Murray's Appeal

13»

Comments

  • curlscurls Posts: 3,111
    ... and another:<br /><br />02/20/2014  Service copy of petition for review received.    Appellant Conrad Murray<br /><br />http://appellatecases.courtinfo.ca.gov/search/case/dockets.cfm?dist=2&doc_id=1999218&doc_no=B237677
  • RKRK Posts: 3,019
    http://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/2014/04/23/california-high-court-wont-review-conviction-michael-jackson-doctor/<br /><br />[size=14pt]California high court won't review conviction<br />Of Michael Jacksons doctor[/size]<br />published April 23, 2014<br /><br />LOS ANGELES –  The California Supreme Court refused Wednesday to review the involuntary manslaughter conviction of Michael Jackson's doctor, rejecting his lawyer's petition without comment.<br /><br />The decision by the state's highest court was the latest stop on Dr. Conrad Murray's legal odyssey. A state appeals court upheld his conviction earlier this year and then refused to reconsider its decision.<br /><br />Attorney Valerie Wass said Murray will take his fight to federal court. "We're greatly disappointed, but we intend to pursue this in federal court," Wass said.<br /><br />She said she telephoned Murray with the news and, "He said, 'The fight is not over.' "<br /><br />Authorities said Murray gave Jackson a lethal dose of the anesthetic propofol in 2009 while the singer prepared for a series of comeback concerts.<br /><br />Murray was convicted in 2011 and served two years in jail. He was released in October because of a change in California law requiring nonviolent offenders to serve their sentences in county jails and as a result of credits for good behavior.<br /><br />The six-week trial focused on Murray's care of Jackson, including nightly doses of propofol to help the entertainer sleep.<br /><br />The earlier appellate court decision said, "The evidence demonstrated that Mr. Jackson was a vulnerable victim and that (Murray) was in a position of trust, and that (Murray) violated the trust relationship by breaching standards of professional conduct in numerous respects."<br /><br />Since his release, Murray has been traveling and spending time with family, "trying to get his life back together." Wass said.<br /><br />The federal appeal she plans to file will focus on media coverage of the trial and exposure of the unsequestered jury to the Internet, Wass said. Murray has maintained throughout his appeals that the jury should have been sequestered because of the flood of publicity surrounding the case
  • curlscurls Posts: 3,111
    Oh what a disappointment - I had high hopes for the Supreme Court aka The Court of Last Resort!  But I didn't realise this wasn't actually the last resort, but that it could be taken on further, to federal court. Thanks for posting RK.
  • curlscurls Posts: 3,111
    Latest updates: http://appellatecases.courtinfo.ca.gov/search/case/dockets.cfm?dist=2&doc_id=1999218&doc_no=B237677<br /><br />04/23/2014  Petition for review denied in Supreme Court.<br />04/30/2014  Remittitur issued.<br />04/30/2014  Case complete.<br /><br />Had to look up 'remittitur': http://www.courts.ca.gov/cms/rules/index.cfm?title=eight&linkid=rule8_272<br /><br />Is it worth waiting for Murray's next move I wonder?
  • Trials are 100% staged, not real at all.
  • curlscurls Posts: 3,111
    I've been keeping an eye on Murray's appeals. Having been refused by California Supreme Court he took it to the US Supreme Court. I'm wondering if these docket entries mean he's reached the end of the road. It would seem the US SC has also refused to hear his case. Is there anyone here with more understanding of legal jargon than me, able to confirm or deny this?<br /><br />07/29/2014    Received copy of:    Extension of time in US Supreme Court  - Application # 14A74<br />        <br />09/29/2014    Received copy of:    Supreme Court of United States Office of the Clerk The petition for writ of certiorari in the above entitled case was filed on September 2,  2014 and placed on the docket September 23,  3014 as No. 14-6371.<br /><br />11/17/2014    Received copy of:    Supreme Court of the United States Office of the Clerk re The Court today entered the following order in the above-entitled case: The petition for writ of certiorari is denied. [dated November 10,  2014]<br /><br />http://appellatecases.courtinfo.ca.gov/search/case/dockets.cfm?dist=2&doc_id=1999218&doc_no=B237677<br /><br />~~~Date~~~ ~~~~~~~Proceedings  and  Orders~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Jul 14 2014Application (14A74) to extend the time to file a petition for a writ of certiorari from July 22, 2014 to September 20, <br />2014, submitted to Justice Kennedy. Jul 22 2014Application (14A74) granted by Justice Kennedy extending the time to file until September 20, 2014. Sep 2 2014Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due October 23, 2014) Oct 15 2014Waiver of right of respondent California to respond filed. Oct 23 2014DISTRIBUTED for Conference of November 7, 2014.Nov 10 2014Petition DENIED. <br />http://www.supremecourt.gov/search.aspx?filename=/docketfiles/14-6371.htm
  • http://www.answers.com/Q/What_does_certiorari_denied_mean<br /><br />When an application (or appeal of some case in a lower court) to the Supreme Court is denied, it is called certiorari denied. In fact, it means that the Supreme Court refuses to accept the application or appeal and will not judge on it<br /><br /><br />It sounds like it is done and over.<br /><br />All I can say is that this was drawn out since Murray isn't guilty. All of this has to be for someone else, but who?<br /><br />Love you Michael!
