Regret from members of the AEG jury over their verdict

CNN reports that some members of the AEG jury are not satisfied with the outcome of the trial. They feel they were misled and deceived by the court.

After five months, the AEG trial concluded in October with a verdict from twelve jurors. Although they determined that Dr. Murray had been hired by AEG, they cleared the company of any wrongdoing in Michael Jackson’s death by finding Dr. Murray to be deserving of recognition.

However, these jurors now say that the court’s instruction sheet—guiding them toward giving the verdict through questions—caused them to make mistakes and be misled when reaching their decision, in other words, “to be fooled.” The statements of four jurors have been attached to a new request that Katherine Jackson’s attorneys, Michael’s mother, submitted to the Los Angeles Supreme Court today. In the package presented to the court, it is stated that most jurors wanted to declare the company guilty, but the court’s instruction sheet was structured in a way that stripped them of that option.

The instruction sheet included a number of questions. In the first step, jurors were asked: “Did the company hire Dr. Murray?” The jurors answered yes, thereby paving the way to declare the company guilty. But the second question stopped them from continuing, because it asked: “Was Dr. Murray incompetent and unqualified?” Most jurors, relying on the assumption that because Murray had a medical degree from a reputable university and a medical license, he therefore had the necessary competence to do the job he was hired for, answered no to the second question.

The process was such that by answering no to the second question, the work ended and the company was cleared. Jurors say that after they were told that by answering no to the second question the process was over, they were shocked, bewildered, and upset. One juror says the second question was a trap that prevented jurors from further reviewing and discussing the main issue of the case.

Another juror says that after five months in court, she believes Mrs. Jackson proved her claim against the company. She emphasizes:

“Despite this, I was not able to vote in favor of the plaintiffs because of the wording used in the instruction sheet.”

Jackson’s attorneys say the trial judge made a mistake in the case by rejecting their proposed amendment regarding the second question.

The agreement to answer no to the second question was reached after one juror convinced the others that the main intent of the sentence was whether Dr. Murray was a qualified doctor “at the time he was hired by the company.”

According to Jackson’s attorneys, the trial judge, by rejecting their suggestion to add the phrase “at any time possible” to the second question, misled the jury.

The phrase “at any time possible” refers to the idea that if Dr. Murray was qualified at the time of hiring, then after signing the contract and creating a conflict of interest, he lost his competence and qualification in the job he was hired to perform.

One juror, referring to this point, says:

“I want the judge to know that we did not have the ability to ask questions in this way and to review it.”

This juror believes that if they had been asked whether Dr. Murray, after creating a conflict of interest, changing duties, applying pressure, and after the contract was explained, was still competent and qualified, they would have answered differently.

Another juror says:

“I wanted to ask the judge to explain the second question to us in a note, but at that time the first juror had already answered no. I felt extremely deceived, because I sat in court for five months and listened to the evidence indicating the creation of a conflict of interest (between the doctor and the patient), but I never got the chance to discuss and deliberate on this, or even to review the hundreds of documents presented.”

Another juror says they did not ask the judge for clarification about the second question because they did not want anyone to know what stage they were at in their deliberations.

Another juror, whose name should not be disclosed, continues:

“In my view, the question sheet was not prepared fairly and properly, and the second question was a trap that prevented us from examining the main issue of the proceedings.”

This juror adds that the matter caused her psychological harm:

“Since the verdict was announced, I’ve been very upset and I can’t even eat or review my emails, because I’m so sorry about the verdict that was given and the fact that justice was not carried out in this case. This was due to the way the second question was worded on the sheet.”

Another juror agrees with her: “In this case, we did not get justice.”

According to jurors, one of them, despite being told to end the deliberations, refused to put down the question sheet and insisted that they answer all the questions.

Beyond the statements of the jurors, Katherine Jackson’s attorneys also claim that the trial judge made mistakes during the proceedings by setting rules that, as a result, prevented Jackson’s attorneys from examining AEG’s negligence regardless of whether Murray was hired by the company or not.

The judge in the case is expected to hear the statements raised during a session scheduled for January 3.

Meanwhile, as mentioned earlier, Katherine Jackson is seeking a new trial to address her claim against the company. She believes the verdict announced in the previous court is not legally valid due to the mistakes mentioned and should be overturned.

In line with this, Dr. Murray—the doctor who was jailed for two years for the crime of killing Michael Jackson—has not stopped trying to overturn his guilty verdict. The Los Angeles court has set January 9 to hear Murray’s statements.

Source: eMJey.com / CNN & The Republic