The Trial May Be Delayed
The trial was supposed to continue from Monday. But due to the unexpected death of one of the prosecution witness’s family members, the trial may be delayed a bit.
Professor Shaffer canceled the court session on Friday so he could go to a conference in Chicago. But he didn’t go because his father died. On Friday, prosecutor Walgren announced in court that the trial might not resume until Tuesday.
Yesterday, the story of David Walgren and his replacement, Deborah Brazil, appeared in court with a slight delay, and they played along with Judge Pastor, who doesn’t take jokes lightly. With a scolding, he asked them:
"You were 6 minutes late. What was your reason?"
Walgren: "We were late, Your Honor. We apologize."
Pastor said this mistake had happened again. He then ordered that they pay a $10 fine for each minute of delay. So, the two prosecutors combined lost $60.
In yesterday’s informal session, Walgren said their witness would be on the stand for at least one day. Narg Gorgian from Murray’s defense team also announced that they would probably call all of their witnesses to court by next Friday or Monday.
The list of defense witnesses includes several doctors and a number of Conrad Murray’s former patients.
Yesterday, Conrad Murray’s defense attorneys admitted that months before the trial began, they knew their theory of Michael Jackson’s death by drinking propofol would reach a dead end. But the court, on one hand, considered the defense’s insistence on this theory to show Conrad Murray’s innocence, and on the other hand, emphasized the prosecution’s claim that death by drinking this substance is impossible.
On Wednesday, defense attorney Michael Flanagan, by saying that according to a study propofol would not be absorbed into the body through drinking, had shocked and surprised the judge and the prosecutor.
On Friday, prosecutor Walgren complained to the judge about the defense attorneys constantly changing their faces and expressions and telling a different story each time.
Flanagan said: "Your Honor, that’s not true!"
Walgren, in disbelief, asked: "Not true?"
Flanagan then explained that in fact they had known since May of this year that propofol is not absorbed by the body through drinking, but they had insisted on this theory. The basis for the judgment was a study conducted by the prosecution witness, Steven Shaffer.
Pastor then said he had nothing to do with the dispute between the prosecutors and the lawyers: "That’s just how it is."
Thus, the defense attorneys allowed the prosecutor’s office to keep telling a story that had been baseless from the start. Now, the possibility has emerged that the defense attorneys may have a hidden strategy.
Thomas Mesereau, Michael’s lead defense attorney in the 2005 trial, called the defense attorneys’ performance dishonorable, but noted that legally they have no obligation to inform the prosecution about their strategies.
"In this case, no laws were violated. The matter should be handled with chivalry, but there is no need to inform the other side about the details of the defense strategy. Maybe even the defense team wasn’t sure from the beginning what to do with this theory."
The maximum sentence for the charge Conrad Murray is facing is four years in prison. If this possibility is ruled, there is a weak chance that he could receive home detention. Under a law recently passed, defendants who are found guilty without committing violence can receive home detention.
Source: eMJey.com / CNN
"You were 6 minutes late. What was your reason?"
Walgren: "We were late, Your Honor. We apologize."
Pastor said this mistake had happened again. He then ordered that they pay a $10 fine for each minute of delay. So, the two prosecutors combined lost $60.
In yesterday’s informal session, Walgren said their witness would be on the stand for at least one day. Narg Gorgian from Murray’s defense team also announced that they would probably call all of their witnesses to court by next Friday or Monday.
The list of defense witnesses includes several doctors and a number of Conrad Murray’s former patients.
Yesterday, Conrad Murray’s defense attorneys admitted that months before the trial began, they knew their theory of Michael Jackson’s death by drinking propofol would reach a dead end. But the court, on one hand, considered the defense’s insistence on this theory to show Conrad Murray’s innocence, and on the other hand, emphasized the prosecution’s claim that death by drinking this substance is impossible.
On Wednesday, defense attorney Michael Flanagan, by saying that according to a study propofol would not be absorbed into the body through drinking, had shocked and surprised the judge and the prosecutor.
On Friday, prosecutor Walgren complained to the judge about the defense attorneys constantly changing their faces and expressions and telling a different story each time.
Flanagan said: "Your Honor, that’s not true!"
Walgren, in disbelief, asked: "Not true?"
Flanagan then explained that in fact they had known since May of this year that propofol is not absorbed by the body through drinking, but they had insisted on this theory. The basis for the judgment was a study conducted by the prosecution witness, Steven Shaffer.
Pastor then said he had nothing to do with the dispute between the prosecutors and the lawyers: "That’s just how it is."
Thus, the defense attorneys allowed the prosecutor’s office to keep telling a story that had been baseless from the start. Now, the possibility has emerged that the defense attorneys may have a hidden strategy.
Thomas Mesereau, Michael’s lead defense attorney in the 2005 trial, called the defense attorneys’ performance dishonorable, but noted that legally they have no obligation to inform the prosecution about their strategies.
"In this case, no laws were violated. The matter should be handled with chivalry, but there is no need to inform the other side about the details of the defense strategy. Maybe even the defense team wasn’t sure from the beginning what to do with this theory."
The maximum sentence for the charge Conrad Murray is facing is four years in prison. If this possibility is ruled, there is a weak chance that he could receive home detention. Under a law recently passed, defendants who are found guilty without committing violence can receive home detention.
Source: eMJey.com / CNN