Dr. Conrad Murray and Judge Michael Pastor : Murray 's only hope was a fair jury, but, he did not get one

Los Angeles, California


October 30, 2013
(Current and renewed date)

January 26, 2011
(Original date)

**(Denotes NEW information added to blog after publishing of original blog)


Dr. Conrad Murray has now pleaded not guilty to the charge of involuntary manslaughter, and his trial has now been set for March 28, 2011 (it has now been reset for May, 2011; and now reset again for September, 2011; trial has now begun with jury selection; opening statements and trial testimony has now begun).

However, judge Michael Pastor is set to preside over Murray's trial(he is now presiding over the trial), and that is not good news for Dr. Murray. It is clear that Dr. Murray will not receive a fair trial, because one cannot receive a fair trial from an unfair judge. And, judge Pastor has demonstrated prejudicial and/or discriminatory conduct towards Dr. Murray already and that cannot be changed. Judge Pastor has acted to violate Dr. Murray's statutory and constitutional rights to both due process and equal protection of the law with respect to Murray's medical license suspension, and that prevents him (judge Pastor) from being fair. And, not surprisingly (because the Justice Department does not prosecute California judges for civil rights violations), the Justice Department (despite a federal criminal-civil rights complaint filed against judge Pastor) thusfar has not acted to remove judge Pastor from Dr. Murray's trial. Dr. Murray should have a different judge for his criminal trial.

So, the best Dr. Murray can hope for is a reasonably fair jury, and because a judge controls in large part the final jury, Dr. Murray cannot be assured that he will receive a fair jury. That is, a judge ultimately determines whether a disqualified or unqualified juror (based on bias or prejudice) sits on a jury or not. Even if defense counsel moves to strike a certain juror as being disqualified or objects, the judge can overrule him and allow the juror to remain a member of the jury pool. And, if counsel does not have sufficient peremptory strikes or challenges to strike all unlawfully allowed disqualified jurors, the Defendant may be stuck with several of these jurors on his jury, and his only recourse will be to appeal, after the trial. "Both sides can excuse 10 potential jurors without giving a reason. Additionally, they can ask the judge to remove anyone who shows bias." L.A. Times, "Quick pick for Murray jury", September 23, 2011. So, the Defendant may end up being convicted by an unfair jury, caused by an unfair judge, and his only recourse will be an appeal after conviction. Thus, Dr. Murray must hope for a reasonably fair jury, since he is starting out with an unfair judge. (Note: the mass media, while reporting the gender makeup of the jury, has refused to report the racial makeup of the jury, as if race doesn't or shouldn't matter. It does matter, as recently demonstrated by the Oscar Grant murder trial, where the white Defendant Mehserle was convicted of the lesser charge of involuntary manslaughter by a jury with no African Americans on it. Would a jury composed of all African Americans have convicted Mehserle of involuntary manslaughter rather than second degree murder? I think not (which is why Mehserle moved to have the trial moved out of Alameda County, which would have provided a greater probability of a majority Black jury, to another county). So race still does make a difference in this country at this time. I will have to find out the racial makeup of the jury myself (even with the so-called "televised" proceedings, one still cannot determine the makeup of the jury, because the televised proceedings do not show the jury, not even from behind--where one would be unable to see their faces)( I've been told that there is only one juror of distinquishable color); and that information will help me draw any conclusions about the fairness of the jury, or whether Murray has received a fair jury. Although this is a black on black crime or perceived crime, blacks and whites still have different perception of things. And, a Black man accused of and on trial for a crime in the United States today can never have a jury of his peers without having several black people on the jury. The white Mehserle, in the Oscar Grant case, had a jury of his peers (an all-white jury).

Pastor has already, during pre-trial proceedings, precluded the presentation by Murray of certain witnesses and/or evidentiary matter that would be pertinent to Murray's defense at trial (and at least one witness and evidentiary matter appear clearly relevant and absolutely pertinent to Murray's defense of Michael taking drugs himself). So, Pastor's prejudicial rulings against Murray, as a Black male, continues. (NOTE : I must repeat here that I am not defending Dr. Murray regarding the involuntary manslaughter charge against him; I am only defending him as a Black male professional proceeding through the judicial process of the Superior Court of California with judge Pastor as the presiding judge over his criminal trial. And, my position as to Murray's defense of Michael taking drugs himself is stated below. However, it is, from my understanding, one of Murray's defenses,i.e., Michael taking drugs himself, and Murray has the right to present evidence supporting that defense, and he is being precluded from presenting a pertinent portion of that evidence by Pastor).

