KJ vs AEG Trial outcome : Possible Appeal [closed]

[pug]

Re: KJ vs AEG Trial outcome : Appeal

No wonder Katherine tried the "Documentary Hustle", she is definitely having to come out of her own pocket for this shyster lawyering. This type of appeal is not pay if you win. It will be justice if the Estate refuses to loan her money or pay for this selfish endeavor.

 

[Bubs]

Re: KJ vs AEG Trial outcome : Appeal

I wonder if we're going to see an article from Alan Duke about that? lol

I'm curious to see his spin of these documents and how he is going to white-wash Chang and Panish's actions
If he cannot do that, there isn't going to be an article.

 

[Bubs]

Re: KJ vs AEG Trial outcome : Appeal

It is interesting that plaintiffs are appealing of the verdict because of the language on Q2, but by reading AEG documents, it appears that plaintiffs demanded Court to include Q2 exact language in the instructions and on the verdict form, and they have evidence and documents to back it up.

Another interesting thing is that those 7 jurors says that they would have said No to Q3
What was Question 3?
Perhaps plaintiffs should think further than get stuck on Q2, as if jurors had gotten as far as assign % of fault, MJ could have been near enough 100% and to me that would have been worse than anything else.

 

[elusive moonwalker]

Re: KJ vs AEG Trial outcome : Appeal

J.sons dont care about that. they have called mj every name under the sun in their quest to get money. allowed him to be dragged through a hedge backwards!.by any means neccessary is their mantra and having mj blamed for murrays actions would just by another means to an end with them.

i doubt anything will happen to the lawyers. we have seen time after time that lawyers/police etc get away with anything

 

[Bubs]

Re: KJ vs AEG Trial outcome : Appeal

Very short-sighted from their part.
Considering ramifications has never been their strongest part.

 

[jaydom7]

Re: KJ vs AEG Trial outcome : Appeal

This needs to stop. Katherine lost and she needs to move on.

 

[ivy]

Re: KJ vs AEG Trial outcome : Appeal

Jacksons have filed their reply to AEG's reply/ opposition. As the main points are same as their initial motion for a new trial, I'll just do brief updates.

- Kevin Boyle states that on September 11 he got an email from Deborah Chang about verdict questions and based on that during September 12 hearing he mentioned adding "at any time" to Q2 through Q5. He gave Q3 as an example. He accepted judge's ruling but did not abandon his argument, to the contrary he reserved it by making a record of it.

- Jacksons state that Panish and Putnam explaining Q2 isn't enough because court gave the jurors the direction that they should follow the law as she explains it.

- Jacksons state that they argued against Q1 (Did AEG hire Murray) and they claimed hiring is not necessary for supervision or retention claims.

- Jacksons main point in their reply is that Q2 did not allow the jurors to consider negligent retention or supervision or consider if Murray was unfit after he was hired / for the additional duties he was assigned.

- They mention that Murray's duties might have changed after his initial hiring and he might have assigned new tasks such as include being in charge of MJ's rehearsal schedule, make sure he got sleep (one footnote says :the provision of Propofol for inducing sleep in MJ), make sure that MJ got on stage and perform and "treating a deteriorating insomniac who was exhibiting debilitating and frightening symptoms".

- There's again mention of general negligence claim and how the judge was wrong in not allowing it.

- Jacksons argue that 4 juror affidavits they got shows the possibility of a hung jury and unless AEG can get 9 juror affidavits they cannot state that the outcome wouldn't be different regardless of Q2.

- Jacksons oppose to AEG's motion to strike juror affidavits stating they are "objectively ascertainable statements, conduct, conditions and events". Jacksons argue that the 4 juror affidavit they submitted among other things show that jurors only discussed hiring but not the conflict, did not discuss if Murray became unfit after hiring and they did not discuss supervision and retention theories.

- Jacksons state AEG showed no evidence that Jackson lawyers engaged in improper or coercive tactics to get the 4 juror declarations.

- Jacksons file their own motion to object parts of the 7 juror affidavits AEG submitted. They are objecting to the statements 4 of the 7 jurors made in their affidavits about Jackson lawyers (such as what Deborah Chang said to them, what Panish said to one jurors boss etc.) saying that they are hearsay and the statements lawyers made after the verdict is irrelevant to the new trial motion.

- Deborah Chang very briefly address the claims about her by saying she did not try to influence or pressure any juror. She attaches one of her notes of one jury interview after the verdict. Her only statement is that she drafted juror affidavits based on her notes about what the jurors said during the interviews after the verdict.

