I'm not surprised there is a delay. Mother Katherine already dropped the case against AEG being responsible for hiring Murray. I believe I read this in a different forum. I always felt AEG wasn't responsible because Kenny O and others were at the memorial and he was also at the premiere of This is it taking pics with the brothers. If they were really responsible then why would the brothers be so friendly with him? Anyway what's next charges dropped completely against Murray? Like the family keeps saying he is the fall guy. It will be interesting to see what happens next that's for sure.
The Jackson brothers look rather chummy with Kenny. Ummm is Kenny holding Jackie's hand in the pic?lol <!-- s --><!-- s --> <!-- s --><!-- s -->
<!-- s --><!-- s --> My first thoughts about this picture were geez <!-- s:shock: -->:shock:<!-- s:shock: --> BMF = Black Mafia Family. Of course they aren’t. BMF were straight up gangstas.
Lol...me neither....that is why i am always "27" and have been for years....
[although I now I have a step son that is older than me.... <!-- s --><!-- s -->
Hey what is so wrong with some arrested development?
buwaaaaaaahhhaaa.
A prosecutor asked Thursday that the trial of Michael Jackson’s doctor be delayed because of what she said was the failure of the defense to share information about its planned case, including the findings of its star forensic witness.
Los Angeles County Superior Court Judge Michael Pastor left the scheduled March 24 start of Dr. Conrad Murray’s trial in place, but said he shared the prosecution’s frustration and reminded defense attorneys that they could be fined or barred from calling witnesses if they did not comply with legal obligations to turn over the materials.
Memorial was delayed. Right after they brought coffin in. "Sound problems". At least 5 min of silence and awkward waiting. Anyone who watched it live will remember.
The Jackson brothers look rather chummy with Kenny. Ummm is Kenny holding Jackie's hand in the pic?lol <!-- s --><!-- s --> <!-- s --><!-- s -->
Probably Jackie said to Kenny: "We Know What's Going On dude, and this is going to be a fast rollercoaster ride, so pls Hold My Hand" <!-- s --><!-- s -->
I know right.lol They are really holding hands. <!-- s --><!-- s -->
Jackson judge says he might delay trial of doctor
AP
*
o
Share
o
retweet
o Email
o Print
Katherine Jackson AP – FILE - This Jan. 6, 2011 file photo shows Katherine Jackson, Michael Jackson's mother, leaving court …
* Michael Jackson Death Case Slideshow:Michael Jackson Death Case
* The Men of the Oscars Play Video Celebrity Video:The Men of the Oscars ABC News
* AP Top Stories Play Video Celebrity Video:AP Top Stories AP
– 42 mins ago
LOS ANGELES – A judge says he is considering delaying the trial of the doctor charged in Michael Jackson's death because the physician's attorneys haven't turned over witness statements to prosecutors.
Superior Court Judge Michael Pastor says he is extremely distressed by the lack of information that defense attorneys have given to prosecutors in advance of a trial slated to begin March 24.
Defense attorney J. Michael Flanagan says attorneys are still preparing their case and expect to continue their investigation even after trial starts.
That stunned Pastor, who says he may delay the trial or fine attorneys who aren't complying with rules requiring them to give potential evidence to prosecutors 30 days before trial.
Dr. Conrad Murray has pleaded not guilty to involuntary manslaughter.
Superior Court Judge Michael Pastor says he is extremely distressed by the lack of information that defense attorneys have given to prosecutors in advance of a trial slated to begin March 24.
Why would a judge gets so emotionally involved. Looks like this guy needs to go take a holiday.
Why I'm not surprised ? <!-- s --><!-- s --> The delay is part of the plan because I believe the BAM will be in 2012 and this trial delay fits in the time schedule and to make the media more confused and eager... AND the trial is supposed to have world attention, yet the Middle East is breaking world news lately and in the next weeks/months, which was not foreseen. When things are "back to normal" the trial will be in the spotlights. Of course unforseen circumstances are included in the plan. Clever MJ <!-- s;) -->;)<!-- s;) -->
Michael Jackson The Official Michael Jackson MJJOnlineVEVO
Wall Photos
"A judge threatened Monday to hit Dr. Conrad Murray’s lawyers with $1,500-a-day... fines for failing to share evidence with prosecutors before the physician's trial next month in the death of Michael Jackson. Los Angeles County Superior Court Judge Michael Pastor told lawyers for the pop icon’s personal physician that he would impose the fines or other sanctions Wednesday unless they met their legal obligation to turn over witness statements and expert reports to prosecutors."
