Verdict Reached: AEG NOT Liable - Discussion- Katherine Jackson vs AEG

[Bonnie Blue]

^^ comment from reader - don't know if it's true or not

addisonsteele



The attorney needs to go back to lawschool. The tort of negligent hiring in California requires a factual finding that the employer knew or should have known that the employee was incompetent at the time of hiring. The jury instructions were correct.

It's not true, there are probs with what panish has said in that article, but nothing to do with what addisonsteel who clearly doesn't know anything about the case thinks. It wasn't a negligent hiring lawsuit, it was negligent hiring, supervising or retention lawsuit, so the incompetence can theoretically extend to the entire time of murray's employment. And what jury instructions were 'correct'? - there were no jury instructions saying that the competence was only to be considered at the time of hiring.

 

[ivy]

below you can see california jury instructions

http://www.justia.com/trials-litigation/docs/caci/400/426.html

California Civil Jury Instructions (CACI)

426. Negligent Hiring, Supervision, or Retention of Employee

[Name of plaintiff] claims that [he/she] was harmed by [name of employee] and that [name of employer defendant] is responsible for that harm because [name of employer defendant] negligently [hired/ supervised/ [or] retained] [name of employee]. To establish this claim, [name of plaintiff] must prove all of the following:
1. That [name of employee] was [unfit/ [or] incompetent] to perform the work for which [he/she] was hired;
2. That [name of employer defendant] knew or should have known that [name of employee] was [unfit/ [or] incompetent] and that this [unfitness/ [or] incompetence] created a particular risk to others;
3. That [name of employee]’s [unfitness/ [or] incompetence] harmed [name of plaintiff]; and
4. That [name of employer defendant]’s negligence in [hiring/ supervising/ [or] retaining] [name of employee] was a substantial factor in causing [name of plaintiff]’s harm.

compare it to the questions on the verdict form

Question No. 2
Was Murray unfit or incompetent to perform the work for which he was hired?

Yes / No

If you answered Yes then answer question 3. If you answered No stop here answer no further questions.

Question No. 3
Did AEG Live know or should it have known that Murray was unfit or incompetent and that this unfitness or incompetence created a particular risk to others?

Yes / No

If you answered Yes then answer question 4. If you answered No stop here answer no further questions.

Question No. 4
Did Murray's unfitness or incompetence harm Michael Jackson and the Jackson plaintiffs?

Yes / No

If you answered Yes then answer question 5. If you answered No stop here answer no further questions.

Question No. 5
Was AEG Live's negligence in hiring, supervising or retaining Murray a substantial factor in causing Michael Jackson and the Jackson plaintiffs' harm?

Yes / No

as you can see the parties and/or the judge has used the exact standard jury instructions wording on the verdict forms. I don't think there's much ground for any successful appeal - at least based on the verdict form. If these wording works for negligent hiring, retention and supervision cases, there's no reason why they would not work in this instance.

 

[serendipity]

However, he says the judge denied the request and ruled that the question would be phrased, was Dr. Conrad Murray fit and competent to perform the work for which he was hired "at the time of hiring."

There was no "at the time of hiring" in the question, what is Panish talking about? There was no time specified. Again, the bigger problem for them was "the work he was hired for" and not so much the time.

And they also failed at the third question. IMO Panish is grasping at straws.

 

[passy001]

below you can see california jury instructions

http://www.justia.com/trials-litigation/docs/caci/400/426.html

California Civil Jury Instructions (CACI)

426. Negligent Hiring, Supervision, or Retention of Employee

[Name of plaintiff] claims that [he/she] was harmed by [name of employee] and that [name of employer defendant] is responsible for that harm because [name of employer defendant] negligently [hired/ supervised/ [or] retained] [name of employee]. To establish this claim, [name of plaintiff] must prove all of the following:
1. That [name of employee] was [unfit/ [or] incompetent] to perform the work for which [he/she] was hired;
2. That [name of employer defendant] knew or should have known that [name of employee] was [unfit/ [or] incompetent] and that this [unfitness/ [or] incompetence] created a particular risk to others;
3. That [name of employee]’s [unfitness/ [or] incompetence] harmed [name of plaintiff]; and
4. That [name of employer defendant]’s negligence in [hiring/ supervising/ [or] retaining] [name of employee] was a substantial factor in causing [name of plaintiff]’s harm.

compare it to the questions on the verdict form

Question No. 2
Was Murray unfit or incompetent to perform the work for which he was hired?

Yes / No

If you answered Yes then answer question 3. If you answered No stop here answer no further questions.

Question No. 3
Did AEG Live know or should it have known that Murray was unfit or incompetent and that this unfitness or incompetence created a particular risk to others?

Yes / No

If you answered Yes then answer question 4. If you answered No stop here answer no further questions.

Question No. 4
Did Murray's unfitness or incompetence harm Michael Jackson and the Jackson plaintiffs?

Yes / No

If you answered Yes then answer question 5. If you answered No stop here answer no further questions.

Question No. 5
Was AEG Live's negligence in hiring, supervising or retaining Murray a substantial factor in causing Michael Jackson and the Jackson plaintiffs' harm?

Yes / No

as you can see the parties and/or the judge has used the exact standard jury instructions wording on the verdict forms. I don't think there's much ground for any successful appeal - at least based on the verdict form. If these wording works for negligent hiring, retention and supervision cases, there's no reason why they would not work in this instance.

I knew Panish was talking out of his rear end.

Plus, even if we consider the entire series of event after the hiring, Murray is still fit and competent because Murray was treating MJ for something he was not hired for. he was treating MJ for acute and chronic insomnia, and as such cannot be classified as general health care.

It's like me hiring a person to be my chef, but he ends up being my chauffeur and gets involved in a road accident. now was the person fit and competent for the job he was hired for? to answer that question, you need to know what he was hired for.

so all these talks of appeal are just waste of time. hope the estate does not pay the bills. really.

 

[Tygger]

Last Tear, how do you know those jurors did not approach the media and were rejected as that is not an interesting story to the general public? It is a missed opportunity in my view however, Panish spoke with them. We heard from two jurors publicly who voted “no” and I would have liked to have heard from the two jurors who voted “yes” to question two.

