K. Jackson-Klage gegen AEG- Der Prozess- Nur News -Keine Diskussion

[Lena]

Laut TMZ ist Kathrine unwillig die 1,2 Mio. Rechtskosten zu zahlen, die AEG fordert und bezeichnet einen Großteil als Schwachsinn.
Das Gericht hat noch nicht entscheiden ob und was Kathrine zu zahlen hat.



Katherine Jackson to AEG You're Charging Me for Parking!!!
49 minutes ago BY TMZ STAFF
EXCLUSIVE


Katherine Jackson is irate that AEG is asking her to pay more than $1.2 million in costs associated with the Michael Jackson wrongful death trial ... claiming many of the so-called "expenses" are bogus.

AEG -- which won the case -- is asking the judge to sock Katherine with court costs. But according to new docs, obtained by TMZ, Katherine is blanching at a bunch of them, including:

-- $540,000 in models and blow-up court exhibits
-- $20,000 for 1,000 pages of jury instruction paper and other stuff
-- $53,000 for process servers
-- $118,000 unnecessary depositions

Katherine is even grousing about the $9 parking fees tacked on for court reporters to show up for the trial.

A judge hasn't decided what, if anything, Katherine will have to shell out.


Read more: http://www.tmz.com/2013/12/18/kather...#ixzz2nrZLnZ3Q

[geli2709]

THE DECLARATIONS OF FOUR HONEST JURORS

Die Erklärungen der VIER EHRLICHEN JUROREN

December 22, 2013
by Vindicatemj (Helena)

http://vindicatemj.wordpress.com/

[Lena]

Termin zu Gerichtskosten ist übrigens am 14.04.14 angesetzt


04/14/2014 at 08:46 am in department 28 at 111 North Hill Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012
Motion to Tax Costs
____________


AEG hat derweil seine Antwort auf Kathrines Antrag bzgl. neuen Prozess eingereicht. 19 Seiten, darunter eidesstaatliche Erklärungen von 7 Juroren


AEG has filed their response to Katherine Jackson's motion for a new trial. Below will include the documents as well as a summary.

AEG's reply

AEG filed a 19 page reply with exhibits. Exhibits included 7 juror affidavits.

AEG reply document link : http://www.scribd.com/doc/193606436/AEG-New-Trial-Reply

(will insert it at the end of summary as well)

Summary as follows (Zusammenfassung von Ivy, MJJC)
For Q2 AEG argues that it is taken from California jury instructions and it's a question that Jacksons requested and never tried to modify it or claimed it can cause confusion. AEG lists that Jacksons included and asked for Q2 at March 14, April 12, September 10, September 11 and September 12 motions or hearings. AEG also states that Jackson lawyers never asked to add "at any time" to Q2, they wanted to add it to Q3 (knew or should have known question).

Für Frage 2 AEG argumentiert , dass sie aus Kaliforniens Jury- Anweisungen genommen wurde und es ist eine Frage, die die Jacksons angefordert haben und nie versucht haben abzuändern oder behauptet haben diese könne zu Verwirrung führen. AEG listet auf, dass die Jacksons die Frage einschlossen und sie fragten nach Frage 2 am 14. März , 12. April , 10. September , 11. September und 12. September in Anträgen und Anhörungen . AEG stellt auch fest, dass die Jackson - Anwälte nie angeffordert haben, " zu jeder Zeit " zur Frage hinzuzufügen, sie erbaten es bei Frage 3 hinzufügen (der wusste oder hätte wissen müssen- Frage ).

Also AEG states that Q2 did not limit jurors to "date of hiring", it required them to consider "for the job which he was hired". Both parties expressed these points during their closing statements. Jackson lawyers mentioned it was at any time in both their closing and rebuttal. Panish said "at any time during his treatment" and during rebuttal he mentioned "it's not when they hired him only it's the entire time". Putnam never argued otherwise and he only focused on "for the job he was hired".

Auch sagt AEG, dass die Frage 2 die Geschworenen nicht begrenzt hat, um " die Tage der Einstellung " es verlangte sie zu überprüfen, " für den Job für den er angestellt wurde ." Beide Parteien haben diese Punkte ausgedrückt während ihrer Schlusspläydoyers . Jackson Anwälte sagten, es sei zu jeder Zeit sowohl in ihrem Schlusspläydoyer als auch im Rebuttal . Panish sagte: " jederzeit während seiner Behandlung " und während des Rebuttals erwähnte er : "Es geht nicht nur um die Zeit als sie ihn anstellten, sondern um die ganze Zeit."
Putnam hat dies nie bestritten und er hat sich fokussiert auf "für die Arbeit, die er angestellt wurde ".

