Latest on MJJC

Questions and Answers about the Case and Law in general

Re: jury system questions america vs ........

Yes, you're right. The rumours I read about the GJ talked only about the DA (don't know why I mentioned the defence; probably I didn't have very clear the figure of the grand jury, I am not too familiar with its competences. As far as I know it doesn't exist in Spain (only the Jury, but not the GJ).
Anyway, thanks for the clarification, Elusive.
The link where I read about the GJ.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/01/08/entertainment/main6072401.shtml?tag=mncol;lst;2
An extract: "The person said it was thought that it would be more efficient to go to a grand jury than to charge Murray and proceed by way of a preliminary hearing. A presentation to the grand jury where witnesses testify behind closed doors could take three to five days."
----------------
About the investigation supposedly being carried out we cannot conclude anthing then.
CNN mentioned it. http://edition.cnn.com/2010/CRIME/08/23/jackson.doctor.hearing/index.html?iref=allsearch "A judge has delayed the preliminary hearing for Dr. Conrad Murray, charged in Michael Jackson's death, until early next year because more investigation is being done and some prosecution witnesses won't be available until then."
 
Re: jury system questions america vs ........

welcome. yeah i thin a GJ pretty much only happens in america and not in europe. its a very old and unfair system that i think was origanlly taken from english law but has long been done away with here
 
Re: jury system questions america vs ........

Here there's useful information about the GJ and other things related to the judicial system in CA.

http://www.lasuperiorcourt.org/Criminal/

----------------------------
CALIFORNIA PENAL CODE
http://law.justia.com/california/codes/2009/pen/187-199.html

188. (Murder) Such malice may be express or implied. It is express when
there is manifested a deliberate intention unlawfully to take away
the life of a fellow creature. It is implied, when no considerable
provocation appears, or when the circumstances attending the killing
show an abandoned and malignant heart.

I hope charges will finally be increased.
 
Last edited:
Re: jury system questions america vs ........

grand jury and prelim hearing is done for the same reason - to determine if there is probable cause to go to trial.

however they have some differences.

In a grand jury jurors determine if there's probable cause. it's a secret hearing with prosecution presenting evidence, there's no cross examination.

In a prelim hearing a judge determines if there's probable cause. And the defense has the option to cross examine the witnesses and/or call their own witnesses.

many believe it's easier to get an indictment from grand jury on the other hand some argue that prelim hearing shows confidence to your evidence and that you can make your case.

At the end of the day regardless of the method used if there's probable cause it would go to trial.

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

Technically speaking investigation will go on as long as the case stays open. However the biggest part of the investigation should be already completed by now as they decided to charge Murray and only Murray. If and when the detectives get a new lead or information they will investigate that and changes make happen accordingly.

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

that "abandoned and malignant heart" is not that easy to establish. It requires the action to expose the victim to a very high risk . For example taking a gun and shooting it to a crowd would qualify ( as it is almost certain that you'll shot will hit somebody and hurt them).

so in this case we know that not having the proper monitoring equipment was reckless but how high a risk did it bring? Could we say that without the proper equipment 90-95% of the people die? If not "abandoned and malignant heart" will be hard to impossible to establish.
 
Re: jury system questions america vs ........

ivy said:
that "abandoned and malignant heart" is not that easy to establish. It requires the action to expose the victim to a very high risk .

so in this case we know that not having the proper monitoring equipment was reckless but how high a risk did it bring? Could we say that without the proper equipment 90-95% of the people die? If not "abandoned and malignant heart" will be hard to impossible to establish.
Click to expand...

I can see this is harder to establish than many of us think, however, the Anesthesiologist Consultation says that when administering the doses found in the tox results (for a full general anesthesia), the patient must be intubated and ventilated and monitored by an anesthesiologist. If none of these three requirements are followed, experts should establish how many chances of surviving has a patient once the unavoidable respiratory depression and the cardiovascular depression are started. (But how could they talk about those chances, unless after a fatal result?)

If CM hadn't wanted to achieve the doses finally found for a full general anesthesia and only wanted to get sedation doses (for a very short period of sleep), still the AC says: "There is also a narrow margin between mere sedation (shorter sleep) and full general anesthesia, with possible loss of the patient's ability to breathe and maintain their airway". (Besides, he should've used an infusion pump.)
 
Last edited:
Re: jury system questions america vs ........

the D.A imo is going for the easy charge. he doesnt care to go for murder 2. its the same as they always do with plea bargins but this time he hasnt even started off with a higher charge. a conviction is more important than "justice" to a D.A as their job is political
 
Re: jury system questions america vs ........

