KJ vs AEG Trial outcome : Possible Appeal [closed]

[Petrarose]

Re: KJ vs AEG Trial outcome : Appeal

^^Funny. Well that one is pretty simple for me to do, at least^^, but how about some visual that shows the mental mayhem. Or is there a visual that did not show up?

 

[krikzil]

Re: KJ vs AEG Trial outcome : Appeal

I've gotta admit that I've been puzzled at the whole time frame debate. Conrad Murray was qualified for what AEG hired him for -- as a GP -- the entire time. But I do wish the jury form had allowed ALL 5 questions to be answered first before moving on or stopping. The answers to #3-5 would I believe have prevented much of this storm out there. (Well, except for the conspiracists I see already gathering steam that the fix was in from the start.)

 

[Petrarose]

Re: KJ vs AEG Trial outcome : Appeal

Krikzil why would they have to answer all the questions if after Question 2 none of the other answers would be valid. It would be like doing 10 extra math problems on a test when you are only credited with the original 1st 10. Your extra work receives no merit. The forms are sent up in steps to be logical, relate to the allegation, & avoid this wasting of time. Once you determine the company could not have known and Muarry was fit for the job he was hired to do, why would you decide on how much accountability to give to AEG, Michael, Muarry for example. That would be just wasting time when you could go home and be with your family and prepare for your real job that you left for 5 months.

 

[krikzil]

Re: KJ vs AEG Trial outcome : Appeal

Krikzil why would they have to answer all the questions if after Question 2 none of the other answers would be valid. It would be like doing 10 extra math problems on a test when you are only credited with the original 1st 10. Your extra work receives no merit. The forms are sent up in steps to be logical, relate to the allegation, & avoid this wasting of time. Once you determine the company could not have known and Muarry was fit for the job he was hired to do, why would you decide on how much accountability to give to AEG, Michael, Muarry for example. That would be just wasting time when you could go home and be with your family and prepare for your real job that you left for 5 months.

While it's true I'm more familiar with criminal verdict forms, I am cognizant of how all elements needed an affirmative vote here and wasn't suggesting figuring damages where there's no liability. It was an echo of Ivy's "alternate" scenario (post #320):

alternatively they could have divided the verdict form into two parts - first give questions about hiring & negligence and second part about determining damages. After the first 5 questions about hiring and negligence elements they could have added an instruction that said "if you answered any of the above questions no, stop. If you answered all yes, go on to determine damages".

Technically the outcome wouldn't be different among jury answering 5 questions and stopping or stopping after Q1,Q2,Q3,Q4 or Q5 (whenever they answered no). It would just force them to deliberate more and decide on all elements of negligent hiring/retention/supervision.

Plaintiffs and critics are operating as if it's only #2 that's the stumbling block but I think that's unrealistic. Hence, it would have been useful -- hypothetically - if they'd answered all 5 questions as I do believe we'd have seen several more "no" votes.

 

[Petrarose]

Re: KJ vs AEG Trial outcome : Appeal

^But you get the same results, i.e., discussing questions which answers have no merit. You have already passed the question which is the key with a majority NO, so what are you there still talking about? Just go home already, since jury days cost the state money. There is a job to do, and one does it and leave.

You say you will get several NO votes, but getting NO to the others is not relevant since you already got a NO for the Key Question where you had to stop anyway.

Should the foreman say OK guys we found that AEG hired muarry and Muarry was fit for what he was hired to do. We are supposed to stop here, but just to get a lot of NO's let's answer all the questions on this form.

 

[jamba]

Re: KJ vs AEG Trial outcome : Appeal

Good point, krikzil, that CM was fit and competent all the way through to the end in the sense that he had all the credentials necessary for being a GP. (Until his licenses were revoked, that is, which was only after MJ's death.) I guess I was falling into the 'hindsight' trap that since we NOW know his medical treatment was incompetent, AEG should also have known.