“I am extremely distressed about the state of this case and whether in fact the defense is ready for trial,” Pastor said."
"Murray is set to go on trial March 24, but prosecutors have repeatedly asked the judge to delay the case, saying the defense is not ready for trial because it has not shared materials concerning its witnesses. Murray has refused to waive his right to a speedy trial, as most defendants do, to preserve his right to practice medicine.
Michael Jackson The Official Michael Jackson MJJOnlineVEVO
Wall Photos
"A judge threatened Monday to hit Dr. Conrad Murray’s lawyers with $1,500-a-day... fines for failing to share evidence with prosecutors before the physician's trial next month in the death of Michael Jackson. Los Angeles County Superior Court Judge Michael Pastor told lawyers for the pop icon’s personal physician that he would impose the fines or other sanctions Wednesday unless they met their legal obligation to turn over witness statements and expert reports to prosecutors."
“I am extremely distressed about the state of this case and whether in fact the defense is ready for trial,” Pastor said."
"Murray is set to go on trial March 24, but prosecutors have repeatedly asked the judge to delay the case, saying the defense is not ready for trial because it has not shared materials concerning its witnesses. Murray has refused to waive his right to a speedy trial, as most defendants do, to preserve his right to practice medicine.
HAHAHAHAHAHA !!!!
Oh...my...God. I think non-believers must be pulling their hairs out and banging their heads against the wall. I am sorry for them. LOL.
I hope the trial won't be delayed. And again I hope Michael comes back this year. He told in TII that we have only 4 years to get it right mentioning 2012. So whatever his plan is according to the end of the world, it would be too late if he comes back in 2012 in my opinion. He needs to come back this year. So I'm crossing my fingers for this trial not to be delayed.
chloead505, am I right in thinking you're our legal expert? If so, can you confirm if it's normal practice and 'legal obligation' for the defence to have to 'share its evidence' with the prosecution before the trial begins?
If it is, then why are you laughing at these articles?
chloead505, am I right in thinking you're our legal expert? If so, can you confirm if it's normal practice and 'legal obligation' for the defence to have to 'share its evidence' with the prosecution before the trial begins?
If it is, then why are you laughing at these articles?
Hi,
yes, I am a lawyer by profession. But I'm not a US lawyer so I don't want to pretend that I know US criminal law as it is very different from the continental system that we have here in Europe. I have been laughing on my occassions and in many threads, in fact. Sorry it is so ridiculous that I have to laugh - mainly at things to do with securing the crime scene, collecting evidence, people going in and out of the house, taking stuff, Murray running around with his liscence not suspended, doing tests on syringes that are 1,5 years old, ...quite lately the fairy tale about Murray's new defense lawyer having a personal conflict because he did some work for MJ back in 2005...and the list of absurdities (from a legal point of view at least) has no end..goes on and on. So now this plead to delay trial because judge is worried that defense is not ready...I mean WHAT??
Not sure about sharing evidence under US law. I do have a feeling that it's something that actually does exist, to a certain extent. But it's not like share as in have them look at your notes and the actual evidence, it's more about giving the other party the chance to (beforehand) get prepared to what is gonna be going down during the trial. So I'd think this includes disclosing a list of witnesses to give testimony for instance. I'm just a bit amazed at this construction and honestly I dont understand how that can be required from the defense. Sounds more natural vice versa - that is defense may require that from prosecution. I'd be happy to discuss this with a US lawyer...
I have never ever before heard about defense having to share evidence with prosecution. It is unthinkable in my jurisdiction so I can't tell you more about that.
