Conrad Murray Trial - Closing Arguments 11-3-11

[Sedonia Sunset]

Is there anyone Chernoff has forgotten to blame? Has he accused the judge in the conspiracy yet?

I can spin too. I think he just blamed a hypothetical baby on a countertop.

 

[Sedonia Sunset]

I predict a hung jury. Chernoff did a good job in raising reasonable doubt as to criminal negligence versus negligence and Walgren's rebuttal was flat and imo actually boosted Chernoff's closing by saying MJ could have administered the propofol.

MJ had some serious issues way before CM came into the picture. I thought Chernoff's statement of CM being a small fish in a big dirty pond was spot on. I've always felt that was the case from the very beginning and I agree with Chernoff that if it wasn't Michael Jackson, we wouldn't be here.

This was a fairly unique situation. Very few people OTHER than MJ would have been able to bribe a doctor to be the doctor's sole patient and to administer ANESTHESIA to get them to go to sleep. MJ's combination of money (AEG's money in this case) and star power was too much for CM to resist, so he threw his ethics out the window for a chance to strut in the glow and finance a whole lot more lap dances.

The average person is only likely to convince a drug dealer to give them heroin and to shoot them up (in case the user is squeamish or unsure) for a few dollars more.

 

[Katprint]

IMO, that is what he was trying to tell this jury when he said CM was a small fish in a big dirty pond. If we believe the theory that MJ self induced the meds, then there was nothing that CM could've done to stop him. He basically potrayed MJ as an addict who committed suicide. He gave the psych ward as one example. Also, Walgren in his rebuttal potrayed MJ as a feeble person who put his trust in CM but yet through some of the testimony I've heard, Michael was being potrayed as a healthy, strong person who had nothing wrong with him. I thought that was 'bizarre'. They can't have it both ways.

I think Chernoff did a good job in raising reasonable doubt. I know if I was on the jury, I'd be wanting some of these questions answered before I would vote guilty. Relooking at the evidence is crucial.

And yes, I truly believe that if it wasn't Michael Jackson, we wouldn't be here today discussing this trial.

Nonetheless, I would have hit this point harder. I would have pointed out that sleep deprivation is so uncomfortable, it is one of the tortures used at Guantanamo - right up there with waterboarding and "stress positions." Regardless *why* MJ couldn't sleep i.e. worrying about his financial situation, demerol-related withdrawal, whatever - MJ as a competent adult could have told CM "I understand the risks, I have *GOT* to get some sleep no matter what happens."

CM still has some problems with regard to failing to properly monitor MJ once MJ was unconscious. I tend to agree with the argument that is it unlikely MJ was begging for help sleeping but CM ignored him for several hours while texting, reading emails, talking to his mistresses, etc. But I do think there are unexploited weaknesses that giving propofol was *SHAZAM* a felony in and of itself.

Katprint
Always only my own opinions

 

[borndem]

I think Chernoff is the ONLY person who took that the wrong way (not that he didn't know EXACTLY what the doctor meant). I was OUTRAGED when he made a big deal of the PT calling MJ a baby, as if he weren't a grown man who could make decisions. Uh, under sedation, NO ONE can make decisions. At least the baby on the countertop can WAKE UP and make a decision to cry for attention.

If I were on the jury, I would be highly insulted that Chernoff was acting like I was too stupid to see what a blatant misrepresentation that was. Not only should he not have tried to spin it, but he should never have mentioned it in the FIRST place. Now the jurors are going to remember, oh yeah, he WAS like a baby left on a countertop; defenseless and alone while in a condition that could easily result in grave harm. Nice going, Chernoff, put THAT picture back in their minds and insult their intelligence in the process.

I agree -- I thought he was on shaky ground as well. When Shafer first gave us that analogy, I think everyone -- every one in the courtroom and beyond -- understood exactly what he meant -- further, I think everyone saw a baby on that counter top in the kitchen, not MJ the 50 year old man -- so Chernoff took the bably off the counter -- and then put what??? Michael Jackson -- noooooo. It just made Chernoff look dense, and he insulted everyone else, IMO. Don't insult those who are holding the fate of your client in their verdict voting cards. I betcha, on second thought about this one mind-picture, Chernoff already regrets saying it.