Conrad Murray Trial - Closing Arguments 11-3-11

[octobermoon]

For those that are interested Dr. Drew will be covering the closing args. on his show tonight. Doubt it will be the whole hour tho.

 

[peace9274]

I know this is a little ot but wouldn't Michael Walgren and Deborah Brazil make the cutest couple. I don't know their personal background but I just think they look good together.

His name is David. Some of us call him Dave.
Others use nicknames of endearment.

 

[octobermoon]

Nancy is covering it too.

 

[borndem]

I've never served on a jury or even been on a panel to be on a jury --

I would really like to hear from someone who has been on a criminal case -- after the foreperson is elected -- what next? Do you go ahead & take a pre-lim vote? Certainly I know that each jury is way different, but just would like someone's story.

Thanks, if you can.

 

[peace9274]

Walgren is married with 2 children, so don't wish for that scenario. lol

I read that he's HAPPILY married... with 2 children.

 

[peace9274]

For those that are interested Dr. Drew will be covering the closing args. on his show tonight. Doubt it will be the whole hour tho.

Last night Dr Drew was covering, and fuming about (rightfully so),
the Judge William Adams Video, of him beating his physically disabled daughter.


I imagine he'll be covering it tonight again, AND covering today's closing arguments from the CM Trial.

Nancy Grace is covering the Judge Adams Video right now, on her show on HLN.

She is almost right now the most outraged I've ever seen her.

 

[legalmania]

His name is David. Some of us call him Dave.
Others use nicknames of endearment.

Thanks for the correction , it's probably best I got his name wrong since he is married w/children.

 

[peace9274]

I've never served on a jury or even been on a panel to be on a jury --

I would really like to hear from someone who has been on a criminal case -- after the foreperson is elected -- what next? Do you go ahead & take a pre-lim vote? Certainly I know that each jury is way different, but just would like someone's story.

Thanks, if you can.

I'd like to know also!

TIA

 

[octobermoon]

Thanks for the correction , it's probably best I got his name wrong since he is married w/children.

 

[legalmania]

Last night Dr Drew was covering, and fuming about (rightfully so),
the Judge William Adams Video, of him beating his physically disabled daughter.


I imagine he'll be covering it tonight again, AND covering today's closing arguments from the CM Trial.

Nancy Grace is covering the Judge Adams Video right now, on her show on HLN.

She is almost right now the most outraged I've ever seen her.

I just saw that it's sickening, then the mother was encouraging it also. I'm glad the daughter busted them both. OK back to Conrad.

 

[joe jones]

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.

I disagree, the amount of propofol used by 1 Dr in a domestic setting meant that whoever it was there would have been a trial

CM is guilty on so many levels, not calling 911, no monitoring equipment, not fully qualified in resuciatation, no idea the exact dosage he was giving as he never wrote it down, this was waiting to happen,

it is irrelevant how many other Drs did MJs bidding, and I am sure over the years many Drs were seduced by his celebrity and cash into feeding his addictions as he demanded and they like CM left there ethics at the door

but when he died there was 1 Dr present who was so far out of his depth that I could convict him in a heartbeat, but I am not sure the jury will

 

[oceanblueeyes]

I am still a bit worried about the upcoming verdict. There are a few loose ends that might
make one or two jurors concerned about an outright guilty verdict.

I really think Chernoff's closing was quite lame. Did he miss putting blame on anyone? He accused everyone and anyone who breathed as if they were in some vast conspiracy.:innocent: That is a very lame argument.

They should have picked one target to beat up on instead of going for the entire smörgåsbord.

The DT had to explain that ripped rubber top that was found with CMs fingerprint on it and no prints of MJs were found on the bottles of propofol, med bottles or syringe. They didnt touch it because to explain it would be putting all of those items in the hands of CM.

IMO

 

[legalmania]

I've never served on a jury or even been on a panel to be on a jury --

I would really like to hear from someone who has been on a criminal case -- after the foreperson is elected -- what next? Do you go ahead & take a pre-lim vote? Certainly I know that each jury is way different, but just would like someone's story.