- Jacksons submit an affidavit by an investigator they hired in December to contact jurors and get the affidavits. She mentions she met with 4 jurors, read them the affidavits, 2 of them made changes and they signed the affidavits with no pressure and was unaware of the other juror affidavits.

- They mention they emailed another juror an affidavit drafted based on the notes of the interview they made. This juror calls them and says Deborah Chang might be mistaken and perhaps she mixed up what he said with another juror. Got them make changes to the affidavit and initially was willing to sign the changed version but the next day called saying he/she wouldn't sign the affidavit.

- Note: Chang's interview notes allegedly from this juror includes stuff like Q2 was too specific, that they looked to the contract and considered "general practitioner". Interestingly the notes also mention in the jury there were opposite views and 2 people made it clear they would vote in favor of Jacksons no matter what and 2 people who would vote against Jacksons. This juror also commented that if they could get pass Q3 , Q4 and Q5 would be easily answered in Jacksons favor.

- Panish submitted an affidavit saying that he met with one of the jurors boss in a social setting and he states in a joking manner he said the juror was against them. He says he never made any comment about the intelligence of the juror. Panish says he also asked the juror's boss if they compensated the juror for the whole time. Juror's boss told Panish that they never had an employee who was on jury duty for that long and the company agreed to compensate the juror the whole time.

And TMZ made a media request to cover (record/broadcast) the January 3rd hearing. It was denied.

Jacksons reply to AEG's opposition for a new trial

http://www.scribd.com/doc/194326285/Jacksons-Reply-to-AEGs-opposition

[scribd]194326285[/scribd]

 

[ivy]

Re: KJ vs AEG Trial outcome : Appeal

It is interesting that plaintiffs are appealing of the verdict because of the language on Q2, but by reading AEG documents, it appears that plaintiffs demanded Court to include Q2 exact language in the instructions and on the verdict form, and they have evidence and documents to back it up.

Jacksons issue seems to be Q2 combined with Q1 sounded like at the time of hire and the work for which he was hired. their argument is that the jurors did not consider if Murray became unfit after he was hired and/or if his duties have changed after he was hired.

I don't know. this is confusing. it is the standard jury instructions , logically it seems it should be hard to argue that these instruction which was used thousands of times before is problematic somehow. Why wouldn't they work this time around?

Perhaps it is Jacksons strategy that has backfired. They tried to argue anything and everything. For example they had witnesses that claimed Murray's debts made him unfit during his time of hiring, they argued his area of expertise made him unfit and so on. All of these pointed to "during/at the time of hiring". So perhaps from Jacksons perspective they should have went with the hiring wasn't negligent - that Murray was fit and competent for the general practitioner job he was hired - but that the supervision/ retention was negligent.

Another interesting thing is that those 7 jurors says that they would have said No to Q3
What was Question 3?

that AEG knew or should have known. We discussed it before Q2 and Q3 was main questions.

 

[jamba]

Re: KJ vs AEG Trial outcome : Appeal

If those 4 jurors had a problem with the verdict, the question form, or anything else about the deliberation process, why did they keep quiet about it--why didn't they inform the judge or why did they just sit there and voice their verdicts as if it was all ok with them when asked to do so in court? Why did they wait until contacted by the plaintiffs' lawyers? Why didn't they speak up at the time?

 

[LastTear]

Re: KJ vs AEG Trial outcome : Appeal

By the Plantiffs response I am getting that it isn't so much the wording of Q2 but the limitations of the jury not answering any further questions.

 

[serendipity]

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.

lol, I thought the Foreman was the "bad guy". But this is not surprising -- some people think anyone who agrees with the verdict or thinks this lawsuit was frivolous is an AEG or Estate plant. LOL

 

[passy001]

Re: KJ vs AEG Trial outcome : Appeal

- Kevin Boyle states that on September 11 he got an email from Deborah Chang about verdict questions and based on that during September 12 hearing he mentioned adding "at any time" to Q2 through Q5. He gave Q3 as an example. He accepted judge's ruling but did not abandon his argument, to the contrary he reserved it by making a record of it.

he mentioned to whom? Is there evidence of that? even so, does "at any time" even matter? what kevin boyle should be concerned about is "for the job he was hired". and interestingly he always avoids it.

