror affidavits (so much for Jacksons and CNN claiming most of the jurors wanted to find AEG liable), claim lawyer misconduct for Jackson lawyers and basically saying Jacksons whole motion is meritless.
elusive moonwalker
Guests
Re: KJ vs AEG Trial outcome : Appeal
Thanks ivy
Thanks ivy
Ashtanga
Proud Member
Bubs
Proud Member
- Joined
- Jan 19, 2012
- Messages
- 7,856
- Points
- 0
Re: KJ vs AEG Trial outcome : Appeal
Thanks Ivy.
If Duke and the gang says most, to me it would mean more than half of the jurors, but that doesn't seem to be the case if AEG got 7 jurors affidavits. If AEG got 7 jurors, then they can say most of the jurors agree with the verdict
"claim lawyer misconduct for Jackson lawyers"
Didn't Jacksons claim misconduct from AEG side? Now AEG claim the same, should be interesting.
Thanks Ivy.
If Duke and the gang says most, to me it would mean more than half of the jurors, but that doesn't seem to be the case if AEG got 7 jurors affidavits. If AEG got 7 jurors, then they can say most of the jurors agree with the verdict
"claim lawyer misconduct for Jackson lawyers"
Didn't Jacksons claim misconduct from AEG side? Now AEG claim the same, should be interesting.
Re: KJ vs AEG Trial outcome : Appeal
Just because Duke and/or Jackson claims most jurors wanted to find AEG liable doesn't mean it's the truth. It's so easy to make any type of claims.
If Duke and the gang says most, to me it would mean more than half of the jurors, but that doesn't seem to be the case if AEG got 7 jurors affidavits. If AEG got 7 jurors, then they can say most of the jurors agree with the verdict
Just because Duke and/or Jackson claims most jurors wanted to find AEG liable doesn't mean it's the truth. It's so easy to make any type of claims.
Re: KJ vs AEG Trial outcome : Appeal
AEG to Katherine Jackson YOU LOST ... Move On With Your Life!
12/26/2013 10:33 AM PST BY TMZ STAFF
EXCLUSIVE
Katherine Jackson is not only WASTING HER TIME by appealing the AEG wrongful death case ... she's also making a mockery of the legal system ... so says AEG.
AEG just responded to Katherine's request for a new trial -- after Katherine argued that jurors were bamboozled because the jury instructions blocked them from being able hold AEG responsible for Conrad Murray's actions AFTER he was hired to take care of Michael Jackson.
Katherine had claimed that even if Murray was competent when AEG hired him, they should still be liable because he proved reckless and irresponsible during the months leading up to Jackson's death, and AEG did nothing to stop it.
But AEG claims Katherine is simply grasping at straws ... and her appeal is a pathetic last ditch effort from a desperate woman.
The entertainment giant also argues that the jury instructions were crystal clear and perfectly fair, taken directly from the California Civil Jury instruction guide book ... so too bad, so sad ... but that's the way the law works.
Ultimately, the judge will decide who's right on January 3rd ... when the case is due back in court.
Read more: http://www.tmz.com/2013/12/26/aeg-katherine-jackson-michael-jackson-wrongful-death/#ixzz2oc2kPXLb
AEG to Katherine Jackson YOU LOST ... Move On With Your Life!
12/26/2013 10:33 AM PST BY TMZ STAFF
EXCLUSIVE
Katherine Jackson is not only WASTING HER TIME by appealing the AEG wrongful death case ... she's also making a mockery of the legal system ... so says AEG.
AEG just responded to Katherine's request for a new trial -- after Katherine argued that jurors were bamboozled because the jury instructions blocked them from being able hold AEG responsible for Conrad Murray's actions AFTER he was hired to take care of Michael Jackson.
Katherine had claimed that even if Murray was competent when AEG hired him, they should still be liable because he proved reckless and irresponsible during the months leading up to Jackson's death, and AEG did nothing to stop it.
But AEG claims Katherine is simply grasping at straws ... and her appeal is a pathetic last ditch effort from a desperate woman.
The entertainment giant also argues that the jury instructions were crystal clear and perfectly fair, taken directly from the California Civil Jury instruction guide book ... so too bad, so sad ... but that's the way the law works.
Ultimately, the judge will decide who's right on January 3rd ... when the case is due back in court.