I do now see that dividing up the 2 parts was another way to handle it, but I agree with Petra that the jury was just following their instruction--stop here and go no further when you answer with a no vote, which is what they did when they got 10 no-2 yes on Q2. If the jury had gone on, they would not be following instructions and that might have led to a request for a new trial.

 

[Ramona122003]

Re: KJ vs AEG Trial outcome : Appeal

We have to remember, this was not a criminal case, this was a civil case. No one was going to go to jail. If someone was found liable, AEG would have just lost money. It isn't like Randy and other people dragged into this case was facing prison. So, there is no real lost by the jury not answering all the questions. It is only important to us fans because we don't like the idea of Murray being considered competent, even if we only know now with hindsight.

As was pointed out, there was little point of the jury answering all questions once they decided no on answer two. I would be nice for the fans, but it wouldn't change the outcome.

 

[krikzil]

Re: KJ vs AEG Trial outcome : Appeal

Good point, krikzil, that CM was fit and competent all the way through to the end in the sense that he had all the credentials necessary for being a GP. (Until his licenses were revoked, that is, which was only after MJ's death.) I guess I was falling into the 'hindsight' trap that since we NOW know his medical treatment was incompetent, AEG should also have known.

I do now see that dividing up the 2 parts was another way to handle it, but I agree with Petra that the jury was just following their instruction--stop here and go no further when you answer with a no vote, which is what they did when they got 10 no-2 yes on Q2. If the jury had gone on, they would not be following instructions and that might have led to a request for a new trial.

I think it's very easy to do that and believed there was a good chance that the question might be answered in such a manner by a jury actually. Even so, I just never believed there could be any other answer than "no" to #3 given the evidence, well lack thereof, so I wasn't too concerned if they had.

As to my post about a differently constructed verdict form, I'm imagining an alternate reality with different instructions in 2 sections. Not because there'd be any different verdict (or a desire to waste anyone's time) but simply my musing that I believe much of the raging debate we are seeing in fandom would have been forestalled. (Might be magical thinking on my part LOL given our fandom!!) The verdict might be better understood as a matter of law. It seems to me that because it's not understood, many think there would have been a different outcome had that one question not been part of it.

 

[ivy]

Re: KJ vs AEG Trial outcome : Appeal

Maybe by this week the final ruling will be out? She has up to the 13th, but it is ready.

Ivy maybe you should leave the tentative one and just get the final ruling--unless you want to compare both documents and see what is different?

I'll check the court system everyday and hopefully she'll finalize it soon. Media might get it before me - if they are following and interested in her ruling. We will only see the final order. Tentative is only sent to the lawyers. If she adopts tentative as final we will know that she did not make changes to her initial ruling.

^^Funny. Well that one is pretty simple for me to do, at least^^, but how about some visual that shows the mental mayhem. Or is there a visual that did not show up?

yeah it was a smiley that did not show properly. sorry about that

I've gotta admit that I've been puzzled at the whole time frame debate. Conrad Murray was qualified for what AEG hired him for -- as a GP -- the entire time. But I do wish the jury form had allowed ALL 5 questions to be answered first before moving on or stopping. The answers to #3-5 would I believe have prevented much of this storm out there. (Well, except for the conspiracists I see already gathering steam that the fix was in from the start.)

Krikzil why would they have to answer all the questions if after Question 2 none of the other answers would be valid. It would be like doing 10 extra math problems on a test when you are only credited with the original 1st 10. Your extra work receives no merit. The forms are sent up in steps to be logical, relate to the allegation, & avoid this wasting of time. Once you determine the company could not have known and Muarry was fit for the job he was hired to do, why would you decide on how much accountability to give to AEG, Michael, Muarry for example. That would be just wasting time when you could go home and be with your family and prepare for your real job that you left for 5 months.

As was pointed out, there was little point of the jury answering all questions once they decided no on answer two. I would be nice for the fans, but it wouldn't change the outcome.

I think it's very easy to do that and believed there was a good chance that the question might be answered in such a manner by a jury actually. Even so, I just never believed there could be any other answer than "no" to #3 given the evidence, well lack thereof, so I wasn't too concerned if they had.

