November 27, 2013
(Current date)
November 8, 2011
(Original date)
*(Denotes new information added to original blog)
**UPDATE (Denotes "NEW" information added to blog after publishing of original blog)
Yesterday (November 7, 2011), Dr. Conrad Murray, a black physician, and the physician acting as Michael Jackson's personal physician at the time of Michael's death, was found guilty of involuntary manslaughter by a nearly all-white jury and a white judge. As a result of the defense lawyers' main defense and the trial judge presiding over the trial, the outcome was predictable.
The defense's main defense has to be attributed to the lead defense attorney, Ed Chernoff, and/or Murray himself. That defense was that Michael Jackson ultimately killed himself by injecting himself with an overdose of propofol. As I have stated in another blog, see "Judge Michael Pastor and Dr. Conrad Murray: Murray's only hope is a fair jury and that is not assured", January 26, 2011 (updated), this was a poor and dangerous defense at the outset. It was poor because of the poor physical state that Michael Jackson was in at the time of his death and because he had hired Dr. Murray specifically to care for him, therefore, it would be quite questionable that Michael Jackson would turn around and give himself propofol while being cared for by Dr. Murray. And, the defense was speculative, with no real evidence of Michael injecting himself. It was a dangerous defense because even if it was true that Michael Jackson had somehow given himself propofol and caused his own death, if there were any Michael Jackson fans on the jury, they would not want to believe it (even if it was true). Therefore, they would view such a defense with disgust. And, this is what made the defense "dangerous"(because perhaps a fair and openminded juror would treat the defense fairly based on the evidence and find that indeed Michael had caused his own death; but, on the other hand, a Michael Jackson fan, even if he or she believed the evidence and the evidence supported a finding that Michael had killed himself, would not want to accept the evidence and would choose to believe otherwise). It is my understanding from HLN television that at least six of the jurors were Michael Jackson fans. Once Chernoff propounded that defense in his closing statement, I knew Murray would be found guilty, even though I hoped that he would not be (because I do not believe that under the circumstances, Dr. Murray committed a crime or is a criminal---and, as I have stated before, I am a Michael Jackson fan, always have been and always will be, even after Michael's death). And, once the jury was selected, after going through voir dire, Chernoff should have known the makeup of the jury (with the Michael Jackson fans--if HLN knew, Chernoff should have known also) and how to approach the trial and defense based on that jury. It was a fatal mistake to use the Michael Jackson killed himself defense.
The other reason Dr. Murray was convicted was because of judge Michael Pastor. He was clearly a biased and prejudiced judge who exercised racial discrimination against Dr. Murray and who prevented Murray from receiving a fair trial. Even if Murray had been acquitted, he would not have had received and did not receive a fair trial. And, if the racial discrimination and unfair treatment wasn't conclusively demonstrated by Pastor before, it was certainly demonstrated after the jury's finding of guilt, when Pastor ordered Murray to be remanded into custody pending sentencing. This was clearly invidious conduct under the circumstances based on Pastor's identified reasons for the remand. I could list some of the reasons why Murray was denied a fair trial by Pastor, but time restrictions do not permit me to do so at this time. I will do so later.
In an update of this blog, I will comment further on Murray's lawyers,judge Pastor, and my opinion as to Murray's relationship to Michael Jackson's death.
Update : Dr. Murray has now been sentenced to the maximum sentence possible, four (4) years in prison, by judge Pastor (although it is probable, because of new legislation, that he will serve his prison term in the county jail).
Update : Dr. Murray has now filed an appeal of his conviction.
On Murray's lawyers: While the following comments are not meant to be a condemnation of Murray's lawyers, because in several respects, they provided good advocacy for Murray, the comments are meant to show that they made crucial and dispositive, and objective, errors that contributed to Murray's conviction. I will confine my comments to two matters: (1) judge Pastor's bias and recusal prospect and (2)the defense's closing argument . Judge Pastor clearly exercised bias and prejudiced against Murray during pre-trial proceedings and Murray's lawyers knew it. When Pastor suspended Murray's medical license, without a hearing or a trial, instead of moving for Pastor's recusal or removal for Murray's trial, Murray's lawyers simply called Pastor's actions exercising the "nuclear option", and did not even appeal his ruling. This was simply a cowardly act in refusing to challenge Pastor and protect their client's constitutional rights. They even appealed Pastor's denial of a sequestration order (for the jury)(because that was a safe, but futile, challenge), but not his suspension order. This was a crucial error for Murray, because now Murray can't appeal the matter, because it was not preserved for appeal in the lower court. The defense also failed to present a crucial defense in its closing argument to the jury. Initially, I intended to identify that defense here, but, Murray has now appealed his conviction, and may entertain habeas corpus actions thereafter, so I will not identify that defense here and now, but its a crucial and clearly identifiable one that could have even swayed Michael Jackson fan jurors.