Big Apple2, I understand AEG was found not liable for negligent hiring however, the jurors did find AEG hired the doctor.

The CACI shows the commenter was incorrect and Panish was correct. There is no wording referring to the “time of hire” and Panish most likely did petition the judge to clarify the instruction and she refused.

It was Putnam who told the jurors in his closing the doctor was fit or competent at the time of hire and ten jurors agreed with him. Two jurors agreed with Panish who told the jurors in his closing and rebuttal that the doctor was unfit or incompetent for his full time of employment where Michael declined. Jurors decided on whose interpretation of that question, Panish or Putnam, they agreed with.

Under no stretch of the imagination was the doctor fit or competent during his employment as Michael declined and passed under his negligent care. Michael was sleep deprived and the doctor did not know how to handle that. It is the very reason the defense purposely did not make the connection between sleep issues and general care and that the doctor could possibly have been hired to treat Michael's sleep issues.

 

[serendipity]

The judge made no error, she went by the law, CACI shows that very clear. There's no grounds for appeal IMO.

 

[LastTear]

Last Tear, how do you know those jurors did not approach the media and were rejected as that is not an interesting story to the general public? It is a missed opportunity in my view however, Panish spoke with them. We heard from two jurors publicly who voted “no” and I would have liked to have heard from the two jurors who voted “yes” to question two.
.

We don't know and that exactly my point in responding to your original post. But I agree it would have been interesting to hear from them, but just because we didn't doesn't mean there is some kind of conspiracy, not everyone would want to talk to the press, I know I wouldn't want to.

 

[ivy]

so all these talks of appeal are just waste of time. hope the estate does not pay the bills. really.

appeals are a uphill battle for any case. only 20-25% of the appeals are successful. Appeals is also not about retrying the case, it's limited to the law and made sure that the law was followed. So it'll be all about the decisions the judge made and what she allowed or not. for example that's the reason for the appeal on the summary judgment decision. she dismissed some claims and defendants and whether she made the right decision or not could be a question for an appeal.

The judge made no error, she went by the law, CACI shows that very clear. There's no grounds for appeal IMO.

I personally don't get the focus on the question wording to be honest. I kept posting CACI jury instructions multiple times and the verdict form consisted of the same exact wording for the 4 required questions for negligent hiring claim. Panish might have argued for a modification of the question but there's nothing to say it was needed to be done. In all negligent hiring/retention and supervision cases, the employee gets hired and then at a later time does something wrong. So there's always a time period between the hiring and the harm causing event. If this instructions work for the thousands of cases, I don't see how an appeal court would think the exact wording of CACI was /is problematic.

Also for the jury's bias, I'm not sure what kind of investigation is being done - or even such thing is happening but the jury was selected by a voir dire and each side had chances to dismiss the jurors they did not want. I don't get a possible complaint about the jurors the parties selected.

 

[LMAT]

appeals are a uphill battle for any case. only 20-25% of the appeals are successful. Appeals is also not about retrying the case, it's limited to the law and made sure that the law was followed. So it'll be all about the decisions the judge made and what she allowed or not. for example that's the reason for the appeal on the summary judgment decision. she dismissed some claims and defendants and whether she made the right decision or not could be a question for an appeal.



I personally don't get the focus on the question wording to be honest. I kept posting CACI jury instructions multiple times and the verdict form consisted of the same exact wording for the 4 required questions for negligent hiring claim. Panish might have argued for a modification of the question but there's nothing to say it was needed to be done. In all negligent hiring/retention and supervision cases, the employee gets hired and then at a later time does something wrong. So there's always a time period between the hiring and the harm causing event. If this instructions work for the thousands of cases, I don't see how an appeal court would think the exact wording of CACI was /is problematic.

Also for the jury's bias, I'm not sure what kind of investigation is being done - or even such thing is happening but the jury was selected by a voir dire and each side had chances to dismiss the jurors they did not want. I don't get a possible complaint about the jurors the parties selected.

Quite true. Common sense is what it is....

 

[crillon]

I have a great deal of respect for TMez, both for the MJ trial and all the work he's done and continues to do for the community and DP cases. That said, this interview just shows me he's seeing things emotionally as a family friend rather than at a rational distance as a lawyer. It's one thing to disagree with a verdict but dismissing the jury in such a manner is inappropriate to me. Reminiscent of how his own jury came under fire for finding MJ not guilty by folks who weren't in the courtroom day in and day out listening to all of the evidence but rather just one particular narrative.

I agree with all you've said and I'll add another reason for Mesereau's POV: he recommended Panish to the Jacksons and as part of that referral he likely stood to gain financially if the plaintiffs prevailed.

The judge made no error, she went by the law, CACI shows that very clear. There's no grounds for appeal IMO.

Panish is grasping at straws here. Had the competency question been worded as he suggested--to include the words "at any time"--I still don't see how jurors could consider him incompetent. Murray was negligent, reckless and unethical--but not incompetent as a general physician and cardiologist. The medical boards who licensed him confirm that and are the ultimate authority on that matter. Had Murray honored his Hippocratic Oath, he would have walked away from performing anesthesiologist duties, but his lack of character prevailed.

 

[Tygger]

I personally don't get the focus on the question wording to be honest. I kept posting CACI jury instructions multiple times and the verdict form consisted of the same exact wording for the 4 required questions for negligent hiring claim. Panish might have argued for a modification of the question but there's nothing to say it was needed to be done. In all negligent hiring/retention and supervision cases, the employee gets hired and then at a later time does something wrong. So there's always a time period between the hiring and the harm causing event. If this instructions work for the thousands of cases, I don't see how an appeal court would think the exact wording of CACI was /is problematic.

Also for the jury's bias, I'm not sure what kind of investigation is being done - or even such thing is happening but the jury was selected by a voir dire and each side had chances to dismiss the jurors they did not want. I don't get a possible complaint about the jurors the parties selected.