As to my post about a differently constructed verdict form, I'm imagining an alternate reality with different instructions. Not because there'd be any different verdict but simply my musing that I believe much of the raging debate we are seeing in fandom would have been forestalled. The verdict might be better understood as a matter of law. It seems to me many think there would have been a different outcome had that one question not been part of it.

You are all right. There wasn't much sense in asking the jurors to continue to deliberate if they answered one question no and in other words did not find required elements of negligent hiring/retention/supervision. It would waste their time. I believe that's why the verdict form was arranged as "if you answered no, stop" format. Jury did follow the instructions and the form given to them.

It's just that now Jackson lawyers are complaining and acting like if there wasn't Q2 and/or if it was worded differently they could have succeed. That's why I mentioned an alternative verdict form which divided the questions in two parts. That way they could see the answers to all elements of negligent hiring/retention/supervision and perhaps this motion and the accompanying discussion could have been avoided. Because I don't think answer to Q3 would be in Jacksons favor. If the jurors answered those questions too we could have had that info. Anyway it doesn't matter now.

 

[krikzil]

Re: KJ vs AEG Trial outcome : Appeal

I eagerly await the final order.

 

[Petrarose]

Re: KJ vs AEG Trial outcome : Appeal

I eagerly await the final order.

Me Too!!!! Bring it on Judge!! I hope Randy will not cry again like he cried after the jury verdict.

 

[smoothlugar]

This is what I wrote when the poll was started while the jury was deciding a verdict:
...
Question No. 2
Was Murray unfit or incompetent to perform the work for which he was hired?

The problem with these questions is there is no time frame--no "when."

Is the date June 25th, 2009? If so, then that frames the answers. If it was May 1st, 2009, that's another question. My question is WHEN did Murray become incompetent? ...


When was Murray incompetent? From Day One or on June 25th?... "

In a way, this is kind of what the plaintiffs are now arguing. BUT it seems that the question of when was addressed in closing arguments by Panish, who clearly told the jurors that the question of unfit or incompetent was for the entire period of the hiring or employment (if they decided that there was a hiring). So I think on that basis alone, that the judge allowed the plaintiffs to expressly instruct the jurors on the meaning of the questions and the timelines of the questions in the closing arguments, she wiould deny their request for a new trial.

I agree, the "when" was already addressed and explained by Panish in closing arguments. If later during deliberations, jurors stuck only to the initial decision of hiring Murray, it was their choice.

But in my opinion, the “when” is irrelevant. Generally speaking, Murray was a full incompetent THE MOMENT he ordered propofol and bought the cheapest and most unreliable equipment IN APRIL, even before AEG agreed to hire him.

At the time of our discussions here I took “incompetent and unfit” generally speaking and that’s why I wrote a “yes” to this question, but later I realised that I was taking Murray’s criminal negligence, general incompetence and unfitness for the real work he was doing, instead of taking LITERALLY what the question asks “unfit and incompetent to perform the work for which he was hired”.

By forcing the jury to stop deliberating afterthey concluded Murray’s capabilities were up to par when he was hired, the formnever allowed the jurors to consider AEG Live’s separate ongoing duties relating to supervision and retention, the Jackson attorneys’ court papersstate.

I don’t understand what “supervision” Panish refers to. According to Putnam’s closing arguments, doctors as independent contractors in California are supervised by the Medical Board.

“After sitting through almost six months of the trial in this case, I believed that Mrs. Jackson had proven her case against AEG Live,” one juror said. “Despite this fact, I had no way of voting in favor of the plaintiffs because of the way that the verdict form was worded.”
But according to the AEG Live attorneys’ court papers, Katherine Jackson's attorneys did not argue during trial that question No. 2 was improper.

I can understand that juror and reminds me of my own feelings during the trial: on the one hand I considered AEG “morally” sort of responsible for not stopping, or taking more cautions, but “legally” and what was on trial was a different story...