But, if Dr. Murray does obtain a reasonably fair jury, he can be acquitted, even with an unfair judge . If Dr. Murray is lucky and obtains a fair jury, and his attorneys present the proper defense, he should be acquitted. He nearly has an absolute defense (like "truth" is an absolute defense to defamation). However, that near absolute defense must be presented by Murray's lawyers, otherwise, it's the same as not having one. But, for the record, the defense of Michael Jackson somehow taking or giving himself an overdose of propofol causing his own death is not the nearly absolute defense that I am speaking of. That defense (Michael causing his own death)is anything but absolute; indeed, it is entirely factual, and the jury must believe it. In my opinion, it is a poor and dangerous defense. The defense I'm speaking of would be a legal one. NOTE : The Los Angeles Times, through the article, "Murray defense seeks more time; trial delayed", May 3, 2011, has attempted to clean up or rehabilitate judge Pastor's discrimination against Dr. Murray by quoting judge Pastor as stating, "My fundamental concern is fundamental fairness" and by stating that "Pastor said the delay was necessary to ensure that Murray receives a fair trial". Yeah, right! Where was Pastor's concern for fundamental fairness for Murray when he stripped Murray of his ability to earn a living in California (and tried to have Murray's ability to earn a living stripped in other jurisdictions as well) before a due process trial or hearing. And, why has Pastor suddenly expressed this concern for Murray's right to receive a fair trial and "fundamental fairness" (conveniently, after I filed a criminal complaint against him and the Medical Board of California for violating Murray's civil rights, and after I published blogs stating that Murray cannot receive a fair trial from him)? The answer: to try and cleanse or rehabilitate his image prior to Murray's trial. But, its too late. It's clear that judge Pastor, aided by the Medical Board of California, discriminated against Dr. Murray based on his race and that cannot be undone. And, one with discriminatory instincts, does not change overnight. Pastor is still an unfair judge in Murray's case, based on his previously expressed discrimination against Murray, and Murray cannot receive a fair trial from judge Pastor in Murray's upcoming manslaughter trial. Murray needs and deserves another judge to preside over his trial, scheduled now for September, 2011 (the trial has now begun). NOTE: I think it is important that I highlight here that this writing is not in defense of Dr. Murray as to his involuntary manslaughter charge for the death of Michael Jackson; for I will leave it up to a Superior Court jury to decide Murray's fate in that regard (although I do have an opinion as to the entire scenario of Murray's involvement in Michael's death--but, I will withhold that opinion until after Murray's trial). I do not know Dr. Murray, either personally or professionally. My writing here is solely in defense of Murray's constitutional rights as a black male participating in the criminal justice process of the Superior Court, Los Angeles County, court system. I am a Michael Jackson fan. I have always been a Michael Jackson fan, since Michael began with the Jackson 5, and I always will be a fan, even after Michael's death. But, here, I am dealing with justice for Black males in the Superior Court of California justice system, both civil and criminal, which is another matter entirely.

UPDATE : Dr. Murray has now been convicted of involuntary manslaughter by a nearly all-white jury (with one African American or black man). Murray's lawyer continued to argue his main defense during closing argument that Michael Jackson killed himself by self-administering or injecting Profopol into his body. And, following Murray's conviction, judge Pastor revoked Murray's bail, and ordered that Murray be remanded into custody pending sentencing. Murray has now been sentenced by Pastor to the maximum sentence possible (4 years in state prison). Murray did not make a statement at the sentencing hearing. *Murray is now appealing his conviction, pro se. *Murray now has an attorney for his appeal.