On judge Pastor : Pastor expressed prejudiced against Murray in a lot of ways, and I'm not going to try and rehash all of them here. Some of the ways involved preventing Murray from producing evidence and/or witnesses, but other ways were more subtle, such as at one point, Pastor told a defense witness not to turn and talk to the jury, when he had allowed any prosecution witness who had chosed to, to turn and talk to the jury. But, Pastor's greatest prejudice was his pretrial suspension of Murray's medical license, which was an attempt to cripple murray's defense and well-being, not to mention the indifference and effect on Murray's patients.
On my opinion of the Dr. Murray-Michael Jackson relationship and death: I believe that when Michael hired and/or retained Dr. Murray as his personal physician, he hired him as a physician and a friend. I believe that Dr. Murray accepted the position as a personal physician and a friend. As far as the salary is concerned, I think Dr. Murray (realizing that perhaps for the first time in his career as a doctor, he had a client that could afford to pay him as a Black doctor what white doctors garnered from their wealthy clients all the time) bargained for a good salary and was successful in obtaining a salary of $150,000.00 a month. For many white doctors who work for wealthy white and black clients, this is chicken-feed. But for a black doctor who is used to having working class and poor clients, this was a great salary. Only the racially prejudiced or racist people out there would make a big deal out of a black doctor making 150,000.00 a month from a client who can afford to pay it. And the reason they make a big deal out it is because they do not want a black doctor making that kind of money or salary. It's supposed to be only for a white doctor. Moving on, after Murray had bargained for his salary, he began to treat Michael, as a physician and a friend. It was the friend part that got him in trouble. Murray, as a physician, probably realized that he should not have continued to give Propofol to Michael, but Michael felt and believed that propofol was the only medication that caused and allowed him to sleep, and he needed to sleep to properly prepare for the concert tour. Dr. Murray as a physician probably tried to convince Michael that he should not depend on propofol, but to no avail. So, as a friend, to try and help Michael accomplish his goal of putting on and engaging in the concert tour, Dr. Murray decided that if Michael wanted the propofol and believed that it was the only thing that made him sleep, that he would try and administer it to him as safe as he could out of the public's eye (again, he realized that Michael shouldn't be taking the drug consistently, but, he also realized Michael's goal, and how important this goal was to Michael). Murray, in his statement to the police, stated that he had given Michael propofol for two months prior to Michael's death, and there had not been any contrary reaction, and Michael did fine. Michael probably relied on his friendship with Murray in hiring Murray, knowing that he would be asking Murray to give him propofol (and knowing that most non-friend doctors would not do it). I do not believe that Murray would have placed his license and career on the line for a non-friend, even for the money that was offered. But, I could be wrong about that. And, yes, I do believe the money mattered to Murray. The amount of money offered certainly helped motivate him to assist Michael, knowing the risk he was taking in doing so.
Finally, I believe that Dr. Murray in giving Michael the final dose, the dose that killed Michael, either gave him too much, or more than he thought he had given him, or that he gave him the usual dose that he had been giving him, but, in combination with the other drugs that Michael had been given, or taken, it caused Michael's death. In other words, I believe that Dr. Murray clearly made mistakes, and maybe committed malpractice, but, he did not commit a crime, and he should not have been charged or convicted of a crime. He did what he did to help Michael sleep, because Michael felt that propofol was the only medicine that helped him sleep. And Michael needed to sleep. If Michael would have lived, I don't think that he would have wanted Murray charged with a crime, and I do not think that Michael would have even brought malpractice charges against him, because he knew that Murray did what he did on his (Michael's) behalf. It's the same as two good friends going out drinking (alcohol). The driving friend drinks and is celebrating his birthday. The non-driving friend do not drink alcohol, but drinks non-alcoholic beverages to accommodate his friend. The two have been best friends for years. Because its the drinking friend's birthday, the non-drinking friend buys the drinking friend drinks all night. After a while, the non-drinking friend realizes that the drinking friend has had too much to drink. But, the drinking friend, after the non-drinking friend refuses to buy him more drinks, proceeds to buy his own drinks. So, the non-drinking friend gives in and continues to buy the drinks for the drinking friend, because the non-drinking friend wants to pay (as part of the celebration). Finally, the two leave the club or bar. On the way home, the drinking friend crashes the car into a pole and is killed. Can the non-drinking friend be charged with manslaughter? Probably. Should he be charged with manslaughter? Probably not. If the drinking friend had lived, would he want the non-drinking friend charged with manslaughter? *or another crime related to his injury or death? Probably not. Dr. Murray should not have been charged with manslaughter. And, with a fair trial and a good lawyer, he would not have been convicted of manslaughter.