They tried to add simple negligence based on the contract between MJ and AEG mid trial. It was like arguing AEG due to their contract with Michael had a duty to save him by postponing the tour and such.That way they would not need to prove Murray was unfit and incompetent and AEG knew or should have known. Court decided the only duty AEG had was towards the parties they hired hence negligent hiring, retention, supervision.

 

[ivy]

Re: KJ vs AEG Trial outcome : Appeal

01/07/2014 at 01:30 pm in Department 28, Yvette M. Palazuelos, Presiding
Ruling on Submitted Matter - Completed

01/03/2014 at 08:45 am in Department 28, Yvette M. Palazuelos, Presiding
Motion for New Trial - Submitted

Looks like Judge finalized her ruling. Not scanned in the court system yet though.

 

[Bubs]

I was looking info about Terry Harvey, who contributed on MJ autopsy program on channel 5. It was said that he was friend of MJ, but seemingly he was more friends with Tito and Joe Jackson.
I came across an article in NOTW (rotten in hell) from July 2009.
In the article Terry said this:
"Terry also revealed that as soon as the murder inquiry is announced the Jacksons intend to SUE AEG, the promoters behind *****’s planned London O2 comeback shows, for £30million for “wrongful death”."

Here is the whole article, please be aware of that reading the full article, it makes you to want to throw upuke:
http://rashmanly.com/2009/07/20/michael-jacksons-death-to-lead-to-murder-charges-within-days/

I find it extremely alarming that only a month after Michael died, Jackson's have spoken who to sue for wrongful death, and AEG was target all along. It is just huge disgrace who much effort they put on in order to get money from AEG, but CM was practically left alone.

 

[Petrarose]

Re: KJ vs AEG Trial outcome : Appeal

I am excited about the ruling. I wonder how many pages in total.

Bubs as we know the aim was to get money from AEG all along and the way in which Panish is going after every option available shows that.

 

[Bubs]

Re: KJ vs AEG Trial outcome : Appeal

Bubs as we know the aim was to get money from AEG all along and the way in which Panish is going after every option available shows that.

You would think that all issues they had going on in July 2009, they would have their hands full with more pressing issues, such as memorial and funeral, PPB, criminal investigation, etc, but yet they found time to think how and when to sue AEG? I find it interesting that they found "guilty" party so soon, or maybe they were directing their anger towards AEG because they got Michael to do 02, and their deal with Allgood fell flat and they ended up as usual?

 

[jaydom7]

Re: KJ vs AEG Trial outcome : Appeal

AEG and big money was the Jackson's target from the beginning.They left Conrad Murray alone and always called him 'the fall guy':black_eye: whatever that means.. Not a month after Murray killed MJ, the family was looking to sue AEG. That is why from the beginning they always said there are others involved

 

[Bubs]

Re: KJ vs AEG Trial outcome : Appeal

I guess if judge rules against new trial, the only way "family" can proceed it appeals?
They cannot file another wrongful death suit or medical malpractice suit against CM or anyone else, so this is it for them.

 

[jaydom7]

Re: KJ vs AEG Trial outcome : Appeal

I guess if judge rules against new trial, the only way "family" can proceed it appeals?
They cannot file another wrongful death suit or medical malpractice suit against CM or anyone else, so this is it for them.

yep! a grave mistake by Katherine in not suing Murray. That was a terrible decision.

 

[ivy]

Re: KJ vs AEG Trial outcome : Appeal

I guess if judge rules against new trial, the only way "family" can proceed it appeals?
They cannot file another wrongful death suit or medical malpractice suit against CM or anyone else, so this is it for them.

As far as I know statue of limitations is 2 years for a wrongful death lawsuit. So for Katherine it is over. I'm not sure about the minor kids and if they got a chance when they turn 18. That requires legal expertise that I don't have.

California Code of Civil Procedure Section 335.1: Within two years: An action for assault, battery, or injury to, or for the death of, an individual caused by the wrongful act or neglect of another.