So to make it short, I am laughing at the ridiculousness of the whole trial/prosecution thing. It's just getting delayed and delayed, but the reasons for that sound so far-fetched that I'm just thinking you dont have to be a lawyer to realize it's a parody.
WHAT ARE THEY IN COURT TODAY OR WHAT? All these articles coming out.
Jackson judge says he might delay trial of doctor
AP
*
o
Share
o
retweet
o Email
o Print
Katherine Jackson AP – FILE - This Jan. 6, 2011 file photo shows Katherine Jackson, Michael Jackson's mother, leaving court …
* Michael Jackson Death Case Slideshow:Michael Jackson Death Case
* Prince William, Kate Middleton Up-Close Play Video Celebrity Video:Prince William, Kate Middleton Up-Close ABC News
* Royal Wedding: Invitation Explanation Play Video Celebrity Video:Royal Wedding: Invitation Explanation ABC News
By LINDA DEUTSCH, AP Special Correspondent Linda Deutsch, Ap Special Correspondent – 25 mins ago
LOS ANGELES – Lawyers for Michael Jackson's doctor, insisting on a speedy trial on an involuntary manslaughter charge, appeared headed for a roadblock, with a judge saying Monday he doesn't think they are ready for trial and he may have to delay the planned March 24 start.
"I am extremely distressed about the state of this case and whether the defense is prepared for trial and its obligations to Dr. Murray," said Superior Court Judge Michael Pastor.
Prosecutors urged the judge to delay the start of jury selection, and Pastor asked them to present case law on the matter Wednesday, when he ordered Conrad Murray to appear. The doctor, who has pleaded not guilty, has been absent from the past few hearings under a waiver that allowed him to continue working at his clinics in Texas and Nevada.
Murray's medical license to practice in California has been suspended by Pastor. Defense attorney J. Michael Flanagan told the judge the urgency of getting to trial involves Murray's fear that if it takes too long, Texas and Nevada will lift his medical license as well.
Flanagan also suggested that Murray is running out of money to fund his defense.
"We need to go to trial right away," he said. "We don't have the budget that would let us draw this out."
Flanagan acknowledged, "We are still preparing this case," but said it was normal for evidence to develop even after the trial has begun.
"We will be ready for trial March 24," Flanagan said. "We are not ready today."
More in Entertainment
The New Royals: Insight on Prince William & Kate Middleton's wedding
Full coverage of the royal wedding on Yahoo! News
Complete entertainment coverage
Prosecutors objected that they are entitled to receive discovery of defense evidence 30 days before trial starts, a deadline which has already passed. Deputy District Attorney Deborah Brazil said she has received no reports from defense experts or any statements from proposed defense witnesses.
Flanagan angrily complained that the prosecution has not met all of its discovery obligations either.
The judge ordered Brazil and Deputy District Attorney David Walgren to turn over clean digital photos from Jackson's autopsy as well as all of the surveillance tapes recorded at his Bel Air home on June 25, 2009, the day he died of an overdose of the anesthetic propofol and other sedatives.
Pastor said that unless both sides quickly meet their discovery obligations, he will begin issuing sanctions of $1,500 per lawyer per day. The judge said he may have to start holding daily hearings in order to compel discovery.
Among the experts Flanagan said he expects to call is a leading authority on the use propofol. Flanagan said the witness believes Jackson was addicted to the pain killer Demerol and was withdrawing it at the time of his death, which may have complicated his reactions.
Outside court, Flanagan said prosecutors had 20 months to prepare their case while the defense began developing evidence in the past six weeks after a preliminary hearing.
Flanagan said outside court that he believes Pastor can't overrule the speedy trial requirement unless the defense is found unprepared on the day of trial. By then, the judge will have called hundreds of prospective jurors to the courthouse and arranged for extra security. He stressed that arranging for such a high-profile trial is time consuming and complicated.
This is different state and trial, but gives some overview of evidence sharing ideas.