The jurors interviewed did not mention the time period between hire and the harm causing event as you stated. This is the time period Michael declined under the conflicted doctor's negligent care and was discussed at length during the plaintiffs' case. This can be troublesome as that is what question two referenced. That question held more depth in this case which focused on the doctor's conflict than the doctor simply having a license when hired, completing medical school, etc. as the jurors discussed.

As for bias, it is not always detectable during the selection process. This was a high profile case and some seek to be jurors on such cases for notoriety. Some jurors do close their minds to opposing evidence. If the investigation discovers a juror(s) with that mindset and if that juror(s) played a major role in deliberations, that again is troublesome.

It will be interesting to see what this investigation discovers and if an appeal will be sought.

 

[Juror#27]

thanks for answering my question. re what you said above. one of the issues many fans had with the judges rulings is she seemed to let anything and everything be heard during the trial. for example the majority of the jacksons case had been thrown out pre trial but the judge still seemed to let witnesses that were more related to the sections that had been thrown out testify in the actual trial. many fans also pretrial and right at the begining felt the judge had a bias against mj as she made several comments that stated her feelings that mj was just another typical druggie rockstar "like the rollingstones" when the evidence clearly shows that was not the case.

I don't know the judge's personal opinions, but I doubt very highly that she allowed her alleged "bias against MJ" to color her judgment in the case, especially if she supposedly let any and everything in the case for the plaintiffs. If she let everything in the case for the plaintiffs, wouldn't that be bias in favor of MJ?

I think it is far more likely that she did her best to keep things neutral.

i also wonder whats your opinion on the jacksons trying to have their cake and it it interms of in one hand claiming mj was a drug addict who needed saving from himself and was weak and didnt want to do 50 shows and was being bullied by AEG etc etc. yet in the next breath claim he was going to carry on working/touring into his 70s plus and was going to tour with his brothers afterwards (something mj denied himself many a time the last being in late 2008) obviously said to try and increase the damages to the ridiculous figure of 40 bill. seems to me the jacksons were trying to have it both ways in their quest to win lots of $$

That does appear to be contradictory at first glance, but if I may speculate for a moment I would guess the rebuttal to that would be that Murray's negligence and AEG's pressure is what wore MJ down and weakened him so much. So if we take those things out of the equation in an alternate future where MJ successfully completes the first 50 shows, then the contradiction between weakened/invigorated MJ disappears. (Of course this is all predicated on Murray being somehow removed from MJ's life, and I don't see why that would be the case since he was there due to MJ wanting him there. I guess we are to speculate that MJ at some point in this alternate future would just get rid of Murray?)

The more glaring contradiction in my mind is simply comparing MJ's actual touring history and revenues with Mr. Erk's projections. I wish I still had the demonstrative exhibits they showed and passed out to us because all the numbers were there. But from memory it was speculated MJ would do something like 260 shows in ~3 years, and his actual touring history was 272(?) shows over a 10 year period. A 10 year time period when he was much younger and with no kids, I might add.

@Juror 27

I personally was surprised that defence lawyer Putnam didn't bring up Katherine dropping restitution more times during the trial, in order to show reason from this trial. Putnam only brought it up during Katherine's testimony. Second issue for me was that Katherine sued AEG Sept 2010 and before Conrad Murray was sentenced to prison, which was Nov 2011. Did this raise any questions in your mind?

We got this from ABC7 tweets:
Putnam: You do believe Dr. Murray has some responsibility for your son's death? Mrs. Jackson: Of course
Putnam asked Mrs. Jackson if Dr. Murray was convicted in the criminal trial. She said yes.
He asked if the doctor is now in jail. "I hope he is," she responded. (ABC7)
Putnam inquired about Mrs. Jackson asking the District Attorney to drop the $100 million restitution against Dr. Murray. Mrs. Jackson said yes, that Dr. Murray has children and has no money. "Because I felt his children needed him to take care of them," she explained. "He didn't have any money."
Putnam: You asked the DA to drop the $100 million restitution claim against Dr. Murray?
Mrs. Jackson: I asked them to drop it because of his children, he has quite a few children, 7 or 8, I don't know.
Mrs. Jackson said she believes the DA may have dropped the $100 million restitution claim.
Putnam: Did you drop the restitution claim so you could file this lawsuit? Mrs. Jackson: No (ABC7)

I quess you cannot remember everything that was said during the trial, but I personally would have wondered greatly that mother of deceased son is more angry at concert promoter for "alledged" hiring than being angry at the real killer of her son.
That to me would have been proper and clear red flag.
Were you aware of that plaintiffs offered settlement twice before the trial?

I was unaware of the settlement offer until after the trial. If it was mentioned during the trial I didn't recall it. It was definitely not something that was talked about at length.

Reading those tweets refreshed my recollection a bit and I do remember her answering those questions now. I remember getting the impression that there were probably a lot of people in her ear who convinced her to go after AEG and not Murray. And at the same time I reminded myself that the case was to be decided by the facts and not my speculation as to Ms. Jackson's motivation for bringing the suit. So even if I believed that she was just going after deep pockets, in the end I would have awarded damages if I thought they proved their case.

More hypothetical questions:

Regarding that Panish's pie chart, would all the juror have to agree the percentage of responsibility or how it would have worked? If you say MJ was responsible 99%, were other jurors had to be in agreement with that amount, or all jurors put their own percentage and then judge would have decided average?
-----------------------
Also, did all the juror had to be in agreement amount of money awarded or all jurors put their own amount and judge decides average?

Based on how we deliberated the first 2 questions, I think we would have tried to agree on the percentage rather than just averaging our different percentages.

I'm not sure but I think we had to be in agreement on the amount of damages. I don't know if that is explained in the verdict form or not, but I'm certain that if we made it that far we would have wanted to agree on both the % and the amount of damages. I don't know how the court would've handled it if we couldn't agree on those numbers.

Thank you so much for the detailed description in the courtroom. It's really interesting to read and envision these two opposing forces facing off in a court of law. I knew that Brian Panish was very good just by taking a look at his winning track record, and it seems Putnam was some real competition for Panish. It takes some real skill to be a trial attorney.