 

[Bubs]

Re: KJ vs AEG Trial outcome : Appeal

Is it even possible to file wrongful death suit and after that case is lost, file another one against someone else if time is within statute of limitations?

 

[Annita]

Re: KJ vs AEG Trial outcome : Appeal

Margaret Carrero ?@MargaretCarrero 37m

Judge finalizes decision DENYING a request for a new trial made by lawyers for Katherine #Jackson. @KNX1070

Details

 

[ivy]

^^

She then tweeted

Margaret Carrero @MargaretCarrero
CORRECTION: Attorneys for Katherine #Jackson say they have NOT received final ruling from judge denying request for new trial. @KNX1070

and the proceeding information I posted last night seems to be removed from the court's page

but then there's these news stories

Michael Jackson's mother won't get new trial
Maria Elena Fernandez NBC News
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
GooglePlus
Email
36 minutes ago

Katherine Jackson won't get a new trial.
Ethan Miller / Getty Images
A Los Angeles judge has denied Katherine Jackson's request for a new trial.
A Los Angeles Superior Court judge ruled Wednesday that Katherine Jackson will not get a new trial in her negligence case against concert promoters AEG Live, whom she alleges are financially liable for the 2009 death of her son, pop superstar Michael Jackson.

A jury in October rejected Jackson's claims that AEG Live negligently hired the doctor convicted of giving her son an overdose of anesthetic in 2009.

Jackson sued AEG Live on behalf of herself and her three grandchildren, accusing the concert promoter of hiring Dr. Conrad Murray, who was convicted of involuntary manslaughter in 2011 and released from prison in October.

Jackson testified that AEG Live never told her family that her son was sleep-deprived for 60 days, was paranoid, losing weight and deteriorating before everyone's eyes. Jackson died shortly before his comeback tour in London was scheduled to begin.

Jurors heard more than five months of evidence in the trial. Throughout the case, AEG Live maintained that there was no way executives could have known that Murray was giving Jackson the anesthetic propofol in the bedroom of his rented mansion. Jurors said later that they found Murray was "fit and competent" to be Jackson's doctor but that doesn't mean they thought his actions were ethical.

In their request for a new trial, Jackson's lawyers argued the jury instructions and verdict form were flawed and didn't allow jurors to fully consider evidence in the case. But lawyers for AEG Live told the judge during a two-hour hearing that it was actually Jackson's lawyers who included the disputed language in drafts of the verdict form and instructions.

Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Yvette Palazuelos agreed with the concert promoters. Jackson is expected to appeal her case to the California's 2nd District Court of Appeal.

http://www.nbcnews.com/entertainment/michael-jacksons-mother-wont-get-new-trial-2D11879270

and

Katherine Jackson Denied a New Trial Against AEG
The 2009 death of her pop superstar son, Michael Jackson, is at the center of the lawsuit.

Posted by Craig Clough (Editor) , January 08, 2014 at 09:06 AM
patch
Comment Recommend

-
-
-
Popular Stories
Best New Year’s Gym Deals
5 Must-Have Real Estate Apps for Home Buyers
North Hollywood Reacts to Plastic Bag Ban
3.1-Magnitude Earthquake Shakes the Southland
By City News Service

A judge finalized her ruling that denies Katherine Jackson a new trial of her lawsuit against concert-promoter AEG Live stemming from the 2009 death of her pop superstar son, Michael Jackson.

The decision issued Tuesday by Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Yvette Palazuelos adopts the tentative ruling she issued Friday, when she heard arguments from attorneys and took the case under submission. It also clears the way for Katherine Jackson's lawyers to file an appeal.

In their court papers, Katherine Jackson's attorneys -- citing juror statements -- claimed flaws in jury instructions and in the verdict form establish that a different outcome might have occurred Oct. 2 instead of the verdict in favor of the promoters of the singer's never-realized comeback concerts in London.

"Even if you wanted to find for the plaintiff you really could not," plaintiffs' attorney Deborah Chang told Palazuelos during Friday's hearing.