- Jacksons main point in their reply is that Q2 did not allow the jurors to consider negligent retention or supervision or consider if Murray was unfit after he was hired / for the additional duties he was assigned.

isn't that the law? also, doesn't that show that may be the jury was not convinced by their argument?

- They mention that Murray's duties might have changed after his initial hiring and he might have assigned new tasks such as include being in charge of MJ's rehearsal schedule, make sure he got sleep (one footnote says :the provision of Propofol for inducing sleep in MJ), make sure that MJ got on stage and perform and "treating a deteriorating insomniac who was exhibiting debilitating and frightening symptoms".

Getting MJ to rehearsal falls under general care since he was the main physician of MJ assigned to handle all general medical care of MJ.
Propofol administration was definitely not part of the deal. AEG had no knowledge of that and the jacksons know that.

- There's again mention of general negligence claim and how the judge was wrong in not allowing it.

- Jacksons argue that 4 juror affidavits they got shows the possibility of a hung jury and unless AEG can get 9 juror affidavits they cannot state that the outcome wouldn't be different regardless of Q2.

what were the chances of a hung jury? even with all the evidence, was there ever a chance?

- Jacksons oppose to AEG's motion to strike juror affidavits stating they are "objectively ascertainable statements, conduct, conditions and events". Jacksons argue that the 4 juror affidavit they submitted among other things show that jurors only discussed hiring but not the conflict, did not discuss if Murray became unfit after hiring and they did not discuss supervision and retention theories.

Does "before/after" hiring even matter? it's a moot point really. Murray was unfit and incompetent for treating MJ for insomnia regardless of the timeline. however insomnia treatment was never the job Murray was hired for. the jacksons again trying to muddy the waters here.

- Jacksons file their own motion to object parts of the 7 juror affidavits AEG submitted. They are objecting to the statements 4 of the 7 jurors made in their affidavits about Jackson lawyers (such as what Deborah Chang said to them, what Panish said to one jurors boss etc.) saying that they are hearsay and the statements lawyers made after the verdict is irrelevant to the new trial motion.

on the contrary this shows misconduct on the part of the jacksons, harassing jurors and coercing them to make statements in their favors.

- Panish submitted an affidavit saying that he met with one of the jurors boss in a social setting and he states in a joking manner he said the juror was against them. He says he never made any comment about the intelligence of the juror. Panish says he also asked the juror's boss if they compensated the juror for the whole time. Juror's boss told Panish that they never had an employee who was on jury duty for that long and the company agreed to compensate the juror the whole time.

Looks like somebody is trying to cover his ass. really. and what is a "social setting"? ins't it amazing that Panish and the juror's boss just happened to bump into each other at a "social setting"? of all the chances out there.

And TMZ made a media request to cover (record/broadcast) the January 3rd hearing. It was denied.

wish TMZ could be shot dead already.

 

[ivy]

Re: KJ vs AEG Trial outcome : Appeal

he mentioned to whom? Is there evidence of that? even so, does "at any time" even matter? what kevin boyle should be concerned about is "for the job he was hired". and interestingly he always avoids it.

yes on September 12 there have been a mention of adding "at any time" to the verdict form. Specific questions are hard to pinpoint as we don't have access to all of the verdict form and which version they were talking about. Judge replied the standard wording did not limit it to the "time of hiring" and she mentioned her preference to standard instructions.

My belief is that judge was worried about if a special verdict form was used it could be challenged.

isn't that the law? also, doesn't that show that may be the jury was not convinced by their argument?

it depends on who is interpreting the law. Jacksons have argued that hiring isn't a requirement and for example an employee can supervise a contractors. AEG argued hiring is a necessary condition before any negligence for hiring, supervision and retention.

what were the chances of a hung jury? even with all the evidence, was there ever a chance?

right now it's a game of assumptions and probabilities. AEG argued that it's not enough to say that there's a mistake but plaintiffs are expected to show that without the error there would be a different outcome. Jacksons are using their 4 juror affidavits to argue that there would be 8 to 4 split which is technically a hung jury. Of course in reality the jurors might have answered no to Q3 and one or more jurors might have been convinced to vote otherwise so as I said it's all assumptions now.

 

[Petrarose]

Re: KJ vs AEG Trial outcome : Appeal

I see Chang engaged in some unethical behavior with that juror, in terms of that statement. Of course Panish's explanation is contrived. Lawyers do not go and ask juror bosses to pay them.