Thanks for giving us a peak into that world. I wanted this trial to be televised. It would have been something to see.

You're welcome.

I agreed with the judge's decision to not televise the trial, but looking back I do wish I had a way to watch it (some of it, I should say) all over again. While I took my duty as a juror very seriously, there were just so many entertaining moments that it would be nice to see some of them again.

Another funny thing I remember during the trial was when Mr. Phillips was on the stand and Mr. Panish was questioning him. He was asking about an email that Mr. Phillips had sent someone where he said he had info that would exonerate Conrad Murray, or something to that effect. Mr. Panish asked why Mr. Phillips didn't take this info to the police, and Mr. Phillips said that it was something crazy and unreliable. He tried to elaborate on what the info was but Mr. Panish wouldn't let him. So later when he was being cross examined, Mr. Putnam got around to the email info and asked Mr. Phillips to relay it. Mr. Phillips said that Lionel Ritchie's wife at the time had called him and told him - Mr. Panish: "Objection, Hearsay" - Overruled. Mr. Phillips continued and again Mr. Panish objected on the same grounds. Overruled again. So Mr. Phillips finally says that Ms. Ritchie told him that Michael told her - through a medium - that he had accidentally killed himself and that Murray was not to blame. Immediately Mr. Panish says "Objection. C'mon. Double, triple hearsay now?" The whole courtroom erupted on that one.

The end is that CM decided to do wrong/go against oat (under clear debt pressure... u have a family , u have to pay your rent and bills. what if they tell u that they pay your salary and u have to do what told otherwise no $ for your bills?) and AEG was / is liable for CM wrongdoing because they hired him, as your verdict of hiring said.

That is incorrect. The question of liability is separate from the question of whether they hired him. If I hire someone to fix my roof, and while working for me they decide to shoot my neighbor, you believe that I should be liable for their actions?

That is why the questions are broken down further to ask whether AEG hired a person who was unfit or incompetent, and whether they knew or should have known he was incompetent. If I have information that the roofer I hired has killed someone before or attempted murder, then I can be held liable. If I have information that the roofer I hired has no experience working on roofs and is actually a gardener, and he injures someone on the job, then I can be held liable.

In this case, AEG had no information that Conrad Murray was an unethical and dangerous doctor. That was purposefully kept secret from them by Michael himself. His medical background qualified him to give basic medical care, so they were not hiring a gardener to work on a roof. They were hiring a doctor to be a doctor.

There is 1 thing very important to note :
Thanks to the verdict about "AEG Hired CM" there are legal grounds (much stronger than before) for the Jackson Family to have AEG liable , via an appeal and probably without even passing through a jury.

Now I'm no fancy bigshot lawyer, but I'm having a hard time believing this to be the case. I am interested to see where this appeal business ends up, however.

Thanks, Juror #27, for your great replies. Some of the things you witnessed must have been hilarious--like the judge reacting to Debbie Rowe's colorful language. And the conflicts between the 2 teams--at one point they were almost coming to blows (at least from the reports)--was that true?

Yeah Ms. Rowe was a trip. I liked her a lot, but I have to admit there was a small incident where she rustled my jimmies. When Ms. Rowe was being questioned by Ms. Chang of the plaintiffs, Ms. Bina from the defense objected to a few of the questions. For some reason, Ms. Rowe took these objections as personal attacks and kinda lashed out at Ms. Bina. I was totally taken aback because in my opinion Ms. Bina was by far the sweetest, most unassuming attorney on either side. Even when she was grilling a witness she was just so nice and pleasant. So seeing Ms. Rowe go after her when she didn't do anything wrong was a definite WTF moment, but Ms. Rowe had to go into some pretty tough testimony and I chalk the incident up to emotions running high + misunderstanding. Ms. Bina handled the situation with grace and a smile.

As far as Mr. Panish and Mr. Putnam, I never saw any outright physical hostility or even any raised voices between them, but I heard from a few people who said they saw them arguing loudly in the hallway one time. I got the sense early on that there was very real animosity between the two of them. At one point Mr. Panish was questioning Mr. Phillips about having lunch at the Polo Lounge with Mr. Putnam and a third party I can't remember at the moment. I want to say Dr. Tohme Tohme or someone from Colony Capital. Whoever it was, Mr. Panish was intimating that some serious shenanigans were afoot at the meeting. When it was Mr. Putnam's turn to cross examine you could just feel the anger coming off him even though he kept his composure exceptionally well.

Remember the cartoon where the wolf and the sheepdog would clock in and out like they were at a job? They'd try to kill each other while on the clock and then clock out and be nice and chummy? That is how I pictured the two lead attorneys for a while. Early in the trial I often wondered whether they would have lunch or have a couple beers with each other after it was all over, but I stopped wondering that after a certain point.

So, maybe you could comment on 2 other witnesses--Prince and Metzger? Specifically, what did you think of Prince's testimony that he saw Randy Phillips grabbing Murray by the elbow? Also I think he said some men came to see MJ while he was away at rehearsal, including Phillips (if I remember correctly). As I recall, he was not sure of the date (understandable since he was 12 years old). I think he called MJ and MJ told him to offer them something. How did you, and the jury, feel about this testimony as far as the negligent hiring issue and AEG's alleged pressure on Murray was concerned?

I didn't put much stock into that portion of Prince's testimony (the elbow grab). He was pretty vague on it himself, and as you said he was 12 years old at the time. It appeared to me that he was maybe combining incidents or remembering incorrectly, but I don't know. Same for the testimony about people coming over when MJ wasn't there.

What did you think of Metzger's deposition statement versus his live testimony in court? Did you think he was contradicting himself, or at least walking back what he said in his deposition? What was his effect on the jury in that he was the final witness for both sides.

Thanks--I really appreciate your sharing your thoughts and experiences.

Actually he wasn't the final witness for the plaintiffs. They called Dr. Metzger's attorney last. Dr. Metzger had retained the attorney just a few days prior to testifying, and that attorney also just happened to be Ms. Rowe's attorney (who was referred to Ms. Rowe by plaintiffs). But he was a last minute thing and was only on the stand for maybe 20 minutes total.