Four jurors submitted sworn statements on behalf of the plaintiffs.

"After sitting through almost six months of the trial in this case, I believed that Mrs. Jackson had proven her case against AEG Live," one juror stated in an affidavit. "Despite this fact, I had no way of voting in favor of the plaintiffs because of the way that the verdict form was worded."

But the judge struck all juror affidavits submitted by both sides.

Chang said the lawsuit "should have been a negligence case" rather than one that dealt with whether AEG Live appropriately hired, retained and supervised Dr. Conrad Murray as Michael Jackson's personal physician.

However, AEG Live attorneys contended in their court papers that Katherine Jackson's lawyers were raising new issues and that the juror affidavits filed in support of their motion were inadmissible.

"After failing to prove their case during five months of trial, plaintiffs' now attack the jury's unanimous verdict and this court's rulings," AEG Live lawyers stated in their court papers. "While plaintiffs' notice of intent to move for new trial raised every single possible statutory ground available under the Code of Civil Procedure ..., plaintiffs now abandon all (their) arguments except irregularity in the proceedings and error in law."

After nearly 14 hours of deliberations over four days, the six-man, six- woman jury determined that AEG Live did hire Murray as Jackson's doctor, but it answered "no" to question No. 2, which asked if Murray was "unfit or incompetent to perform the work for which he was hired."

With that answer, the jury denied any damages to Katherine Jackson and to Michael Jackson's three children.

Murray, who was convicted of involuntary manslaughter for Jackson's death, has since been released from jail. Jackson died June 25, 2009, at age 50 of acute propofol intoxication.

In documents filed earlier this month, the Jackson lawyers claimed that once the jurors found Murray was competent at the time he was hired, the panel could not go any further and examine his subsequent conduct.

"As given, these instructions and the verdict form were misleading and erroneous in that they did not distinguish between a negligent hiring claim and a negligent retention or supervision claim (what the employer knew or should have known during the course of the relationship)," the Jackson attorneys' stated in their court papers.

By forcing the jury to stop deliberating after they concluded Murray's capabilities were up to par when he was hired, the form never allowed the jurors to consider AEG Live's separate ongoing duties relating to supervision and retention, the Jackson attorneys' court papers stated.

AEG Live attorneys stated in their court papers that Katherine Jackson's lawyers were trying to "muddy the waters" with the four jurors' sworn statements.

The state's Evidence Code "flatly forbids (a judge) from considering juror affidavits that concern the mental processes by which the verdict was determined," the defense attorneys stated in their court papers. "Indeed, the court's consideration of these affidavits would constitute reversible error."

Katherine Jackson, 83, sued in September 2010 on behalf of herself and her son's three children -- Michael Jr., Paris-Michael Katherine and Prince Michael -- claiming that AEG Live hired Murray to be Jackson's personal physician and failed to properly supervise him.

Katherine Jackson and many members of the Jackson family lived for decades lived in Encino, but she currently reside in Calabasas.

http://encino.patch.com/groups/poli...nst-aeg?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter

 

[LastTear]

Re: KJ vs AEG Trial outcome : Appeal

I'm confused. Is it yay or nay? Or just a tad too early and lawyers haven't opened their mail yet?

 

[ivy]

Re: KJ vs AEG Trial outcome : Appeal

I think it is confirmed that she denied the request for a new trial. See Alan Duke below

Judge denies Michael Jackson wrongful death retrial
By Alan Duke, CNN
updated 1:54 PM EST, Wed January 8, 2014
STORY HIGHLIGHTS

The trial ended in October with a victory for AEG Live
Jackson lawyers argued the verdict form used by the jury was faulty
Four jurors signed statements saying they did not understand the verdict form
Jackson lawyers have indicated they will appeal the jury's verdict

Los Angeles (CNN) -- The judge who presided over the Michael Jackson wrongful-death trial last year rejected the Jacksons' request for a new trial in an order filed Wednesday.