About this: "Jacksons main point in their reply is that Q2 did not allow the jurors to consider negligent retention or supervision or consider if Murray was unfit after he was hired / for the additional duties he was assigned"

Sometimes Panish arguments ignore that there was a contract that shows what Muarry was hired to do. How is AEG going to be held liable for the additional duties Michael gave Muarry that were not in the contract or not part of general medical care.

 

[passy001]

Re: KJ vs AEG Trial outcome : Appeal

Oops...

 

[passy001]

Re: KJ vs AEG Trial outcome : Appeal

I see Chang engaged in some unethical behavior with that juror, in terms of that statement. Of course Panish's explanation is contrived. Lawyers do not go and ask juror bosses to pay them.

About this: "Jacksons main point in their reply is that Q2 did not allow the jurors to consider negligent retention or supervision or consider if Murray was unfit after he was hired / for the additional duties he was assigned"

Sometimes Panish arguments ignore that there was a contract that shows what Muarry was hired to do. How is AEG going to be held liable for the additional duties Michael gave Muarry that were not in the contract or not part of general medical care.

More importantly how was AEG supposed to know what MJ was directing him to do? The jacksons act as if AEG had this magic ability to figure out what Murray was doing to MJ in the private comfort of his home.

 

[jamba]

Re: KJ vs AEG Trial outcome : Appeal

Perhaps it is Jacksons strategy that has backfired. They tried to argue anything and everything. For example they had witnesses that claimed Murray's debts made him unfit during his time of hiring, they argued his area of expertise made him unfit and so on. All of these pointed to "during/at the time of hiring". So perhaps from Jacksons perspective they should have went with the hiring wasn't negligent - that Murray was fit and competent for the general practitioner job he was hired - but that the supervision/ retention was negligent.

I agree with this--it was their own lack of a focused case that made their argument such a multi-layered mess, i.e. they lacked a coherent strategy from Day One and are now scrambling to 'make it right.'

edit: But as long as the jury form said if you answer no to Q2 stop and go no further, they had to argue that the hiring in itself was negligent (Murray had debts, background not properly investigated, etc).

Chang telling a juror she had nightmares that there was an AEG plant on the jury shows extreme desperation or maybe she was fishing for info.

The judge also bears some responsibility, as was said before, for the lack of focus, as contrasted with Pastor, who refused to allow the defense to bring in a lot of red herrings.

 

[ivy]

Re: KJ vs AEG Trial outcome : Appeal

Of course Panish's explanation is contrived. Lawyers do not go and ask juror bosses to pay them.

I'm pretty sure Panish's interaction with the juror boss happened after the verdict - given that both the juror and Panish agree that his comment was about juror being against them/losing the case. His version goes like he ran into jurors boss at a social setting, joked about juror being against them, asked the boss if they paid the juror for the whole trial period. the boss replied as long jury duty was the first time ever they experienced and they paid the juror. Juror's version is different and claim he insulted his/her intelligence and blamed his/her boss for the full compensation.

the full compensation part and why Panish even asked it doesn't make sense. Most employments only pay for a certain amount of days of jury service and then the employee gets less or no money. A juror who was being fully compensated would work better for Panish as they could sit through months of trial and deliberations with no financial consequences. They wouldn't have any incentive to rush through a verdict. If anything you would expect that to be a desirable thing. I don't see the relation between having full compensation through employer and being against Jacksons.

Sometimes Panish arguments ignore that there was a contract that shows what Muarry was hired to do. How is AEG going to be held liable for the additional duties Michael gave Muarry that were not in the contract or not part of general medical care.

I think the additional duties - if you consider them to be additional- was to help with Michael's nutrition and arrange his rehearsal schedule. Some might argue those were also general medical care. It is also established and law of the case that AEG never controlled Murray's means and methods of providing services and that's why he is considered an independent contractors. In other words AEG might have said to him "make sure he attends rehearsals" and that might or might not be an additional duty but they never said to Murray "give him a bunch of benzos, then hook him up to a propofol IV and leave him alone to chat with strippers". To me that's why supervision claim doesn't make much sense. an independent contractor is defined as someone who doesn't need supervision. Retention makes sense to an extent but not really supervision. I mean for example think like you hired a plumber and you say to them "I want this faucet replaced" but you don't control or supervise them when they are doing their job. You might "fire" them if they don't do a satisfactory job. so for retention I can see a point of asking "why not fire Murray if Michael was deteriorating?" but then the question becomes could AEG know that his deterioration was due to Murray. It seems like they suspected Klein and not Murray and the good rehearsal days June 23rd/June 24th made them think he was okay or getting better.