Dr. Metzger's flip-flop was something that stood out like a sore thumb. In his deposition it was clear what he meant when he said that MJ was doctor shopping, and then on the witness stand he was practically calling his own deposition out as untrue. I don't know what that change was about but it was impossible to ignore.

We spoke about his change in testimony briefly in deliberations since it was so fresh in our minds, but his testimony was not germane to the questions on the verdict form so it was nothing we considered too heavily. We all noticed the change though, I remember asking if I had remembered the deposition incorrectly or attributed it to the wrong person. We all scratched our heads on that one.

From my vantage point, it's clear Murray was more influenced by the pressure applied by MJ rather than AEG. Conrad knew it wasn't AEG that wanted him there. Look at events: Michael's getting sick, AEG is trying to figure out what's going on, Conrad obviously knows what's causing it and yet, despite the confrontation with AEG execs, he doesn't stop because Murray knew MJ would replace him if he said "no" to the Propofol. Regardless though, Murray is the one who CHOSE to violate his oath as a doctor and that's solely on HIM no matter who or what was pressuring him. (Many individuals have found themselves in far dire circumstances than Conrad's situation and they didn't resort to unethical and/or criminal behavior.)

Just want to say that this is an excellent summary of the events as I see them.

Id like to know juror27's impression of TJ and Taj Jacksons testimony.

Id also like to know the reaction/atmosphere in courtroom and among jurors when Debbie Rowe broke down over Paris Jackson.

Id like to know what you thought about the notes the kids wrote to their father and the homevideos that were shown. Did it somehow change your perception of MJ as a father?

I thought Taj and TJ were great. I'm exactly Taj's age so it was interesting to hear about him growing up with MJ as an uncle since at the same time I was growing up knowing MJ as a worldwide phenomenon.

I thought they were both smart, humble and honest. Their testimony didn't really have anything to do with the central questions of the trial, but I appreciated hearing their stories of being with their uncle both as kids and adults. I got the impression that they really loved him and miss him and I thought they were both good people at heart based on what I saw and heard. It was pretty disheartening for me to read Taj's tweet about "big money wins again, no justice for MJ" or whatever it said after the verdict. That bummed me out.

There were a lot of emotional breakdowns in the trial but Ms. Rowe's was especially hard to see. You're sitting there and this person is going through this soul-crushing emotional pain, and your instinct is to want to give them a hug or comfort them somehow. But you can't. And the attorneys can't either. You just have to sit there and watch them struggle. I'm a pretty sympathetic person in general, but this trial really pushed me to the limit. Ms. Cherilyn Lee also broke down when testifying about how MJ trusted doctors too much, and she relayed how her mother also trusted doctors too much and that her mother died because of that misplaced trust. She had the most intense emotional breakdown and I can still remember the feeling in the pit of my stomach as I sat there watching her. My heart just broke for this poor woman over and over and having to sit there detached as someone is pouring their heart out and crying in pain was very hard.

The atmosphere was like being at a funeral whenever someone would break down. The air felt heavier, everything got quieter and you could just feel the tension every time it happened. To the judge's credit she handled emotional testimony with care and concern for the witnesses. Always offering to take a break if they needed it, quick to hand over tissues, reassuring them in a kind way. I really liked how she handled those instances.

One day towards the end of the trial (actually after Ms. Rowe's testimony I think), before the next witness was called, the judge read an instruction to us that said that there was a lot of emotional testimony during the trial, and that attorneys are forbidden from approaching the witness to console them in any way, and that we were not to view their inaction in a negative light. I kind of figured that on my own but it was interesting to hear it officially spelled out.

As far as the videos and handwritten notes, I was really touched by those. I honestly had no impression of MJ as a father before the trial so I didn't even have a perception that could be changed. I do have an impression of him as a father now and it is overwhelmingly positive. The thing that stood out to me the most about Michael as a father is how well he kept them grounded and instilled in them good character traits like caring for others, being helpful, being disciplined, being grateful for what they have, etc. Just imbuing them with good, old-fashioned values that are unfortunately going by the wayside more and more every day. And you see this manifested in the letters that they wrote to their father and how they treated everyone around them. They just seem like great kids and I think they are that way because they had a great father.

They showed the clip of Paris crying at Michael's funeral a bunch of times, and it hit me like a truck every time. Even now I just feel so much sorrow for her that this amazing, positive force in her life was taken away so early. I truly hope she manages to find peace and harmony in her life after all she has been through at such a young age. I hope for that for all of them.

 

[Tygger]

That does appear to be contradictory at first glance, but if I may speculate for a moment I would guess the rebuttal to that would be that Murray's negligence and AEG's pressure is what wore MJ down and weakened him so much. So if we take those things out of the equation in an alternate future where MJ successfully completes the first 50 shows, then the contradiction between weakened/invigorated MJ disappears. (Of course this is all predicated on Murray being somehow removed from MJ's life, and I don't see why that would be the case since he was there due to MJ wanting him there. I guess we are to speculate that MJ at some point in this alternate future would just get rid of Murray?)

Michael had symptoms of being sleep deprived as per Dr. Czeisler; that is what weakened him. What killed him was the negligent administration of propofol. Michael's autopsy showed he was healthy as testified to by Rogers. Without a negligent, conflicted doctor in his life, yes, Michael most likely would complete any tour schedule AEG proposed and Michael accepted. The doctor remained because he was to be paid a $150K fee. If AEG did not hire the doctor, the doctor was not going to accept Michael as a charity case.

The more glaring contradiction in my mind is simply comparing MJ's actual touring history and revenues with Mr. Erk's projections. I wish I still had the demonstrative exhibits they showed and passed out to us because all the numbers were there. But from memory it was speculated MJ would do something like 260 shows in ~3 years, and his actual touring history was 272(?) shows over a 10 year period. A 10 year time period when he was much younger and with no kids, I might add.

Be that as it may, AEG's proposal did match Erk's with two shows a week. They differed with length of time; Erk approximated three years I believe while AEG approximated two years.