SJC says defense must share evidence
Some lawyers warn change is radical
By Jonathan Saltzman, Globe Staff | March 15, 2006
A deeply divided Supreme Judicial Court ruled yesterday that prosecutors are entitled to know before trial what evidence criminal defense lawyers plan to use to cross-examine the state's witnesses, a decision prosecutors say levels the playing field but defense lawyers argue subverts the judicial system.
By a 4-3 vote, the state's high court decided that trial judges can order defense lawyers to share evidence they have gathered and intend to use to impeach the credibility of prosecution witnesses, including witness statements, documents, and recordings.
Under rules of evidence across the country, prosecutors already have to turn over the findings of criminal investigations to defense lawyers. But most states, including Massachusetts, have required defendants to provide the prosecution only with evidence their own witnesses were expected to testify about, not what the defense had learned to challenge government witnesses.
That is unfair, the high court said, even if the state typically has greater resources than defendants.
''The role of cross-examination, and the existence of an imbalance, should not override the right of the people and the victims of crimes to have the evidence evaluated by a truly informed trier of fact," Justice John M. Greaney wrote in the majority opinion.
The ruling drew sharply worded dissents from Chief Justice Margaret H. Marshall and Justice Robert J. Cordy, who were joined by Justice Roderick L. Ireland.
Marshall said the decision deprives defense lawyers of one of their most potent and constitutionally protected weapons: the ability to surprise a prosecution witness during cross-examination with evidence that shakes his or her testimony.
''This is not 'trial by ambush,' " she wrote. ''To the contrary, it permits the jury to assess for themselves the reliability of a witness's memory or whether an accuser is truthful."
Yesterday's decision, she added, ''all but guarantees constitutional challenges in the future."
Cordy, a former federal prosecutor, said the ruling was a ''sea change" that put Massachusetts at odds with federal courts and courts in most states. Invoking the phrase of a notable legal scholar, Cordy said the ruling will disable the ''greatest legal engine" ever invented to uncover the truth: cross-examination of witnesses.
In recent years, courts across the country have updated their rules of criminal procedure to require more sharing of information before trial. In Massachusetts, for example, rules require defendants to disclose alibi defenses and defenses based on mental illness to ensure that both sides will be able to prepare for key issues during a trial.
In the case that the court ruled on yesterday, the court said Superior Court Judge Margot Botsford had the authority to order Patrick John Durham, a murder defendant represented by a court-appointed lawyer, to turn over information gathered by a defense investigator to cross-examine prosecution witnesses. (Durham pleaded guilty to manslaughter while his lawyer appealed the ruling, making the issue moot to his case.)
The majority of the high court said that the rules of evidence supported Botsford's ruling and disputed Durham's lawyer's argument that it violated federal and state constitutional protections, including the right to confront one's accusers.
Suffolk District Attorney Daniel F. Conley applauded the ruling. He said it puts prosecutors on equal footing with defense lawyers, who often seek to catch witnesses off guard with prior statements they have made that contradict their testimony.
''This may deny some defense attorneys a Perry Mason moment when they surprise a witness and say, 'Gotcha!' " Conley said. ''But it's not television. It's not movies. It's real life."
He said the ruling will make the courts more open and fair and that his prosecutors will now ask for such evidence before trials.
But several defense lawyers predicted the decision will radically change the dynamics of criminal trials. Prosecutors, they said, now have the green light to share evidence with witnesses who will then change their stories before they are cross-examined.
''If you think of cross-examination like a test for the witness, this is like giving the witness the questions in advance of the test," said James L. Sultan, a lawyer for Durham who appeared before the high court.
Peter Krupp, who submitted a brief on behalf of two associations of criminal defense lawyers, said the ruling will make it harder for defense lawyers to challenge prosecution witnesses.
For instance, he said, in a murder case he worked on, a witness who testified for the state claimed he saw the defendant on a certain day, but Krupp confronted him on the stand with a record that proved he had been wrong.
This is different state and trial, but gives some overview of evidence sharing ideas.
SJC says defense must share evidence
Some lawyers warn change is radical
By Jonathan Saltzman, Globe Staff | March 15, 2006
A deeply divided Supreme Judicial Court ruled yesterday that prosecutors are entitled to know before trial what evidence criminal defense lawyers plan to use to cross-examine the state's witnesses, a decision prosecutors say levels the playing field but defense lawyers argue subverts the judicial system.