 

[Bubs]

- Jacksons state AEG showed no evidence that Jackson lawyers engaged in improper or coercive tactics to get the 4 juror declarations.

I think it is quite clear that they did.

- Jacksons submit an affidavit by an investigator they hired in December to contact jurors and get the affidavits. She mentions she met with 4 jurors, read them the affidavits, 2 of them made changes and they signed the affidavits with no pressure and was unaware of the other juror affidavits.

Isn't that improper tactics or is it normal in US? To Hire private investigator after jurors?

- Note: Chang's interview notes allegedly from this juror includes stuff like Q2 was too specific, that they looked to the contract and considered "general practitioner". Interestingly the notes also mention in the jury there were opposite views and 2 people made it clear they would vote in favor of Jacksons no matter what and 2 people who would vote against Jacksons. This juror also commented that if they could get pass Q3 , Q4 and Q5 would be easily answered in Jacksons favor.

This juror must have been one of who would have voted for plaintiffs favour, no matter what. Scary stuff:bugeyed
I wouldn't like to be on trial in US if jurors vote for favour of something, no matter what, and no matter what evidence is shown. Chang's notes must be written when she was dreaming or have a nightmare?

- Panish submitted an affidavit saying that he met with one of the jurors boss in a social setting

Very believable, not.I think that private investigator told Panish where to find that boss, and he made a beeline to that social setting. How believable it is that out of all people in California and social settings, attorney meets juror's (who vote against his case) boss in that setting? I say next to slim, miracles can happen, but in this case I don't believe it.

Perhaps it is Jacksons strategy that has backfired. They tried to argue anything and everything. For example they had witnesses that claimed Murray's debts made him unfit during his time of hiring, they argued his area of expertise made him unfit and so on. All of these pointed to "during/at the time of hiring". So perhaps from Jacksons perspective they should have went with the hiring wasn't negligent - that Murray was fit and competent for the general practitioner job he was hired - but that the supervision/ retention was negligent.

I don't get that negligent supervision. If you are just a normal everyday Joe with no experience of medical issues, how do you supervise a doctor? In order to supervise a doctor, you yourself have to be a doctor.

Plaintiffs didn't prove or show any evidence that AEG was aware of CM's nightly treatment to MJ, nor did they showed evidence that AEG knew it was CM that caused MJ's declining health.

You posted a few articles on page 15, and in one of them was written:
"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."

I agree with the person who wrote that bit.

 

[LastTear]

Re: KJ vs AEG Trial outcome : Appeal

Bubs

- Note: Chang's interview notes allegedly from this juror includes stuff like Q2 was too specific, that they looked to the contract and considered "general practitioner". Interestingly the notes also mention in the jury there were opposite views and 2 people made it clear they would vote in favor of Jacksons no matter what and 2 people who would vote against Jacksons. This juror also commented that if they could get pass Q3 , Q4 and Q5 would be easily answered in Jacksons favor

Lol just keep asking questions until they get the answer they want, then straight onto 'how much'

This juror must have been one of who would have voted for plaintiffs favour, no matter what. Scary stuff
I wouldn't like to be on trial in US if jurors vote for favour of something, no matter what, and no matter what evidence is shown. Chang's notes must be written when she was dreaming or have a nightmare?

Just as well jurors on Michaels trial weren't of that biased mindset.

i agree with you, I think there has been some very underhand goings on, but Panish will talk and slither his way out of it.

 

[ivy]

Re: KJ vs AEG Trial outcome : Appeal

- Jacksons state AEG showed no evidence that Jackson lawyers engaged in improper or coercive tactics to get the 4 juror declarations.

I think it is quite clear that they did.

I think their argument is that it's hearsay and whatever they said after the verdict is irrelevant. Evidence as far as the law is concerned is different than what we consider to be evidence.

Isn't that improper tactics or is it normal in US? To Hire private investigator after jurors?

It could be an issue of manpower. Panish& Boyle always claimed they were a small law firm. It sounds like Chang drafted the affidavits and then they got this person to contact and meet with the jurors to make changes and get signatures.

I wouldn't like to be on trial in US if jurors vote for favour of something, no matter what, and no matter what evidence is shown.