The six-month-long trial ended in October with a victory for AEG Live, the concert promoter Jackson's mother and children had claimed was liable for his death because it hired, retained or supervised the doctor convicted of involuntary manslaughter in the death.

Lawyers for mother Katherine Jackson argued that the verdict form used by the jury was faulty and that the judge erred by refusing to let them pursue a negligence claim independent of the hiring case.

Their motion for a new trial filed in December included sworn statements from four of the 12 jurors saying they feel cheated by the outcome, which they blame on a misleading verdict form.

Jackson died from an overdose of the surgical anesthetic propofol on June 25, 2009, which Dr. Conrad Murray told police he used to treat the pop icon's insomnia as he prepared for a tour produced by AEG Live.

Los Angeles County Judge Yvette Palazuelos ruled that she did not err in her decisions on the verdict form or with the dismissal of the negligence claim.

Jackson lawyers have indicated that they will appeal the jury's verdict.

AEG Live lawyers filed statements from seven other jurors saying they were not confused by the verdict form.

The jurors cited by the Jackson motion used the words "stunned," "upset" and "shocked" when they were told they had to stop deliberations after a majority agreed that the answer was "no" to the second question on the verdict form: "Was Dr. Conrad Murray unfit or incompetent to perform the work for which he was hired?"

One juror called the question "a trap that prevented us from deliberating on the real issues of the case."

"After sitting through almost six months of the trial in this case, I believed that Mrs. Jackson had proven her case against AEG LIve," another juror said. "Despite this fact, I had no way of voting in favor of the plaintiffs because of the way that the verdict form was worded."

Jackson lawyers, in their arguments for a new trial, contended that Palazeulos erred by denying their request to add the words "at any time" to the second question.

 

[LastTear]

Re: KJ vs AEG Trial outcome : Appeal

Ivy what sort of time scale are we looking at if they decide to appeal the verdict, do they have to fill that with the courts within a certain time?

 

[ivy]

Re: KJ vs AEG Trial outcome : Appeal

Ivy what sort of time scale are we looking at if they decide to appeal the verdict, do they have to fill that with the courts within a certain time?

starting from judge's decision date they have one month (I believe or if I'm mistaken 2 months) to file for an appeal.

an appeal on average would take a year (three motions, an oral hearing and 3 month for the judges to decide) and of course any extension request would make it longer. (for example due to extension requests Murray's appeal is at 2+ years, HTWF appeal is about to be 3+ years. Shortest expected time for an appeal would be around a year but based on extension requests it could take significantly longer)

So if we go with today's date of Jan 8th, they would have until Feb 8th to file an appeal and if there isn't any extension request by either party a decision would be expected around early 2015.

edited to add: it was asked before. chances of being successful in an appeal is around 20% which means only 1 in 5 appeals would be successful.

 

[Vici]

Re: KJ vs AEG Trial outcome : Appeal

^^

Wait, so they can appeal again?? This appeal was denied so are they now appealing judge decision or what?

 

[LastTear]

Re: KJ vs AEG Trial outcome : Appeal

^^

Wait, so they can appeal again?? This appeal was denied so are they now appealing judge decision or what?

To appeal the verdict they can. Today's decision was for the request of a retrial.

 

[ivy]

Re: KJ vs AEG Trial outcome : Appeal

^^

Wait, so they can appeal again?? This appeal was denied so are they now appealing judge decision?

This wasn't an appeal.

They went to the same judge that oversaw the trial - Judge Palazuelos- and said to her "there were this and that mistakes so let's have another trial". In other words it was like saying to her "you made a mistake and now correct it". She basically said no. This this like a first step. So now they would take it to appeal and they would go in front a panel of judges and say "Judge Palazuelos made this and that mistake, when we asked her to correct it she refused. so you correct it". The appeal court will make a decision.

Keep in mind, you don't try the case again in an appeal court. Appeal courts role is to make sure that there wasn't any legal errors. That's why the success rates are low during an appeal.