Thanks, if you can.

Well I have served on 5 juries both civil and criminal. They usually take a vote just to see where everyone is at. It really depends on the foreperson. Sometimes they like to start with the instructions or sometimes people just want to talk about why they think there is reasonable doubt or why they are guilty. I know this doesn't sound like much of a help but it really depends on the group.

 

[oceanblueeyes]

I don't think it matters if MJ asked for propofol or not. CM should have said no or walked away. As Walgren pointed out, it was an inappropriate employer/employee relationship, not doctor/patient as it should have been.

Also remember Dr. White (Defense witness):floorlaugh: said that it was Murray who left the syringe of propofol in the bedroom when he abandoned MJ.

He said MJ wouldnt be able to do it.

IMO

 

[legalmania]

He bought the drugs, he administered the drug, he abandoned his patient, he didn't lock up the drugs, no monitoring devices, he didn't call 911 right away and he didn't disclose to anyone that he gave MJ propofol.

 

[azwriter]

Predictions on how long it will take the jury to come to a decision?

Are we laying off bets on this prediction?

If I were on that jury, I would not want to return on Monday. I say late Friday mainly because the prosecution did a great job with the facts and evidence. Yah, I'll take Friday, Nov. 4 by 3 p.m pst.

Anyone else?

 

[oceanblueeyes]

Are we laying off bets on this prediction?

If I were on that jury, I would not want to return on Monday. I say late Friday mainly because the prosecution did a great job with the facts and evidence. Yah, I'll take Friday, Nov. 4 by 3 p.m pst.

Anyone else?

I hope you are right, az.

I won't start getting worried until late Monday afternoon. If they go that long with such a straight forward case. This case really isn't that complex, imo.

IMO

 

[legalmania]

I'll say 13 to 15 hrs.

 

[bravowhisky]

Just going to call it now:

The jury will return a guilty verdict by end of day tomorrow.

 

[Katprint]

I was seriously underwhelmed by the defense argument. There were MUCH BETTER assumption of risk arguments available.

I have represented nursing homes in northern California in civil medical malpractice cases involving patients who were fall risks who chose not to have physical restraints (i.e. not be "tied down") who subsequently fell and died, and patients who refused to drink the nasty-tasting nutritional supplements prescribed by their doctors or to have gastric/parenteral nutrition tubes implanted who subsequently died of malnutrition and/or dehydration, and various other situations where the patient basically refused to follow the doctor's advice but the doctor continued to help the patient with their problems. Also, as a woman, and in particular as a mother of 5 including some high-risk pregnancies, I have an enhanced point of view with regard to assumption of risk with regard to women who choose to give birth at home, or who shop for OB/GYNs willing to perform vaginal birth of twins (most OB/GYNs insist on C-sections) or who refuse to have c-sections despite their doctors advice (which was the basis of a prosecution in Utah) or other risky situations.

I would have argued that competent adults have the right to make choices concerning their medical care. Smokers with emphysema may continue to smoke; does that mean their doctors have a duty to stop treating them? Twenty OB/GYNs may decline to deliver twins vaginally; does that mean that the OB/GYN who agrees is grossly negligent? Some patients suffering from AIDS or cancer decline to pursue therapies with severe side effects; does that mean that their doctors have to cut them off from palliative (symptomatic) relief? No! Competent adults have the right to control their medical care. And it is not illegal for a doctor to continue trying to help the patient suffer as little as possible.

At a minimum, it is a better "theory of the case" likely to result in "reasonable doubt" than the actual defense argument that everything Conrad Murray did was perfectly safe yet Michael Jackson happened to die anyways.

Katprint
Whose father declined a second series of potentially life-saving chemotherapy because he was unwilling to suffer the side effects,
and who has been so exhausted as a new mother that death would have been an acceptable risk of getting some sleep
Always only my own opinion