By a 4-3 vote, the state's high court decided that trial judges can order defense lawyers to share evidence they have gathered and intend to use to impeach the credibility of prosecution witnesses, including witness statements, documents, and recordings.
Under rules of evidence across the country, prosecutors already have to turn over the findings of criminal investigations to defense lawyers. But most states, including Massachusetts, have required defendants to provide the prosecution only with evidence their own witnesses were expected to testify about, not what the defense had learned to challenge government witnesses.
That is unfair, the high court said, even if the state typically has greater resources than defendants.
''The role of cross-examination, and the existence of an imbalance, should not override the right of the people and the victims of crimes to have the evidence evaluated by a truly informed trier of fact," Justice John M. Greaney wrote in the majority opinion.
The ruling drew sharply worded dissents from Chief Justice Margaret H. Marshall and Justice Robert J. Cordy, who were joined by Justice Roderick L. Ireland.
Marshall said the decision deprives defense lawyers of one of their most potent and constitutionally protected weapons: the ability to surprise a prosecution witness during cross-examination with evidence that shakes his or her testimony.
''This is not 'trial by ambush,' " she wrote. ''To the contrary, it permits the jury to assess for themselves the reliability of a witness's memory or whether an accuser is truthful."
Yesterday's decision, she added, ''all but guarantees constitutional challenges in the future."
Cordy, a former federal prosecutor, said the ruling was a ''sea change" that put Massachusetts at odds with federal courts and courts in most states. Invoking the phrase of a notable legal scholar, Cordy said the ruling will disable the ''greatest legal engine" ever invented to uncover the truth: cross-examination of witnesses.
In recent years, courts across the country have updated their rules of criminal procedure to require more sharing of information before trial. In Massachusetts, for example, rules require defendants to disclose alibi defenses and defenses based on mental illness to ensure that both sides will be able to prepare for key issues during a trial.
In the case that the court ruled on yesterday, the court said Superior Court Judge Margot Botsford had the authority to order Patrick John Durham, a murder defendant represented by a court-appointed lawyer, to turn over information gathered by a defense investigator to cross-examine prosecution witnesses. (Durham pleaded guilty to manslaughter while his lawyer appealed the ruling, making the issue moot to his case.)
The majority of the high court said that the rules of evidence supported Botsford's ruling and disputed Durham's lawyer's argument that it violated federal and state constitutional protections, including the right to confront one's accusers.
Suffolk District Attorney Daniel F. Conley applauded the ruling. He said it puts prosecutors on equal footing with defense lawyers, who often seek to catch witnesses off guard with prior statements they have made that contradict their testimony.
''This may deny some defense attorneys a Perry Mason moment when they surprise a witness and say, 'Gotcha!' " Conley said. ''But it's not television. It's not movies. It's real life."
He said the ruling will make the courts more open and fair and that his prosecutors will now ask for such evidence before trials.
But several defense lawyers predicted the decision will radically change the dynamics of criminal trials. Prosecutors, they said, now have the green light to share evidence with witnesses who will then change their stories before they are cross-examined.
''If you think of cross-examination like a test for the witness, this is like giving the witness the questions in advance of the test," said James L. Sultan, a lawyer for Durham who appeared before the high court.
Peter Krupp, who submitted a brief on behalf of two associations of criminal defense lawyers, said the ruling will make it harder for defense lawyers to challenge prosecution witnesses.
For instance, he said, in a murder case he worked on, a witness who testified for the state claimed he saw the defendant on a certain day, but Krupp confronted him on the stand with a record that proved he had been wrong.
Exactly my point. That is why this is not commonly acceptable. It goes against the basic principle of consitutional rights - mainly to do with right to just trial.
Thanks for your explanation a few posts back, chloead505, I hope you didn't think I was criticising your laughter - I was just puzzled because all this talk of delays is scaring me!