Reading those tweets refreshed my recollection a bit and I do remember her answering those questions now. I remember getting the impression that there were probably a lot of people in her ear who convinced her to go after AEG and not Murray. And at the same time I reminded myself that the case was to be decided by the facts and not my speculation as to Ms. Jackson's motivation for bringing the suit. So even if I believed that she was just going after deep pockets, in the end I would have awarded damages if I thought they proved their case.

Katherine testified it was her decision alone to pursue this case. One can trust or distrust her testimony however, she testified it was her decision alone.

In this case, AEG had no information that Conrad Murray was an unethical and dangerous doctor. That was purposefully kept secret from them by Michael himself.

I do not remember any evidence or testimony where Michael was aware that the doctor was unethical and dangerous and kept that a secret from AEG. Michael did not tell AEG he was being administered propofol almost nightly however, he did not have to and AEG did not have to know; that is against the doctor-patient confidential relationship. Phillips and Gongaware both testified they did not recall if the doctor was there to treat Michael's sleep issues. The defense was very careful to make no connections to sleep issues and general care. The doctor had no idea why Michael was declining and did not seek help for his patient.

 

[gerryevans]

Michael had symptoms of being sleep deprived as per Dr. Czeisler; that is what weakened him. What killed him was the negligent administration of propofol. Michael's autopsy showed he was healthy as testified to by Rogers. Without a negligent, conflicted doctor in his life, yes, Michael most likely would complete any tour schedule AEG proposed and Michael accepted. The doctor remained because he was to be paid a $150K fee. If AEG did not hire the doctor, the doctor was not going to accept Michael as a charity case.

If MJ had not wanted him, AEG would not have hired him. If AEG would not have agreed to pay him, MJ would have found another way to pay him. Of course, that's speculation on my part. Just like yours is that Murray would not have remained if not for AEG. The FACT is Murray was buying propofol in April before AEG even met him. And as you say, he wasn't doing it for a charity case. Somehow, someone was going to get him his money.

I do not remember any evidence or testimony where Michael was aware that the doctor was unethical and dangerous and kept that a secret from AEG. Michael did not tell AEG he was being administered propofol almost nightly however, he did not have to and AEG did not have to know; that is against the doctor-patient confidential relationship. Phillips and Gongaware both testified they did not recall if the doctor was there to treat Michael's sleep issues. The defense was very careful to make no connections to sleep issues and general care. The doctor had no idea why Michael was declining and did not seek help for his patient.

MJ might not have known he was dangerous, but he did know he was unethical. Just giving him the propofol in that setting and for that purpose was unethical. And MJ certainly knew THAT was dangerous.

I'm confused by the bold part because it is true, and therefore it goes to AEG not having the key foreseeability that would have supported them being liable. Since I KNOW you think they are liable, I'm not sure what point you are making here.

 

[Bubs]

^^ Yes, Prince testified that Michael gave Paris and him money to give CM, so CM got paid before AEG was aware of him, and from the job that only Mj and CM knew about.

 

[gerryevans]

Juror#27...first thank you so much for coming back. We are a feisty bunch here, but I think everyone does appreciate your providing us insight into the thought processes of the jury, even if their is disagreement with the verdict.

Second, would MJ's debt have factored into the damages amount if you had gotten that far?

 

[ivy]

It will be interesting to see what this investigation discovers and if an appeal will be sought.

I was coming here to say given the amount of damages involved the chances of an appeal being pursued is really high.

Friedman - for what is worth - is reporting that Jacksons will go for an appeal.

 

[jamba]

I was coming here to say given the amount of damages involved the chances of an appeal being pursued is really high.

Friedman - for what is worth - is reporting that Jacksons will go for an appeal.

Maybe this should be revised to : "given the amount of GREED and HUBRIS involved" ?

Does anyone have an idea of the likelihood of this appeal going anywhere and the more specific grounds for it? What do they mean the jury misunderstood the questions??? They themselves misunderstand the Yes answer to the first one since they keep saying AEG hired CM, when the jurors were instructed to vote Yes if they thought it was BOTH AEG and MJ who hired CM. SMH

Doesn't Panish get it that the jury did not buy his argument b/c he presented no evidence to support his claim that AEG knew or should have known??? It was all illogical attempts at deductive reasoning--
1. MJ was deteriorating.
2. CM was his doctor.
3. Therefore, AEG knew that CM was the cause of MJ's deterioration.

Every single one of these premises is flawed and can be debated/challenged and they were. Hence, the conclusion that Panish wanted the jury to reach did not happen.

I really, really wish Jacksons would think of the children and put them first. Are they going to be dragged into a new trial? I wish T. Mez would stop promoting this lawsuit and now the appeal both privately and publicly--what is wrong with him??

There are no motives for this trial except stubborn greed and pride IMO.

I hope if there is another trial that AllGood will be brought up and that whole mess.

 

[Big Apple2]

I really, really wish Jacksons would think of the children and put them first.

I couldn't agree with you more!

It's also interesting to note that when its convenient for their purposes, they like to blame Paris' issues on this lawsuit, but I guess when it comes to an appeal, Paris' issues are a non-factor.

That's how it appears to me anyway.

 

[Bonnie Blue]

I agree with all you've said and I'll add another reason for Mesereau's POV: he recommended Panish to the Jacksons and as part of that referral he likely stood to gain financially if the plaintiffs prevailed.

Where's the evidence that tmez is saying what he's saying on tv because he's being paid to say it as that is impugning tmez's reputation. I understood he recommended a lawyer to a family he's close to so that somehow translates into him having a formal referral fee? So when he goes on tv to argue the case against aeg, you say his opinions cd be biassed because he stands to gain $$ for a partic verdict. As tmez hasn't declared this bias publically, he's actually presenting himself dishonestly in his opinions to both the tv station and the audience as he's just introduced as a family friend/lawyer.