I think it is normal for anyone to form an opinion while they listen to the testimony however jurors are expected to follow the law. For example during high profile murder cases (such as OJ or Zimmerman) there were jurors who believed they were guilty but had to vote not guilty as they followed the law & reasonable doubt. This is just the impression of one juror, it's hard to guess what they would do in real life. They could had strong opinions but be able to put them aside and follow the law even though they disagree. I mean look to what is going on now. We have at least 2 jurors who voted "no" to Q2 but complaining about their vote.

I don't get that negligent supervision. If you are just a normal everyday Joe with no experience of medical issues, how do you supervise a doctor? In order to supervise a doctor, you yourself have to be a doctor.

It's not just limited to doctors , it would apply to any independent contractor. I mean for example I personally hired landscapers, tree specialists, plumbers, maintenance people etc. and I had no knowledge or ability to supervise them. The most you can do is to say "cut this tree" but no one is able to tell them how to cut the tree.

Plaintiffs didn't prove or show any evidence that AEG was aware of CM's nightly treatment to MJ, nor did they showed evidence that AEG knew it was CM that caused MJ's declining health.

yes that I agree.

I agree with the person who wrote that bit.

That was from Law360 and that was a lawyer I believe.

I keep remembering workers compensation situation. For anyone outside US, workers compensation is the system for when you are injured at work.

This is a real example: One of my friends had hurt their back while lifting stuff at work, immediately a report was filled and a workers compensation claim was done. My friend was given a choice between two doctors who were preselected and paid by the company&worker compensation insurance firm. the doctor does the evaluation and decides the level of injury, off days and any work modification. everything between doctor & patient remains private and the company & insurance just gets the basic report. This is a three way relationship with everyone having a different interests (such as the worker expecting the company/insurance pay for their treatment, insurance doesn't want to pay, company would prefer not to pay and have the worker back at work). Although that three way relationship everyone is expecting the doctor to be ethical and do the right decision.

To me Jacksons arguments were conflicting at times. At one point they argued AEG did a mistake by getting involved in hiring of Murray but then on the other hand they argue that they didn't supervise. So it is like simultaneously saying "why did you get involved?" and saying "why didn't you get involved more?".

More and more I think Jackson lawyers strategy backfired. It was anything and everything thrown and got confusing. They put a HR specialist that argued Murray was incompetent even before he was hired due to his debts. they argued just because he was a cardiologist made him incompetent because that wasn't what Michael neded. So they focused on before hiring/at the time of hire but now it's suddenly he becomes incompetent because he was given the additional duty of getting MJ to rehearsals. They are all over the place.

 

[elusive moonwalker]

Re: KJ vs AEG Trial outcome : Appeal

Looks like somebody is trying to cover his ass. really. and what is a "social setting"? ins't it amazing that Panish and the juror's boss just happened to bump into each other at a "social setting"? of all the chances out therE

------------+---

like when sneddon claimed he bumped into janet by accident at the supermarket and had all the compo forms with him

 

[Petrarose]

Re: KJ vs AEG Trial outcome : Appeal

I am really interested in how the judge will rule about the jurors declarations. Is she going to determining if their opinions are based more on personal feelings and discomfort? In one part of Panish's response he mentions how the jury did not discuss conflict of interest, etc., but my question is should a lawyer determine what a jury should discuss and when in relation to a specific question? What if a jury determines that an issue does not relate to question 2, can Panish say they did not discuss it so there needs to be a retrial. Certainly conflict of interest does not relate to whether Muarry was qualified for the job he was hired to do.

Ivy question: I thought "...hiring, retention and supervision.." was the whole code/label which relates to the allegation, meaning that hiring falls under the "hiring, retention and supervision" label, so that one was picked. Is this the case or am I still confused?

 

[krikzil]

Re: KJ vs AEG Trial outcome : Appeal

Looks like somebody is trying to cover his ass. really. and what is a "social setting"? ins't it amazing that Panish and the juror's boss just happened to bump into each other at a "social setting"? of all the chances out therE

------------+---

like when sneddon claimed he bumped into janet by accident at the supermarket and had all the compo forms with him

People who work in the judicial system be it the County or the larger law firms are provided unlimited jury duty pay so it might be possible he and the boss traveled in the same circles. However, I don't remember a juror fitting that bill -- off memory (so may be incorrect) there was a banker, ATT employee, software engineer, teachers, DWP worker, nurse, clinical research assistant.... What else?