MY CONCLUSION AND ANALYSIS : Dr. Murray was convicted of involuntary manslaughter because, among other things, Murray had a prejudiced and biased judge at the outset, which could have, and probably did, affected the final jury selected; Murray did not have a jury of his peers (only one African American juror--contrast the O.J. Simpson trial: O.J. had a jury of his peers, nearly all black, if I recall correctly); and, finally, Murray's lawyer set forth a poor and dangerous defense (that Michael Jackson contributed to his own death by self-administering Profopol---and, according to HLN , there were at least 6 Michael Jackson fans on the jury--how did 6 Michael Jackson fans end up on the final jury? Why weren't they excluded for cause?). Dr. Murray should have and would have been acquitted with a fair judge, a fair jury of his peers, and a good lawyer, e.g., Johnnie L. Cochran, Jr. (who was a "great" lawyer). The one essential asset Murray needed was a good lawyer. Johnnie Cochran would have gotten Murray acquitted, even with judge Pastor and the jury Murray received. I am not Johnnie Cochran, by any means, but, I would have gotten Murray acquitted, or at least a mistrial, despite Pastor and the jury (which had 6 Michael Jackson fans). The fatal mistake causing Murray's conviction was Murray's lawyers' defense of Michael Jackson contributing to his own demise or death. When Murray's lawyer argued this in his closing statement, I knew that Murray would be convicted, although I was hoping otherwise (because I believe that Murray should have been acquitted--I don't believe Michael Jackson himself would have wanted Dr. Murray convicted of a crime, any crime). Michael Jackson's fans, and I am one, would not want to believe this (that Michael Jackson killed himself), even if if was true. So, a good lawyer would have chosen another defense, even if it was true that Michael had contributed to his own death, unless there was no other defense available; and, in this case, there was another and better defense available. As I have stated before, there was a near absolute defense available, but it had to be argued; the jury would not acquit Murray without the defense being argued to the jury and supported by evidence. But there was supportive evidence available. Perhaps one day I will name the defense, but not here and not now. Good lawyers know what it is. It is not remarkable. But, besides the near absolute defense, there was another defense evolving from the court's jury instructions that likely could have gotten Murray aquitted as well, but that defense, although a part of the court's jury instructions, was not argued or used either. This defense I will surely identify (since it was a part of the court's jury instructions) in the future. The revelation of these defenses is not meant to be a put down of Murray's lawyers (although I believed they acted cowardly in not charging Pastor with bias and prejudice and moving for his recusal in view of his unconstitutional behavior in suspending Murray's medical license before a trial or hearing), rather it is meant to show that Murray should have and could have been acquitted.

Murray did not make a statement at his sentencing. This was a crucial mistake. This was an opportunity for Murray to make a statement and tell his side of the story without cross-examination, and to express remorse. He did not do either. Consequently, he allowed an already prejudiced and biased judge to state, truthfully and sincerely, that Murray did not, and refused to, express any remorse for his actions. And, here, I have to agree with Pastor, Murray did not express any remorse for Michael's death, and that action is inexcusable. And, Murray cannot place this refusal in his lawyer's lap. He has to take full and complete responsibility for this action. This decision was ultimately and finally his, and his alone. Regardless of what his lawyers advised, he made the final decision to not make a statement and express remorse. This was unforgiveable. And, if his lawyers advised him to do so, they are as responsible as he is. It probably would not have made any difference in or with his sentence; clearly, it would not have, Pastor would have issued the same sentence. But, it may have made a difference with Michael's family and with Murray's public persona. Although I continue to assert that Murray did not receive a fair trial (because a prejudiced and biased judge presided over his trial and because he did not receive a fair jury, i.e., he did not receive a jury of his peers and there were 6 Michael Jackson fans on his jury) and that he experienced prejudice and racial discrimination by the Superior Court of California through the actions of judge Pastor, I am less sympathetic to Murray after his failure to express remorse for the death of Michael Jackson (and here my being a Michael Jackson fan kicks in heavily and subjectively) and for him, personally, placing blame on Michael Jackson in the so-called documentary (if that is true--I did not see the documentary, so I am relying on the prosecutor's and judge Pastor's assertion at the sentencing). Again, his failure to express remorse is unforgiveable. He clearly contributed to Michael's death.


**UPDATE--October 30, 2013

Murray has now been released from jail, having served his sentence (with good time credits). He's own his own now.
I will end here for now, but more later.