Read the Juror Questionaire in Dr. Conrad Murray Criminal Trial Re Death of Michael Jackson

Looks like we've got another case where there may be so much media coverage that the danger of a trial by media exists. Celebrity sites are following this one, and misinformation is being provided (for example, there is no charge in this criminal trial of the civil tort of gross negligence). 

Whether or not Dr. Conrad Murray committed a crime in the death of Michael Jackson is going to trial over in California this month, and right now the parties and the judge are involved in the jury selection process.

Like the Casey Anthony trial earlier this year, state prosecutors will have the burden of establishing beyond a reasonable doubt; here, the key issue is whether or not the doctor is criminally responsible for the death of Michael Jackson.   Dr. Murray is charged under California state law with involuntary manslaughter and he could face 4 years in prison and the loss of his medical license if convicted.  (Read the complaint in full online here.) 

For more information on the crime of "involuntary manslaughter" as it will be given to the jury in the formal jury instructions, go here for details and also consider the following:

However, evidence of imperfect self-defense may support a finding of involuntary manslaughter, where the evidence demonstrates the absence of (as opposed to the negation of) the elements of malice. (People v. Blakeley (2000) 23 Cal.4th 82, 91 [96 Cal.Rptr.2d 451, 999 P.2d 675] [discussing dissenting opinion of Mosk, J.].) In such a situation, the court should also instruct the jury in involuntary manslaughter.

Given the outcome of the Anthony case, and the scrutiny that those jurors still undergo today both in the international media and from the American public at large, it's no surprise that the California case has focused upon who jury selection -- however, this questionnaire is considered by many to be unusually piercing in its investigation into the individuals that will take on the role of juror.  Don't expect to see this kind of thing the next time that you're called for jury duty. 

Who would have created this questionnaire?  It would be approved by the judge after conferring with the prosecution and defense.  They, in turn, will probably have conferred with their jury selection consultants on the issues to be addressed in the questioning.   It's 30 pages long and filled with lots and lots of interesting queries (read it here): 

Click on Image for Full Text

Trial by Media: Michael Jackson Doctor, Conrad Murray, Will Be Tried On TV - Should He Be? Do the Pros Outweigh the Cons?

TMZ is reporting today that the trial of Dr. Conrad Murray in California, where he is facing manslaughter charges in the death of Michael Jackson, will be televised.

Now, I recognize that if there's gonna be any place in the country where putting stuff on the screen seems like no big deal, it's Los Angeles. And I understand that there's a lot of profit here by doing so -- big audience, big advertising dollars, I get it.

I still don't know that this is a good idea. First of all, the job of the defense is to air a lot of dirty laundry. Yes, Michael Jackson will be tried in this case -- it's a strategy honed by my mentor Racehorse Haynes long ago, in the Cullen Davis murder trial.

No smart criminal defense attorney is going to forego introducing as much evidence as possible that puts Jackson in a bad light in defense of Dr. Murray's actions that day. It's gonna happen.  (There's already scuttlebutt about a Michael Jackson suicide defense.)

Not fair to his kids. Not fair to his mom. Won't matter. We're going to learn things that will hurt them in this trial, and it's gonna go all over the world instantaneously in this televised trial.

Meanwhile, there are all those conspiracy theories out there (yes, there are Michael Jackson sightings now) as well as the potential of new ones if this trial is not put out there for public scrutiny. People may debate the trial in its aftermath, but they'll have the evidence presented and that's a different scenario than the omission of cameras and worldwide suspicions of evildoing in the courtroom. This is a plus to televising this thing.

However, I'm not a fan of televised trials. Perhaps in the early days, when the process was put onto our screens in sort of a CSpan approach -- but now, it's become so much more akin to reality TV.

Trial by media is a real concern, as well. Can Dr. Murray get a fair trial? I don't know, but if he's convicted there is that possible appellate argument.

Do the pros outweigh the cons? I don't think so in this case. In my opinion, Dr. Murray's trials should not be televised.

Michael Jackson's Death - What About the Life Insurance Policies?

There's more and more chatter online and off regarding Michael Jackson and his surprising and untimely death. Talk about his huge amount of debt, talk about what's been done to protect the children's inheritance, talk about his drug use, and talk about the leeches that hung around him.

I've read about the London tour involving 50 gigs, when Michael Jackson was originally told there would be only 10. I've read about his nixing an offer to be paid over $2 million to entertain at the party of some Russian rich guy.

But, as a lawyer, here's what I know and I'm not hearing a thing on this issue: life insurance policies exist outside the Estate of Michael Jackson; they are contracts that pay directly to the beneficiary of the policy.

Why aren't we hearing about life insurance policies in all this talk?

I find it very, very curious that we're not hearing anything about these policies and I'm betting that there are several out there. I'm betting SONY had one on him. I'm betting the London promoters had one. I'm HOPING there is one or more in place for his children.

If MJ was too frail or ill to perform in London, then it's scary to think that life insurance might have made him more valuable dead than alive.

And, I'm also wondering that if the nasty rumors are true, that MJ was so ill and so frail that he could not have performed in London, then what impact those life insurance policies have upon a motive in his death. If there are significant policies out there, MJ may have been worth more death than alive and someone should be investigating this concern.

Complications: suicide (and there's been talk of that) would exempt the payout by the life insurance carrier -- unless enough time had passed since the policies had been created (for example, a policy may pay provide benefits on a suicide if the policy has been in effect for over 2 years at the time of death). And, if the insurance carrier found that the beneficiary contributed the death, then they would not pay out benefits.

Where are the insurance carriers' teams of investigators?

So, why aren't we hearing about this life insurance policies? And, why aren't we hearing about the investigators for the insurance companies being involved in the current investigation? Are they being that subtle, or are there no policies?