Read more: http://www.tmz.com/2013/12/26/aeg-katherine-jackson-michael-jackson-wrongful-death/#ixzz2oc2kPXLb
Re: KJ vs AEG Trial outcome : Appeal
AEG has filed their response to Katherine Jackson's motion for a new trial. Below will include the documents as well as a summary.
AEG's reply
AEG filed a 19 page reply with exhibits. Exhibits included 7 juror affidavits.
AEG reply document link : http://www.scribd.com/doc/193606436/AEG-New-Trial-Reply
(will insert it at the end of summary as well)
Summary as follows:
For Q2 AEG argues that it is taken from California jury instructions and it's a question that Jacksons requested and never tried to modify it or claimed it can cause confusion. AEG lists that Jacksons included and asked for Q2 at March 14, April 12, September 10, September 11 and September 12 motions or hearings. AEG also states that Jackson lawyers never asked to add "at any time" to Q2, they wanted to add it to Q3 (knew or should have known question).
Also AEG states that Q2 did not limit jurors to "date of hiring", it required them to consider "for the job which he was hired". Both parties expressed these points during their closing statements. Jackson lawyers mentioned it was at any time in both their closing and rebuttal. Panish said "at any time during his treatment" and during rebuttal he mentioned "it's not when they hired him only it's the entire time". Putnam never argued otherwise and he only focused on "for the job he was hired".
AEG says Jacksons never claimed Q1 could result in a confusion in Q2 and they also add that the jurors were instructed to consider every question separately. AEG also argues that in Jacksons always had "if you answered no stop" in all of their jury instructions.
AEG states that the jury verdict form is from CACI (Californoa Civil Jury Instructions) and it is according to the law.
AEG argues that the juror affidavits are inadmissible and that Jackson lawyers used improper and coercive tactics to get the jurors give those affidavits. AEG also files a separate motion to strike in regard to the jury affidavits. They state that the jury affidavits cannot be used about jury's subjective impressions about the deliberations. They state jury affidavits can only be used about a bias that is hid during jury selection process and coming to a verdict by chance. AEG also mentions that Jacksons got some affidavits in dishonest way. Finally AEG argues to reverse any judgment it should be shown that a different result would likely happen if that error wasn't present. So AEG argues it's not enough for Jacksons to show that if the wording was different the answer to Q2 would have been a yes, they need to show that every other question would be answered in their favor.
As for the negligence claim AEG argues the court heard and denied it twice and this is Jacksons third attempt to argue it. They are basically arguing that the court had the correct ruling and denied it twice and should deny it a third time.
AEG files 7 juror counter affidavits themselves. However as mentioned before they are asking the judge to strike any and all jury affidavits and only consider AEG jury affidavits if the judge will not strike Jackson jury affidavits. Basically they are asking the judge to throw all of them out but if she considers Jackson affidavits then consider AEG counter affidavits as well.
The 7 AEG jury counter affidavits link: http://www.scribd.com/doc/193605720/AEG-Jury-Affidavits
AEG Reply Embed
[scribd]193606436[/scribd]
AEG 7 Jury Affidavits Embed
[scribd]193605720[/scribd]
AEG has filed their response to Katherine Jackson's motion for a new trial. Below will include the documents as well as a summary.
AEG's reply
AEG filed a 19 page reply with exhibits. Exhibits included 7 juror affidavits.
AEG reply document link : http://www.scribd.com/doc/193606436/AEG-New-Trial-Reply
(will insert it at the end of summary as well)
Summary as follows:
For Q2 AEG argues that it is taken from California jury instructions and it's a question that Jacksons requested and never tried to modify it or claimed it can cause confusion. AEG lists that Jacksons included and asked for Q2 at March 14, April 12, September 10, September 11 and September 12 motions or hearings. AEG also states that Jackson lawyers never asked to add "at any time" to Q2, they wanted to add it to Q3 (knew or should have known question).
Also AEG states that Q2 did not limit jurors to "date of hiring", it required them to consider "for the job which he was hired". Both parties expressed these points during their closing statements. Jackson lawyers mentioned it was at any time in both their closing and rebuttal. Panish said "at any time during his treatment" and during rebuttal he mentioned "it's not when they hired him only it's the entire time". Putnam never argued otherwise and he only focused on "for the job he was hired".