ForstAMoon, thanks for posting that article on evidence sharing. I liked this line: ''This may deny some defense attorneys a Perry Mason moment when they surprise a witness and say, 'Gotcha!' " Conley said. ''But it's not television. It's not movies. It's real life.
fordtocarr, interesting article from you too, thanks. This part hit me:
Flanagan angrily complained that the prosecution has not met all of its discovery obligations either.
The judge ordered Brazil and Deputy District Attorney David Walgren to turn over clean digital photos from Jackson's autopsy as well as all of the surveillance tapes recorded at his Bel Air home on June 25, 2009, the day he died of an overdose of the anesthetic propofol and other sedatives.
Pastor said that unless both sides quickly meet their discovery obligations, he will begin issuing sanctions of $1,500 per lawyer per day. The judge said he may have to start holding daily hearings in order to compel discovery.
Since when do we exchange opinions and notes from defense to prosecution OUTSIDE of a courtroom and BEFORE the trial and as a goodie the judge complains about the lack of documentation?
I think I'm gonna save some carrots for the Bugs Bunnies we're gonna
I thought, in discovery, prosecution has to share their evidence with the defense, not the other way round? (where are our lawyers, here?).
Maybe it's a nod to Michael who was notoriously late for everything.. <!-- s:) -->:)<!-- s:) -->
In my State which is not CA, any report done on a supeonaed witness, that information is to be shared with both sides. For example, if the defense has a expert witness or just a witness in general that they are going to present at trial, the State (prosecuting side) should have all records/reports on this witness before the trial begins. The law on this varies from State to State but it sounds like CA has basically the same law.
Hugs
Well but 'sharing evidence' sounds weird, whatever it means in reality. Sharing records on witnesses isnt sharing evidence in the narrow sense cause in case of witnesses, evidence = their testimony,that is the contents of it. So sharing evidence would mean telling prosecution what the witness is going to say/testify. At least they should use proper terms.
Besides maybe MJ is THE witness, no wonder they dont want to share! <!-- s:-D -->:-D<!-- s:-D -->
''This may deny some defense attorneys a Perry Mason moment when they surprise a witness and say, 'Gotcha!' " Conley said. ''But it's not television. It's not movies. It's real life."
I'm sure Michael's got a lot of surprises up his sleeve for us all! <!-- s:D -->:D<!-- s:D -->
chloead505, I hope you will stay with us throughout the trial, so we will be able to catch all the humor/satire that MJ has so cleverly woven into the details and plot. Yet it will all appear so serious and to the non-believers a heart breaking fight for justice. It's art and it's all for L.O.V.E! The best is yet to come!
Comments
Lol...me neither....that is why i am always "27" and have been for years....
[although I now I have a step son that is older than me.... <!-- s
Hey what is so wrong with some arrested development?
buwaaaaaaahhhaaa.
Must be illegal there too.
Red flag number 7 I believe at that point.
Yep, 50 + 7.
I start thinking a doubt on Michael's age could point to 49 in 2009 fitting much more logically than 50.
We love mysteries, don't we?
(Plus some ladies claim to stay at 49 to never get 50+, I'll see if I'll join them one day <!-- s
Fake identities do not get old <!-- s
I know right.lol They are really holding hands. <!-- s
Thanks becca26 that I am not the only one. Blessings
Jackson judge says he might delay trial of doctor
AP
*
o
Share
o
retweet
o Email
o Print
Katherine Jackson AP – FILE - This Jan. 6, 2011 file photo shows Katherine Jackson, Michael Jackson's mother, leaving court …
* Michael Jackson Death Case Slideshow:Michael Jackson Death Case
* The Men of the Oscars Play Video Celebrity Video:The Men of the Oscars ABC News
* AP Top Stories Play Video Celebrity Video:AP Top Stories AP
– 42 mins ago
LOS ANGELES – A judge says he is considering delaying the trial of the doctor charged in Michael Jackson's death because the physician's attorneys haven't turned over witness statements to prosecutors.
Superior Court Judge Michael Pastor says he is extremely distressed by the lack of information that defense attorneys have given to prosecutors in advance of a trial slated to begin March 24.