  • funny that I haven't heard anything about Murrays so called "appeals" in the media at all. Not one thing. I find that so weird. Sometimes I wonder what is really going on  :icon_e_surprised:
  • curlscurls Posts: 3,111
    I'll be so disappointed if Murray's story has just fizzled out and doesn't have a proper ending. Like when you watch a drama series on tv and you get to the final episode and annoying loose ends are left untied.:icon_e_sad:
  • And that reminds me of Who killed JR?<br /><br />Bobby Ewing is actually part of this hoax. On the Michael cd supposedly some tracks were done by James Porte (aka Bobby Ewing). And for those who watched Dallas, you will remember that Bobby Ewing 'died' in a car accident but yet one morning his wife awakens to find him taking a shower - she had dreamt the whole thing. LOL!<br /><br />Now back on topic - do you think Murray's lawyer Valerie Wass would answer any questions?<br /><br />Love you Michael!
  • on 1421810414:
    <br />And that reminds me of Who killed JR?<br /><br />Bobby Ewing is actually part of this hoax. On the Michael cd supposedly some tracks were done by James Porte (aka Bobby Ewing). And for those who watched Dallas, you will remember that Bobby Ewing 'died' in a car accident but yet one morning his wife awakens to find him taking a shower - she had dreamt the whole thing. LOL!<br /><br />Now back on topic - do you think Murray's lawyer Valerie Wass would answer any questions?<br /><br />Love you Michael!<br />
    <br /><br />That's if shes really even a real person or a real lawyer. You never know who can be trusted in this situation
  • on 1421815298:
    <br />
    on 1421810414:
    <br />And that reminds me of Who killed JR?<br /><br />Bobby Ewing is actually part of this hoax. On the Michael cd supposedly some tracks were done by James Porte (aka Bobby Ewing). And for those who watched Dallas, you will remember that Bobby Ewing 'died' in a car accident but yet one morning his wife awakens to find him taking a shower - she had dreamt the whole thing. LOL!<br /><br />Now back on topic - do you think Murray's lawyer Valerie Wass would answer any questions?<br /><br />Love you Michael!<br />
    <br /><br />That's if shes really even a real person or a real lawyer. You never know who can be trusted in this situation<br />
    <br /><br /><br /> :thjajaja121: So true!
  • curlscurls Posts: 3,111
    LOL I used to love Dallas in those good old days!<br /><br />A few days ago I emailed the attorney (not Valerie Wass) named on the US Supreme Court link I gave above, but not surprisingly I haven't heard anything back. Wass was not shy about talking to the media in the past, so maybe she would be a better bet to get some information from. Quick look, I can't find any contact info for her.
  • http://members.calbar.ca.gov/fal/Member/Detail/100445<br /><br /><br />Attorney Search<br /> <br />Valerie Gail Wass - #100445<br /> <br />Current Status:  Active <br /><br />This member is active and may practice law in California.<br /><br />See below for more details.<br /> <br /><br />Profile Information<br /><br />The following information is from the official records of The State Bar of California.<br /><br />Bar Number: 100445<br /> <br />Address:<br />556 S Fair Oaks Ave Ste 9<br />Pasadena, CA 91105<br />  <br />Phone Number: (626) 797-1099<br />Fax Number: Not Available<br />e-mail: vgwassatty@gmail.com<br />  <br />Undergraduate School:<br />Occidental Coll; Los Angeles CA<br />  <br />Law School:<br />U of San Francisco SOL; San Francisco CA  <br />County: Los Angeles<br />District: District 2<br /> <br />Sections:<br />None<br /><br />  <br />Status History<br /><br />Effective Date Status Change <br />Present Active <br />12/1/1981 Admitted to The State Bar of California <br /><br />Explanation of member status<br /><br />Actions Affecting Eligibility to Practice Law<br /><br />Disciplinary and Related Actions<br /><br />Overview of the attorney discipline system. <br /> <br />This member has no public record of discipline. <br /><br />Administrative Actions<br /> <br />This member has no public record of administrative actions. <br /><br />Attorney Provided Information<br /><br />The information below was provided by the attorney and has not been verified or monitored. The State Bar does not recommend or endorse any attorney.<br /><br />Practice Area(s):<br />Appellate Practice<br />Criminal Law<br /> <br /><br />I'm assuming this is her.<br /><br /><br />Love you Michael!<br />
  • curlscurls Posts: 3,111
    Thanks for finding that, iamhere. I'll email her too.<br /><br />I actually had a reply from Brian Pomerantz (the attorney named on the Supreme Court docket) yesterday, just asking me what is my interest in the case, so I've replied back. We'll see ....
  • I hope you receive an answer!<br /><br />I was thinking the other day that maybe we should start contacting some agencies and see if we could get some answers. After all Murray is out of jail, he has served his time so there are no further investigations going on, right?<br /><br />If we don't get answers that could indicate there is still some type of investigation going on.<br /><br />Love you Michael!
Sign In or Register to comment.