UPDATE--May 21, 2013
Dr. Murray has now filed his appellate brief for his appeal, and one of the issues raised is "bias" by Pastor against Murray. I certainly and clearly raised this issue prior to trial, during, and after trial, but, I don't believe Murray's lawyers ever raised the issue; in part, I believe, because they were cowards, and simply didn't want to challenge Pastor as to a bias contention. And, Murray must carry some of the blame himself, because he could have directed his lawyers to raise the issue, but, apparently, from my knowledge of the record, he didn't do so.
Therefore, it will probably be too late to raise the issue on appeal; and the appellate court will not review the issue. But, we will see. I may be surprised.
UPDATE--May 24, 2013
The L.A. Times, in reporting on the current Michael Jackson wrongful death trial, continues to report Conrad Murray's conviction of involuntary manslaughter as if Murray received a fair trial and a fair conviction. He didn't. Although he certainly was convicted of manslaughter, it was a wrongful conviction that he likely could get overturned in a habeas corpus proceeding. It's doubtful that the California appellate courts are going to overturn it, but again, I may be surprised.
UPDATE--October 30, 2013
Conrad Murray has now been released from jail, having served his sentence (with good time credits). He says that he wants to get his license back in Texas. I didn't hear any mention of California or Nevada. But he's on his own now.
UPDATE--November 27, 2013
Murray has now made public statements about Michael. I perceive these statements as being derogatory; and being a Michael Jackson fan, I am offended by Murray's statements, especially since Michael is not here to defend himself. I now no longer respect Murray, and I regret writing the blogs that I wrote on his behalf.
I imagine Murray is responding and/or retaliating for Mrs. Jackson's (Michael's mother) comments and litigation holding Murray responsible for Michael's death. But, her position is just that of a broken-hearted, loving and despondent mother who feel the need to hold someone responsible for her son's death, and since Murray played a major role in Michael's death, she, as a mother, pointed the finger at Murray.
But Murray, as a professional, and I thought, a friend of Michael's, should have placed himself above the fray and not turn to retaliatory behavior. I am particularly bothered by what I believe is confidential information that Murray purportedly revealed (according to the news). The information related to Michael's children. Although I could rightfully publish the information here since it has been made public, I won't, to try and protect the confidentiality of the information. However, although I am a lawyer and not a doctor, I believe that Murray may have violated a doctor's code of professional responsibility by revealing the information.
In addition to the confidential information that Murray revealed, he also charges Michael with being an addict, and again, following his lawyers lead, charges Michael with giving himself propofol and causing his own death. Even if this really is true, and I continue to question that it is, out of respect (and since the trial is over), he should not be making these statements now.
Remember, it was Michael who was going to pay Murray a salary that Murray had never phantom making before, probably because Michael considered Murray a friend and Michael was trying to help a friend (knowing that Murray wasn't making much money through his practice). And Michael went out of his way to help Murray with the salary. AEG didn't really want to pay Murray the salary, but Michael was insistent, on Murray's behalf. And now Murray, after Michael's death (which he caused--although, I believe it was a matter of negligence rather than criminality), wants to bad mouth Michael. I think it's despicable. I think Murray only hurts himself through his revelations, because his conduct only detracts from his professionalism.
Finally, I generally stayed out of the civil action brought by Mrs. Jackson (i.e., I didn't comment through blogs), because I viewed it as strictly a money suit, i.e., deep pockets. But, now, with Murray's revelations, I will comment briefly.
I believe that Mrs. Jackson, through her lawyers, after going ahead with the lawsuit, should have filed a post-trial motion, i,e., JNOV, because the jury never reached the issue of negligent supervision. It only addressed the issue of negligent hiring. Even if it (the jury) found that Murray wasn't negligently hired, it necessarily, had to continue with the remaining questions to address the supervision portion of the complaint, and it didn't *(from what I gathered from news reports).
I have now learned that Mrs. Jackson has appealed. I think the negligent supervision claim is colorable. Again, the jury never reached that issue, and it should have.
**UPDATE--January 28, 2014
Murray's conviction has now been affirmed on appeal. Good riddence! And, although it was stated that Murray's lawyer raised the issue of bias on appeal. The appeals court did not address the issue of bias in its unpublished decision. And it did not cite bias as one of the points raised by Murray on appeal. So what happened to the bias issue? It doesn't matter, even if it had been raised by Murray, the court probably wouldn't have addressed it, for not being raised below.