Defense attorney J. Michael Flanagan says attorneys are still preparing their case and expect to continue their investigation even after trial starts.
That stunned Pastor, who says he may delay the trial or fine attorneys who aren't complying with rules requiring them to give potential evidence to prosecutors 30 days before trial.
Dr. Conrad Murray has pleaded not guilty to involuntary manslaughter.
Wall Photos
"A judge threatened Monday to hit Dr. Conrad Murray’s lawyers with $1,500-a-day... fines for failing to share evidence with prosecutors before the physician's trial next month in the death of Michael Jackson. Los Angeles County Superior Court Judge Michael Pastor told lawyers for the pop icon’s personal physician that he would impose the fines or other sanctions Wednesday unless they met their legal obligation to turn over witness statements and expert reports to prosecutors."
“I am extremely distressed about the state of this case and whether in fact the defense is ready for trial,” Pastor said."
"Murray is set to go on trial March 24, but prosecutors have repeatedly asked the judge to delay the case, saying the defense is not ready for trial because it has not shared materials concerning its witnesses. Murray has refused to waive his right to a speedy trial, as most defendants do, to preserve his right to practice medicine.
HAHAHAHAHAHA !!!!
Oh...my...God. I think non-believers must be pulling their hairs out and banging their heads against the wall. I am sorry for them. LOL.
If it is, then why are you laughing at these articles?
Hi,
yes, I am a lawyer by profession. But I'm not a US lawyer so I don't want to pretend that I know US criminal law as it is very different from the continental system that we have here in Europe. I have been laughing on my occassions and in many threads, in fact. Sorry it is so ridiculous that I have to laugh - mainly at things to do with securing the crime scene, collecting evidence, people going in and out of the house, taking stuff, Murray running around with his liscence not suspended, doing tests on syringes that are 1,5 years old, ...quite lately the fairy tale about Murray's new defense lawyer having a personal conflict because he did some work for MJ back in 2005...and the list of absurdities (from a legal point of view at least) has no end..goes on and on. So now this plead to delay trial because judge is worried that defense is not ready...I mean WHAT??
Not sure about sharing evidence under US law. I do have a feeling that it's something that actually does exist, to a certain extent. But it's not like share as in have them look at your notes and the actual evidence, it's more about giving the other party the chance to (beforehand) get prepared to what is gonna be going down during the trial. So I'd think this includes disclosing a list of witnesses to give testimony for instance. I'm just a bit amazed at this construction and honestly I dont understand how that can be required from the defense. Sounds more natural vice versa - that is defense may require that from prosecution. I'd be happy to discuss this with a US lawyer...
I have never ever before heard about defense having to share evidence with prosecution. It is unthinkable in my jurisdiction so I can't tell you more about that.
So to make it short, I am laughing at the ridiculousness of the whole trial/prosecution thing. It's just getting delayed and delayed, but the reasons for that sound so far-fetched that I'm just thinking you dont have to be a lawyer to realize it's a parody.
Jackson judge says he might delay trial of doctor
AP
*
o
Share
o
retweet
o Email
o Print
Katherine Jackson AP – FILE - This Jan. 6, 2011 file photo shows Katherine Jackson, Michael Jackson's mother, leaving court …
* Michael Jackson Death Case Slideshow:Michael Jackson Death Case
* Prince William, Kate Middleton Up-Close Play Video Celebrity Video:Prince William, Kate Middleton Up-Close ABC News
* Royal Wedding: Invitation Explanation Play Video Celebrity Video:Royal Wedding: Invitation Explanation ABC News
By LINDA DEUTSCH, AP Special Correspondent Linda Deutsch, Ap Special Correspondent – 25 mins ago
LOS ANGELES – Lawyers for Michael Jackson's doctor, insisting on a speedy trial on an involuntary manslaughter charge, appeared headed for a roadblock, with a judge saying Monday he doesn't think they are ready for trial and he may have to delay the planned March 24 start.