Very irregular, even if the meet-up was innocent, to engage in a discussion about a juror with his boss knowing a Motion for new trial was pending, especially when it involves the jury itself. And Chang's behavior is very inappropriate to me. Image if the situation was reversed!

 

[ivy]

And Chang's behavior is very inappropriate to me.

You might heard of "buyer's remorse" that how sometimes people might regret a purchase decision they made. A similar remorse/regret is possible with the jurors. They do an important job which involves determining guilt, negligence and most jurors would want to make the correct decision and might question if they came to the right decision. The statements she made could have caused the jurors go like "wait what if I made a mistake"? We know the vote as 10-2 so affidavits from the 2 jurors is understandable as they voted yes. But we have 2 jurors who voted "no" but now complaining about their vote. Could the statements they heard from lawyers cause regret with their decisions? Who knows..

Ivy question: I thought "...hiring, retention and supervision.." was the whole code/label which relates to the allegation, meaning that hiring falls under the "hiring, retention and supervision" label, so that one was picked. Is this the case or am I still confused?

CACI lists them all together. See below

426. Negligent Hiring, Supervision, or Retention of Employee
[Name of plaintiff] claims that [he/she] was harmed by [name of employee] and that [name of employer defendant] is responsible for that harm because [name of employer defendant] negligently [hired/ supervised/ [or] retained] [name of employee]. To establish this claim, [name of plaintiff] must prove all of the following:
1. That [name of employee] was [unfit/ [or] incompetent] to perform the work for which [he/she] was hired;
2. That [name of employer defendant] knew or should have known that [name of employee] was [unfit/ [or] incompetent] and that this [unfitness/ [or] incompetence] created a particular risk to others;
3. That [name of employee]’s [unfitness/ [or] incompetence] harmed [name of plaintiff]; and
4. That [name of employer defendant]’s negligence in [hiring/ supervising/ [or] retaining] [name of employee] was a substantial factor in causing [name of plaintiff]’s harm.

apparently BAJI separates them into three things.

At September hearing Boyle mentions adding "at any time", Bina says if it could confuse the jurors think of a time period after MJ's death and the judge says the wording isn't limiting the time period.

I agree with the judge that the wording on CACI isn't limiting the time period to the "time of hiring". That's probably why Jacksons now argue that Q1 before Q2 caused confusion. To me "perform the work for which [he/she] was hired" is what is working against Jacksons. If you remember I had posted several examples of negligent hiring cases lost based on the event not having direct relationship with the jobs they hired for.

Contract says that Murray was hired as a general practitioner and it's hard to argue that he was incompetent in that regard or that there were any obvious red flags. All of these additional duties he was assigned and he was incompetent for those argument almost seems like a new theory by Jacksons. I mean for example look to "treating a deteriorating insomniac" - was that a duty AEG assigned Murray? Did AEG even know the insomnia? and "making sure MJ got enough sleep to counter KO's growing concerns" was sleep even mentioned in any of the meetings? I would agree that Murray wasn't the best choice of treating insomnia but I don't think it was a duty assigned to him by AEG.

 

[krikzil]

Re: KJ vs AEG Trial outcome : Appeal

You might heard of "buyer's remorse" that how sometimes people might regret a purchase decision they made. A similar remorse/regret is possible with the jurors. They do an important job which involves determining guilt, negligence and most jurors would want to make the correct decision and might question if they came to the right decision. The statements she made could have caused the jurors go like "wait what if I made a mistake"? We know the vote as 10-2 so affidavits from the 2 jurors is understandable as they voted yes. But we have 2 jurors who voted "no" but now complaining about their vote. Could the statements they heard from lawyers cause regret with their decisions? Who knows..

We see it in criminal cases all the time. I do think that's what happened with these jurors and that Chang's actions indicate a deliberate intent on her part to play on their emotions and accomplish exactly that.

 

[Bubs]

Re: KJ vs AEG Trial outcome : Appeal

Bubs

Lol just keep asking questions until they get the answer they want, then straight onto 'how much'



Just as well jurors on Michaels trial weren't of that biased mindset.

i agree with you, I think there has been some very underhand goings on, but Panish will talk and slither his way out of it.