AEG says Jacksons never claimed Q1 could result in a confusion in Q2 and they also add that the jurors were instructed to consider every question separately. AEG also argues that in Jacksons always had "if you answered no stop" in all of their jury instructions.
AEG states that the jury verdict form is from CACI (Californoa Civil Jury Instructions) and it is according to the law.
AEG argues that the juror affidavits are inadmissible and that Jackson lawyers used improper and coercive tactics to get the jurors give those affidavits. AEG also files a separate motion to strike in regard to the jury affidavits. They state that the jury affidavits cannot be used about jury's subjective impressions about the deliberations. They state jury affidavits can only be used about a bias that is hid during jury selection process and coming to a verdict by chance. AEG also mentions that Jacksons got some affidavits in dishonest way. Finally AEG argues to reverse any judgment it should be shown that a different result would likely happen if that error wasn't present. So AEG argues it's not enough for Jacksons to show that if the wording was different the answer to Q2 would have been a yes, they need to show that every other question would be answered in their favor.
As for the negligence claim AEG argues the court heard and denied it twice and this is Jacksons third attempt to argue it. They are basically arguing that the court had the correct ruling and denied it twice and should deny it a third time.
AEG files 7 juror counter affidavits themselves. However as mentioned before they are asking the judge to strike any and all jury affidavits and only consider AEG jury affidavits if the judge will not strike Jackson jury affidavits. Basically they are asking the judge to throw all of them out but if she considers Jackson affidavits then consider AEG counter affidavits as well.
The 7 AEG jury counter affidavits link: http://www.scribd.com/doc/193605720/AEG-Jury-Affidavits
AEG Reply Embed
[scribd]193606436[/scribd]
AEG 7 Jury Affidavits Embed
[scribd]193605720[/scribd]
Re: KJ vs AEG Trial outcome : Appeal
The summary judgment appeal Dismissal request by Jacksons
This was filed before the trial started.
Link : http://appellatecases.courtinfo.ca.gov/search/case/dockets.cfm?dist=2&doc_id=2044484&doc_no=B248420
Opening brief due : 12/09/2013
Opening brief wasn't filed on time.
12/13/2013 Appellant notified re failure to timely file opening brief.
December 18th Jacksons filed a request to dismiss this appeal.
12/18/2013 Request for dismissal filed. appellant's counsel
The summary judgment appeal Dismissal request by Jacksons
This was filed before the trial started.
Link : http://appellatecases.courtinfo.ca.gov/search/case/dockets.cfm?dist=2&doc_id=2044484&doc_no=B248420
Opening brief due : 12/09/2013
Opening brief wasn't filed on time.
12/13/2013 Appellant notified re failure to timely file opening brief.
December 18th Jacksons filed a request to dismiss this appeal.
12/18/2013 Request for dismissal filed. appellant's counsel
Re: KJ vs AEG Trial outcome : Appeal
According to the recent juror's affadavits, looks like Panish and Chang went way overboard with pressuring jurors to say they were not happy with the verdict--including suggesting there was an AEG "plant" on the jury and calling one juror's boss!!
According to the recent juror's affadavits, looks like Panish and Chang went way overboard with pressuring jurors to say they were not happy with the verdict--including suggesting there was an AEG "plant" on the jury and calling one juror's boss!!
Re: KJ vs AEG Trial outcome : Appeal
and that Jackson lawyers sent already prepared affidavits to sign to jurors.
I don't get why Chang would make such statement. Not everyone is big on conspiracy claims and such claims could sound crazy to some people. Also not everyone would react good to "there could be a plant and you could have been all brainwashed" claims..
and talking to a juror's boss.. that leaves me speechless.
and that Jackson lawyers sent already prepared affidavits to sign to jurors.
I don't get why Chang would make such statement. Not everyone is big on conspiracy claims and such claims could sound crazy to some people. Also not everyone would react good to "there could be a plant and you could have been all brainwashed" claims..
and talking to a juror's boss.. that leaves me speechless.
gerryevans
Premium Member
- Joined
- Jul 25, 2009
- Messages
- 1,761
- Points
- 63
Re: KJ vs AEG Trial outcome : Appeal
^^^Wow...I just read that! Panish talking to my boss would be harassment to me. It'd bother me so much that I don't know if I could EVER actually work again. I'd go see Wade Robson's therapist, then sue Katherine for all the trauma "her employee" caused me. I figure it'd be worth at least $10 billion dollars.