Now that there's a thread about this topic anyway, there's one thing I never quite understood about this jury system. I'm from the Netherlands as well so sorry if this is a stupid question but I've always wondered about this. When there is the judgment of a case, who ultimately decides whether the defendant is guilty or not? Is it the judge or the jury? Because I remember from the 2005 trial that the judgment of each charge said: "We the jury in the above entitled case find the defendant not guilty". So that implies that it is only the jury who takes this decision, but I would say that's highly unlikely. You can't just pick some people off the street and give them the responsibility of determining the rest of a person's life. So what is the role of the judge in all this? Does he advise the jury? Does he write the judgment for the jury to read? Or is it the other way around and does the judge take the jury's judgment as a guideline for the final judgment? I'm confused :unsure:

And another question: how do they choose the people to be in the jury? Are they literally picked off the street or do they have to go through some sort of screening (probably) to see who is appropriate and who not? And do they sign up themselves or are they assigned to do this? Can they be called up to be in a jury against their will? And what are the criteria to be in a jury... cause I can imagine there's the danger of bias. Imagine if a black man is accused of killing a white woman, and there were only white conservative middle-aged people in the jury, then there's a possibility of bias (I know I'm stereotyping here but you probably understand what I mean). And then there's the media.. surely any jurors that are going to judge Conrad Murray have heard stories about Michael and his supposed "addiction" in the media before so they already have a picture of what happened in their minds. It's almost impossible to have objective jurors when it comes to celebrities. That's why I can't believe this system still exists in America, it sounds like some ancient Greek way to judge somebody. But maybe that's just my misconceptions about this system.
 
Re: jury system questions america vs ........

When there is the judgment of a case, who ultimately decides whether the defendant is guilty or not? Is it the judge or the jury? Because I remember from the 2005 trial that the judgment of each charge said: "We the jury in the above entitled case find the defendant not guilty". So that implies that it is only the jury who takes this decision, but I would say that's highly unlikely. You can't just pick some people off the street and give them the responsibility of determining the rest of a person's life. So what is the role of the judge in all this? Does he advise the jury? Does he write the judgment for the jury to read? Or is it the other way around and does the judge take the jury's judgment as a guideline for the final judgment? I'm confused :unsure:
Click to expand...
yes basically the jury decides. but the judge gives instructions to the jury if they have any questions about certain laws etc. but interms of judging the person on the evidence its upto the jury. sometimes but in not many cases a judge can over rule a juries decision if the judge feels the jury are wrong but i think thats quite rare. one example is the case of louse woodward and english nanny who was put on trial for killing a baby she was looking after in the USA. it was a high profile case. the jury found her guily of murder but the judge overruled the jury saying it was manslaughter instead.but thats quite rare i would think.

anyone can be picked to be on the jury. in the uk u get picked randomly off the election register. b4 they are picked to be on a jury the defence and prosecution get to question them in court. to see their opinions on mj for example. each side can get rid of x amount of jurrors who they dont like so its not like someone is picked to be on the jury and thats its. .yes theres big issues with race in american and all white jurriers or all black ones. there were issues that there were no black ppl on mjs. yes jurys are a worry especially in america as the media are allowed to twist and report on things. in the UK for example that isnt allowed other than talking about the basics of the case the media cannot report on a case once its deicded its going to trial. but tbh there is no other way as its a basic right to be judged by your peers
 
Re: jury system questions america vs ........

elusive moonwalker said:
yes basically the jury decides. but the judge gives instructions to the jury if they have any questions about certain laws etc. but interms of judging the person on the evidence its upto the jury. sometimes but in not many cases a judge can over rule a juries decision if the judge feels the jury are wrong but i think thats quite rare. one example is the case of louse woodward and english nanny who was put on trial for killing a baby she was looking after in the USA. it was a high profile case. the jury found her guily of murder but the judge overruled the jury saying it was manslaughter instead.but thats quite rare i would think.

anyone can be picked to be on the jury. in the uk u get picked randomly off the election register. b4 they are picked to be on a jury the defence and prosecution get to question them in court. to see their opinions on mj for example. each side can get rid of x amount of jurrors who they dont like so its not like someone is picked to be on the jury and thats its. .yes theres big issues with race in american and all white jurriers or all black ones. there were issues that there were no black ppl on mjs. yes jurys are a worry especially in america as the media are allowed to twist and report on things. in the UK for example that isnt allowed other than talking about the basics of the case the media cannot report on a case once its deicded its going to trial. but tbh there is no other way as its a basic right to be judged by your peers
Click to expand...