I noticed in the sullivan book drama when tmez supported the untouchable book, instead of just disagreeing with tmez, accepting that he had different views, some fans went further and attempted to suggest with no proof that his support for sullivan was financially biassed because the 2 had the same publishers. I'm at a loss as to why mj fans are so ready to question tmez's integrity, that he's some kind of paid shill, ready to spout any old opinions if there's money in it. Lets hope the general public don't feel the same way about him when he goes out and defends mj on the child molestation charges.

 

[Vici]

Michael Jackson: Family Will Ask for New Trial, Wrongful Death Decision Will Be Appealed,

The family of Michael Jackson lost their wrongful death suit against AEG Live, but the story isn’t over. I am told that the family will not only appeal the jury decision, but they will file for a new trial as well. That’s right, there could be a Trial 2.0, dragging everyone and everything back through the courts.

The word is that the Jacksons’ lead lawyer, Brian Panish, already has a law firm that specializes in appeals writing the documents now. But it’s not just an appeal. They will also ask the court for a do- over based on the jury getting wrong marching orders or misunderstanding the questions they received to make their deliberations.

Separately Panish appeared on an internet radio this week where he talked a little bit about the case and the potential appeal. He doesn’t actually say anything, but I am told definitively that Jackson v. AEGLive is not over, at least not for the Jacksons. Panish says Katherine Jackson was happy that it was proved that AEG hired the doctor that killed Michael Jackson. But remember the jury decided that AEG hired a doctor. They didn’t know, and no one did, that he’d kill Jackson.

http://www.showbiz411.com/2013/10/17/michael-jackson-family-will-ask-for-new-trial-wrongful-death-decision-will-be-appealed

 

[pug]

Michael Jackson: Family Will Ask for New Trial, Wrongful Death Decision Will Be Appealed,

The family of Michael Jackson lost their wrongful death suit against AEG Live, but the story isn’t over. I am told that the family will not only appeal the jury decision, but they will file for a new trial as well. That’s right, there could be a Trial 2.0, dragging everyone and everything back through the courts.

The word is that the Jacksons’ lead lawyer, Brian Panish, already has a law firm that specializes in appeals writing the documents now. But it’s not just an appeal. They will also ask the court for a do- over based on the jury getting wrong marching orders or misunderstanding the questions they received to make their deliberations.

Separately Panish appeared on an internet radio this week where he talked a little bit about the case and the potential appeal. He doesn’t actually say anything, but I am told definitively that Jackson v. AEGLive is not over, at least not for the Jacksons. Panish says Katherine Jackson was happy that it was proved that AEG hired the doctor that killed Michael Jackson. But remember the jury decided that AEG hired a doctor. They didn’t know, and no one did, that he’d kill Jackson.

http://www.showbiz411.com/2013/10/1...rial-wrongful-death-decision-will-be-appealed

:no:Nooooooooooooo

 

[sfosteredi]

Michael Jackson: Family Will Ask for New Trial, Wrongful Death Decision Will Be Appealed,

The family of Michael Jackson lost their wrongful death suit against AEG Live, but the story isn’t over. I am told that the family will not only appeal the jury decision, but they will file for a new trial as well. That’s right, there could be a Trial 2.0, dragging everyone and everything back through the courts.

The word is that the Jacksons’ lead lawyer, Brian Panish, already has a law firm that specializes in appeals writing the documents now. But it’s not just an appeal. They will also ask the court for a do- over based on the jury getting wrong marching orders or misunderstanding the questions they received to make their deliberations.

Separately Panish appeared on an internet radio this week where he talked a little bit about the case and the potential appeal. He doesn’t actually say anything, but I am told definitively that Jackson v. AEGLive is not over, at least not for the Jacksons. Panish says Katherine Jackson was happy that it was proved that AEG hired the doctor that killed Michael Jackson. But remember the jury decided that AEG hired a doctor. They didn’t know, and no one did, that he’d kill Jackson.

http://www.showbiz411.com/2013/10/1...rial-wrongful-death-decision-will-be-appealed

If the family goes forward with this appeal then maybe it's time for MJ's fans who don't want him and his children to suffer anymore to be more vocal. You know like "NO APPEAL, IT'S TIME TO HEAL" something like that. In the first trial, the only fans visible and vocal were those in support of Katherine and the Jacksons. The media reports always link MJ's fans with the plaintiff's side. I think it is time to change that.

 

[MIST]

Jacksons must have thought Murray was fit and competent..after all they are not going after him..

 

[jaydom7]

They need to leave this alone and not appeal... If Katherine was this persistent in getting her son some help and watching over his health and safety then maybe he would be alive today and all of this nonsense would've been avoided. Her persistent behavior in this money grab of a lawsuit speaks volumes doesn't it? yet she was clueless and had her head in the sand when it came to MJ's issues with pain, insomnia and emotional turmoil.

 

[Tygger]

Gerryevans, it is also a fact the doctor did not administer propofol until after AEG hired him. If he was not to receive $150K from AEG and AEG refused to give Michael another advance, how was the doctor to be paid? The doctor was not going to remain without payment.

There is no evidence Michael did knew the doctor was unethical; quite the opposite. Testimony showed Michael trusted doctors and he received propofol outside of a hospital setting during the History tour and there was no danger.

Foreseeability was NOT about AEG knowing about propofol as the judge stated that pre-trial. Foreseeability was about the doctor being conflicted meaning the doctor did not put Michael first. He was beholden to his employer and jurors had to decide based on the evidence it AEG aware of that conflict and used it to their benefit.

Yes, Prince testified that Michael gave Paris and him money to give CM, so CM got paid before AEG was aware of him, and from the job that only Mj and CM knew about.

Bubs, no. The doctor administered propofol after he was hired by AEG. The monies Michael gave his son to give to the doctor May 2009 and onward were not $150K bundles. It was a smaller amount given in lieu of his $150K payment and the doctor did not accept each of those offers from Michael’s son.

I was coming here to say given the amount of damages involved the chances of an appeal being pursued is really high.

Friedman - for what is worth - is reporting that Jacksons will go for an appeal.

Ivy, I believe the investigation involves the jurors and the judge’s responses not damages sought that were not awarded.