"I am extremely distressed about the state of this case and whether the defense is prepared for trial and its obligations to Dr. Murray," said Superior Court Judge Michael Pastor.
Prosecutors urged the judge to delay the start of jury selection, and Pastor asked them to present case law on the matter Wednesday, when he ordered Conrad Murray to appear. The doctor, who has pleaded not guilty, has been absent from the past few hearings under a waiver that allowed him to continue working at his clinics in Texas and Nevada.
Murray's medical license to practice in California has been suspended by Pastor. Defense attorney J. Michael Flanagan told the judge the urgency of getting to trial involves Murray's fear that if it takes too long, Texas and Nevada will lift his medical license as well.
Flanagan also suggested that Murray is running out of money to fund his defense.
"We need to go to trial right away," he said. "We don't have the budget that would let us draw this out."
Flanagan acknowledged, "We are still preparing this case," but said it was normal for evidence to develop even after the trial has begun.
"We will be ready for trial March 24," Flanagan said. "We are not ready today."
More in Entertainment
The New Royals: Insight on Prince William & Kate Middleton's wedding
Full coverage of the royal wedding on Yahoo! News
Complete entertainment coverage
Prosecutors objected that they are entitled to receive discovery of defense evidence 30 days before trial starts, a deadline which has already passed. Deputy District Attorney Deborah Brazil said she has received no reports from defense experts or any statements from proposed defense witnesses.
Flanagan angrily complained that the prosecution has not met all of its discovery obligations either.
The judge ordered Brazil and Deputy District Attorney David Walgren to turn over clean digital photos from Jackson's autopsy as well as all of the surveillance tapes recorded at his Bel Air home on June 25, 2009, the day he died of an overdose of the anesthetic propofol and other sedatives.
Pastor said that unless both sides quickly meet their discovery obligations, he will begin issuing sanctions of $1,500 per lawyer per day. The judge said he may have to start holding daily hearings in order to compel discovery.
Among the experts Flanagan said he expects to call is a leading authority on the use propofol. Flanagan said the witness believes Jackson was addicted to the pain killer Demerol and was withdrawing it at the time of his death, which may have complicated his reactions.
Outside court, Flanagan said prosecutors had 20 months to prepare their case while the defense began developing evidence in the past six weeks after a preliminary hearing.
Flanagan said outside court that he believes Pastor can't overrule the speedy trial requirement unless the defense is found unprepared on the day of trial. By then, the judge will have called hundreds of prospective jurors to the courthouse and arranged for extra security. He stressed that arranging for such a high-profile trial is time consuming and complicated.
ForstAMoon, thanks for posting that article on evidence sharing. I liked this line:
''This may deny some defense attorneys a Perry Mason moment when they surprise a witness and say, 'Gotcha!' " Conley said. ''But it's not television. It's not movies. It's real life.
fordtocarr, interesting article from you too, thanks. This part hit me:
Flanagan angrily complained that the prosecution has not met all of its discovery obligations either.
The judge ordered Brazil and Deputy District Attorney David Walgren to turn over clean digital photos from Jackson's autopsy as well as all of the surveillance tapes recorded at his Bel Air home on June 25, 2009, the day he died of an overdose of the anesthetic propofol and other sedatives.
Pastor said that unless both sides quickly meet their discovery obligations, he will begin issuing sanctions of $1,500 per lawyer per day. The judge said he may have to start holding daily hearings in order to compel discovery.
In my State which is not CA, any report done on a supeonaed witness, that information is to be shared with both sides. For example, if the defense has a expert witness or just a witness in general that they are going to present at trial, the State (prosecuting side) should have all records/reports on this witness before the trial begins. The law on this varies from State to State but it sounds like CA has basically the same law.
Hugs
Besides maybe MJ is THE witness, no wonder they dont want to share! <!-- s:-D -->:-D<!-- s:-D -->
chloead505, I hope you will stay with us throughout the trial, so we will be able to catch all the humor/satire that MJ has so cleverly woven into the details and plot. Yet it will all appear so serious and to the non-believers a heart breaking fight for justice. It's art and it's all for L.O.V.E! The best is yet to come!