If (according to plaintiff) the question was too hard to understand or complicated, they should have put just one question, such as: Do you think KJ and her cubs should be awarded and if yes, how much. That is simple enough to everyone

I think it is normal for anyone to form an opinion while they listen to the testimony however jurors are expected to follow the law. For example during high profile murder cases (such as OJ or Zimmerman) there were jurors who believed they were guilty but had to vote not guilty as they followed the law & reasonable doubt. This is just the impression of one juror, it's hard to guess what they would do in real life. They could had strong opinions but be able to put them aside and follow the law even though they disagree. I mean look to what is going on now. We have at least 2 jurors who voted "no" to Q2 but complaining about their vote.

I get that you form your opinion during the trial, but this person said "no matter what" is the part that scares me. If you are in jury, you have to be able to follow the law "no matter what".


What is the plan now? They ask new trial, and if judge denies it, then they appeal all sort of things that comes up to Panish head, or what Chang dreams of?

 

[Bubs]

Re: KJ vs AEG Trial outcome : Appeal

I'm getting more confused after reading Jackson's reply to AEG

- Jacksons state that they argued against Q1 (Did AEG hire Murray) and they claimed hiring is not necessary for supervision or retention claims.

Maybe I have a thick skull but hiring should be necessary for supervision claim? How do you accuse someone lack of supervising if there is no question of hiring? Scratching my head?


- Jacksons main point in their reply is that Q2 did not allow the jurors to consider negligent retention or supervision or consider if Murray was unfit after he was hired / for the additional duties he was assigned.

Is he suggesting that once CM was given additional duties (getting MJ to rehearsals) it was only then when pressure of his depths started kicking in and he started filling in MJ with propofol?

- They mention that Murray's duties might have changed after his initial hiring and he might have assigned new tasks such as include being in charge of MJ's rehearsal schedule, make sure he got sleep (one footnote says :the provision of Propofol for inducing sleep in MJ), make sure that MJ got on stage and perform and "treating a deteriorating insomniac who was exhibiting debilitating and frightening symptoms".

Again, are they saying CM only started giving propofol when he was assigned new tasks?
Judge allowed plaintiffs to use part of CM's LAPD testimony for their case (and denied AEG doing to same!) in which he said he was giving propofol 6 weeks, so new tasks didn't change his duties. His duties (agreed by MJ and CM only) were all along to give propofol to MJ and watch him.

 

[ivy]

Re: KJ vs AEG Trial outcome : Appeal

What is the plan now? They ask new trial, and if judge denies it, then they appeal all sort of things that comes up to Panish head, or what Chang dreams of?

If they lose this request they would definitely appeal and it would be the main appeal which will consist of the same points we are seeing right now.

I'm getting more confused after reading Jackson's reply to AEG

- Jacksons state that they argued against Q1 (Did AEG hire Murray) and they claimed hiring is not necessary for supervision or retention claims.

Maybe I have a thick skull but hiring should be necessary for supervision claim? How do you accuse someone lack of supervising if there is no question of hiring? Scratching my head?

This is something both sides argued before. AEG claims that without hiring supervision is not possible. Jacksons gave example of such as a general contractor could supervise or retain other independent contractor or the producer (such as AEG) by contract could agree to take over the supervision of the employees, contractors of it agent.

I understand their initial example as like this : Imagine you are building a house and you hire a contractor for construction and also hire a plumber, electrician and landscaper. You then say to the contractor who is doing the construction they supervise and retain or fire the other contractors (plumber, electrician, landscaper). So supervision duty is transferred to a party who did not do the hiring.

I'm thinking this argument is based on MJ- AEG contract in which it says AEG will handle hiring and so on and it is probably brought up to ague that even if the jurors found MJ hired Murray, AEG could still be in a position to supervise him.

But I don't get how this applies to Murray. Perhaps we need to check the definition of supervision. I don't think anyone supervised Murray.

Is he suggesting that once CM was given additional duties (getting MJ to rehearsals) it was only then when pressure of his depths started kicking in and he started filling in MJ with propofol?

they are suggesting that Murray could have been competent and fit for the general practitioner role - for what he was hired but then he could have been given additional duties for which he was unfit and not competent.

 

[ivy]

Re: KJ vs AEG Trial outcome : Appeal

Here's the Jackson's Reply to AEG's opposition for a new trial.

To the people who read and/or use this on their blogs, we don't expect you to love us but perhaps you can tone down the accusations/insults a little bit. At the end of the day despite of how you might feel about us, you are getting this information because of our time/effort/money and generosity. A little common courtesy wouldn't hurt you.

Document Link: http://www.scribd.com/doc/194326285/Jacksons-Reply-to-AEGs-opposition

[scribd]194326285[/scribd]