 

[ivy]

Does anyone have an idea of the likelihood of this appeal going anywhere and the more specific grounds for it?

the specific grounds cannot be known until they file the opening brief in the appeal. It could be anything the judge made a decision about, things she allowed or did not allow /dismissed. As I said there's one active appeal about the summary judgment and the claims / defendants she dismissed. Media reports seems to suggest they might appeal based on the verdict form as well. There are hundreds of other possibilities as all of the judge's decisions technically can be appealed.

As for "going anywhere", if they file an appeal it would go on for sometime. There would be multiple briefs, perhaps oral arguments from sides. Parties commonly ask for extensions to be able to file proper responses and it would take the appeal court several months to make a decision. 2-3 years on average for an appeal is common. For example Murray, HTWF and Raymone Bain appeals are still ongoing and around 2 year mark from the notice of appeal is filed.

The odds of winning an appeal isn't that good though as I said only 20-25% of the appeals are successful. In an appeal you don't retry the case, it's all about the law and to make sure there weren't any errors of law.

Foreseeability was NOT about AEG knowing about propofol as the judge stated that pre-trial.

You know that judge's duty is to consider all the possibilities and jurors might or might not agree with the judge right? For example judge's ruling was about there was enough to ask a jury to determine if Murray was hired or not, judge herself did not make a determination in that regard. Similarly to the foreseeability when AEG argued they did not know Propofol, judge considered the possibility that the jurors can look to the totality of the situation ( MJ with drug history, Murray with debt, possible conflict and so on) and determine there could be enough forseeability. Judge's ruling allowed both sides to be able to present their version - AEG focusing on Propofol and Jacksons focusing on totality of the situation. So she did not rule out "knowing about Propofol", she ruled there were other ways to foresee the risk. Comments from the jurors suggest that they did not believe it was foreseeable.

Ivy, I believe the investigation involves the jurors and the judge’s responses not damages sought that were not awarded.

You totally misunderstood what I was saying. If I need to spell it out, I was saying as the Jacksons wanted $1.5 to $2 billion and as the lawyers were supposed to get a nice chunk (30% or so) of this billion dollar payout, I'm thinking it's a high probability that they would pursue any and all options for an appeal. The amount of money they can get is too big to let this go. So I'm thinking decision to pursue an appeal might not necessarily be based on if they have grounds or good chance to win the appeal but it could be merely based on the possibility of not wanting to give up on a possible big payday.

 

[Tygger]

Ivy, I understood your comment the first time which is why I responded as I did. Despite the so-called “greedy Jacksons” now so-called “greedy lawyers,” the pursuit of an appeal is based on possible errors of law as you stated in the same post to Jamba. Damage payout and lawyer's fees do not figure into an appeal.

Judge's ruling allowed both sides to be able to present their version - AEG focusing on Propofol and Jacksons focusing on totality of the situation. So she did not rule out "knowing about Propofol", she ruled there were other ways to foresee the risk. Comments from the jurors suggest that they did not believe it was foreseeable.

Again, Michael did not need to tell AEG about propofol as that was between him and the doctor. Foreseeability was focused on the conflicted doctor and AEG knowing about that conflict and using it to their advantage. AEG deflected from that with "we did not know about propofol" and Michael being a "secretive addict." Comments from the jurors proved the deflection worked as question two was about said conflict not, if the doctor graduated from medical school by the time he was hired or Michael being an addict no doctor could say no to, etc.

 

[ivy]

@tygger

one day you will realize that everyone is entitled to their opinions and you aren't required to argue about everything you don't agree. It is my opinion that when there's high amount of money involved most people will pursue any and all venues to try to get it regardless of if it has any merit or not. I'm personally thinking that it's a high probability that Jacksons & lawyers will try their chances in an appeal. You can choose to agree or disagree as much as you want, you can live in a utopia that money doesn't factor in decisions and it's all about merit and so on but just so you know it won't change my opinion. (ps : it's also interesting that for some people on one hand Murray's debts / money is a factor in his decisions and actions but when it comes to Jacksons / lawyers suddenly money play no role in their decisions/actions)

As for the verdict, I don't think arguing about is productive. Again regardless of whether you agree or not or if you'd see it as a a defense strategy or "deflection", "not knowing Propofol" worked for AEG. Writing against it won't change the verdict. Trying to convince people against the verdict won't make a difference. If it wasn't clear, I wasn't discussing the verdict but correcting one of your "factual" statements which was misrepresenting what the judge's order meant. AEG's ability to "deflect" with "we did not know Propofol" actually proves what I said about judge's ruling.

If you want you can wait for 2-3 years to see if an appeal would make any difference. Excuse me as I have no interest in beating a dead horse.

 

[serendipity]

@tygger

one day you will realize that everyone is entitled to their opinions and you aren't required to argue about everything you don't agree. It is my opinion that when there's high amount of money involved most people will pursue any and all venues to try to get it regardless of if it has any merit or not. I'm personally thinking that it's a high probability that Jacksons & lawyers will try their chances in an appeal. You can choose to agree or disagree as much as you want, you can live in a utopia that money doesn't factor in decisions and it's all about merit and so on but just so you know it won't change my opinion. (ps : it's also interesting that for some people on one hand Murray's debts / money is a factor in his decisions and actions but when it comes to Jacksons / lawyers suddenly money play no role in their decisions/actions)

As for the verdict, I don't think arguing about is productive. Again regardless of whether you agree or not or if you'd see it as a a defense strategy or "deflection", "not knowing Propofol" worked for AEG. Writing against it won't change the verdict. Trying to convince people against the verdict won't make a difference. If it wasn't clear, I wasn't discussing the verdict but correcting one of your "factual" statements which was misrepresenting what the judge's order meant. AEG's ability to "deflect" with "we did not know Propofol" actually proves what I said about judge's ruling.

If you want you can wait for 2-3 years to see if an appeal would make any difference. Excuse me as I have no interest in beating a dead horse.

Exactly, Ivy. If AEG were deflecting with "we didn't know about Propofol", then the Jacksons tried to deflect from Propofol by bringing up Demerol. It didn't work. They both had strategies and AEG's strategy worked. Simple as that.