But all kidding aside, shouldn't Panish be sanctioned for something like that? I'd think a complaint should at least be made to the judge. Going to a juror's boss has to be crossing the line.
^^^Wow...I just read that! Panish talking to my boss would be harassment to me. It'd bother me so much that I don't know if I could EVER actually work again. I'd go see Wade Robson's therapist, then sue Katherine for all the trauma "her employee" caused me. I figure it'd be worth at least $10 billion dollars.
But all kidding aside, shouldn't Panish be sanctioned for something like that? I'd think a complaint should at least be made to the judge. Going to a juror's boss has to be crossing the line.
serendipity
Proud Member
- Joined
- Jul 25, 2011
- Messages
- 1,451
- Points
- 48
Re: KJ vs AEG Trial outcome : Appeal
I wonder if we're going to see an article from Alan Duke about that? lol
I wonder if we're going to see an article from Alan Duke about that? lol
Bubs
Proud Member
- Joined
- Jan 19, 2012
- Messages
- 7,856
- Points
- 0
Re: KJ vs AEG Trial outcome : Appeal
I haven't read the whole lot yet, but I have to comment on jurors affidavits.
Ivy, do you think judge will punish Chang and Panish somehow as to me their used some dirty tactics on jurors, such as telling to jurors when they were alone that other jurors were unhappy with verdict, trying to make them change their minds, calling one jurors supervisor, Chang saying to juror that she was having dreams, nightmares that there were AEG plant on the jury?
That AEG plant in jury is utterly ridiculous thing to say. How about the jurors who sided with Jacksons, one would ask are they Jackson plants on the jury :smilerolleyes:
"12/18/2013 Request for dismissal filed. appellant's counsel"
Whats that is about? Jacksons are not going to appeal?
I haven't read the whole lot yet, but I have to comment on jurors affidavits.
Ivy, do you think judge will punish Chang and Panish somehow as to me their used some dirty tactics on jurors, such as telling to jurors when they were alone that other jurors were unhappy with verdict, trying to make them change their minds, calling one jurors supervisor, Chang saying to juror that she was having dreams, nightmares that there were AEG plant on the jury?
That AEG plant in jury is utterly ridiculous thing to say. How about the jurors who sided with Jacksons, one would ask are they Jackson plants on the jury :smilerolleyes:
"12/18/2013 Request for dismissal filed. appellant's counsel"
Whats that is about? Jacksons are not going to appeal?
Re: KJ vs AEG Trial outcome : Appeal
Jacksons had multiple appeals going on. One about the summary judgment - which was filed before the trial started and a second one about dismissing Phillips and Gongaware. Now Jacksons are dropping the appeal about the summary judgment. I posted it as information but it's not major news IMO. As we know they are currently asking for a new trial, assuming the judge denies it , they would then file an appeal about the verdict. I believe that would be the main appeal they pursue.
Jacksons had multiple appeals going on. One about the summary judgment - which was filed before the trial started and a second one about dismissing Phillips and Gongaware. Now Jacksons are dropping the appeal about the summary judgment. I posted it as information but it's not major news IMO. As we know they are currently asking for a new trial, assuming the judge denies it , they would then file an appeal about the verdict. I believe that would be the main appeal they pursue.
passy001
Proud Member
- Joined
- Jul 25, 2011
- Messages
- 1,386
- Points
- 0
Re: KJ vs AEG Trial outcome : Appeal
I think you have a much better chance of going to the moon.
I think you have a much better chance of going to the moon.
barbee0715
Proud Member
Re: KJ vs AEG Trial outcome : Appeal
Come on, if they are not disbarred the least they need to be is sanctioned!!
I thought Panish and co. were embarrassing enough during the trial, but this just proves it with the affidavits they had jurors sign and now they're calling juror's bosses and telling them about "dreams" they had?
Come on, if they are not disbarred the least they need to be is sanctioned!!
Re: KJ vs AEG Trial outcome : Appeal
I am guessing that the 'AEG plant' idea came from some Jackson family advocates among the MJ fans b/c I have read such comments online--and guess who the AEG plant is supposed to be? None other than Juror 27.
I am guessing that the 'AEG plant' idea came from some Jackson family advocates among the MJ fans b/c I have read such comments online--and guess who the AEG plant is supposed to be? None other than Juror 27.
- Status