Thanks :) I have a few more questions: 1) If you are chosen to be a juror, can you refuse? 2) Who assigns the jurors, is it like a government body or a judicial body? 3) What happens when not all jurors agree on the verdict? Does the judge decide in that case? 4) When people in the courtroom speak (e.g. lawyers, public prosecutor, defendant etc.) do they address the jury or the judge? 5) What happens when after a jury verdict, it turns out that a juror was potentially biased (e.g. when the juror convicts a black man and later that same juror is convicted for racist acts or w/e) does the case have to be reopened?

It's interesting to know these kind of things :)
 
Re: jury system questions america vs ........

any adult citizen can be called to jury duty. when people get a summons they have to show up in court. The judge can dismiss some of these people due to several reasons (illness, hardship etc. side note: work is not an excuse to get out of jury duty). So you'll have a jury pool. Then the judge will ask them some questions - general and related to the trial - to determine if they have any biases or some experiences , background etc that would not make them appropriate for the case. The attorneys can also ask questions to the jurors and they can challenge the jurors and ask them to be removed. In the end you end up with mutually agreed upon 12 jurors.

The jury decides the verdict and of course the judge guides and instructs them but in the end it's their decision. In some cases a judge can overturn the jury's decision if they weren't following the law and instructions.


1) If you are chosen to be a juror, can you refuse?
Click to expand...

no. a judge can dismiss you for a legit reason or the attorneys can ask for the juror to be removed

2) Who assigns the jurors, is it like a government body or a judicial body?
Click to expand...

see the first paragraph

3) What happens when not all jurors agree on the verdict? Does the judge decide in that case?
Click to expand...

It's called a hung jury or being deadlocked. It will generally result in a mistrial and prosecution to determine whether to retry the case or drop the charges

4) When people in the courtroom speak (e.g. lawyers, public prosecutor, defendant etc.) do they address the jury or the judge?
Click to expand...

generally judge, jury is addressed at the opening and closing arguments

5) What happens when after a jury verdict, it turns out that a juror was potentially biased (e.g. when the juror convicts a black man and later that same juror is convicted for racist acts or w/e) does the case have to be reopened?
Click to expand...

I'm not sure about California but if jurors openly show bias during deliberations then the decision might be overturned and/or it might be classified as a mistrial and tried again.
 
Re: jury system questions america vs ........

ivy said:
any adult citizen can be called to jury duty. when people get a summons they have to show up in court. The judge can dismiss some of these people due to several reasons (illness, hardship etc. side note: work is not an excuse to get out of jury duty). So you'll have a jury pool. Then the judge will ask them some questions - general and related to the trial - to determine if they have any biases or some experiences , background etc that would not make them appropriate for the case. The attorneys can also ask questions to the jurors and they can challenge the jurors and ask them to be removed. In the end you end up with mutually agreed upon 12 jurors.

The jury decides the verdict and of course the judge guides and instructs them but in the end it's their decision. In some cases a judge can overturn the jury's decision if they weren't following the law and instructions.
Click to expand...

Thanks :) Do you have an answer to my other questions as well? I noticed from some of your other posts that you seem to know a lot about legal stuff. I did take an EU law course (as part of my study (European Studies)) but it's a lot different from US law lol. And particularly compared to the Dutch legal system, this kind of thing with jurors is unheard of :p
 
Re: jury system questions america vs ........

ivy said:
no. a judge can dismiss you for a legit reason or the attorneys can ask for the juror to be removed



see the first paragraph



It's called a hung jury or being deadlocked. It will generally result in a mistrial and prosecution to determine whether to retry the case or drop the charges



generally judge, jury is addressed at the opening and closing arguments



I'm not sure about California but if jurors openly show bias during deliberations then the decision might be overturned and/or it might be classified as a mistrial and tried again.
Click to expand...

I see you edited your post, thanks for addressing my questions :) With the 2nd question though, I meant who selects the jurors in the first stage? Like Elusive Moonwalker said: "in the uk u get picked randomly off the election register", who does this? Is it a government body or a judicial body?

Oh and btw., can you be assigned to be a juror twice?
 
Re: jury system questions america vs ........

Oh and btw., can you be assigned to be a juror twice?
Click to expand...
i see no reason why. tbh its pretty rare to get picked for jury service over here.its a random thing.so if u get picked twice its pretty lucky or unlucky. of course its different in cali but most systems in countries are pretty similar. what happens in the uk is u get a letter calling you to jury service. it doesnt tell u what case. u just have to turn up at the court house at a certain time and become prt of pool of jurrors. then at the court house u get picked for certain cases or u may end up not being needed and go home. who picks the jury in the first place? well to me a goverment body and a judical body is the same. its just done randomly letters get sent out.its not untul u get to court that u get assigned a certain case
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top