AEG says Jacksons never claimed Q1 could result in a confusion in Q2 and they also add that the jurors were instructed to consider every question separately. AEG also argues that in Jacksons always had "if you answered no stop" in all of their jury instructions.
AEG sagt Jacksons habe nie behauptet Frage 1 könnte zu einer Verwirrung in Frage 2 führen und sie fügten hinzu, dass die Geschworenen angewiesen wurden, jede Frage einzeln zu betrachten. AEG argumentiert auch, dass Jacksons immer betonten", wenn Sie Nein antworten müssen sie aufhören " in all ihren Jury Anweisungen.

AEG states that the jury verdict form is from CACI (Californoa Civil Jury Instructions) and it is according to the law.
AEG sagt das die Jury Urteilsform ist vom CACI und entspricht dem Gesetz.

AEG argues that the juror affidavits are inadmissible and that Jackson lawyers used improper and coercive tactics to get the jurors give those affidavits. AEG also files a separate motion to strike in regard to the jury affidavits. They state that the jury affidavits cannot be used about jury's subjective impressions about the deliberations. They state jury affidavits can only be used about a bias that is hid during jury selection process and coming to a verdict by chance. AEG also mentions that Jacksons got some affidavits in dishonest way. Finally AEG argues to reverse any judgment it should be shown that a different result would likely happen if that error wasn't present. So AEG argues it's not enough for Jacksons to show that if the wording was different the answer to Q2 would have been a yes, they need to show that every other question would be answered in their favor.
AEG argumentiert, dass die Eidesstatt-Erklärungen der Jurymitglieder unzulässig sind , dass Jackson Anwälte sie unsachgemäß verwendet haben. AEG hat auch einen Antrag eingereicht diese zu streichen. Sie erklären, dass die eidesstattlichen Erklärungen der Jury nicht verwendet werden dürfen um subjektive Eindrücke über die Beratungen wiederzugeben. Sie dürfen nur verwendet werden wenn eine Täuschung die während einer Jury-Auswahl-Selektionsprozesses versteckt war aufgedeckt wird und es damit zu einer Urteilsänderung kommt. AEG sagt auch, dass die Jackson einige Eidesstaaterklärungen auf unehrliche Weise bekamen. Schließlich AEG argumentiert , um ein Urteil zu verändern sollte gezeigt werden, dass ein anderes Ergebnis wahrscheinlich passieren wäre, wenn dieser Fehler nicht vorhanden war. So AEG argumentiert, es ist nicht genug für Jacksons zu zeigen , dass, wenn der Wortlaut anders gewesen wäre die Antwort auf Frage 2 ein ja gewesen wäre, sondern sie müssen zeigen, dass jede andere Frage zu ihren Gunsten beantwortet worden wäre.

As for the negligence claim AEG argues the court heard and denied it twice and this is Jacksons third attempt to argue it. They are basically arguing that the court had the correct ruling and denied it twice and should deny it a third time.
Für die Fahrlässigkeitsbehauptung sagt AEG, dass das Gericht es angehört hat 2-mal und 2-mal verneint hat und das ist der 3. Versuch der Jacksons.

AEG files 7 juror counter affidavits themselves. However as mentioned before they are asking the judge to strike any and all jury affidavits and only consider AEG jury affidavits if the judge will not strike Jackson jury affidavits. Basically they are asking the judge to throw all of them out but if she considers Jackson affidavits then consider AEG counter affidavits as well.
AEG hat zudem eidesstattliche Gegenerklärungen von 7 Juroren eingereicht. Sie sagen wenn das Gericht nicht ihrem Antrag folgt, die 4 Eidesstaat-Erklärungen der Jacksons zu streichen sollen sie vom Gericht betrachtet werden. Sollte es ihrem Antrag folgen sollen auch diese gestrichen werden.

The 7 AEG jury counter affidavits link: Eidesstaatl. Gegenerklärungen von 7 Juroren

http://www.scribd.com/doc/193605720/AEG-Jury-Affidavits

[Lena]

Hat sich mal jemand die Eidesstaat-Erklärungen der 7 Juroren durchgelesen?

Alle 7 bestätigen, dass jeder Juror frei war seine Meinung zu äußern oder eine Frage ans Gericht zu senden. Alle 7 bestätigen, dass der Jury-Sprecher 3-mal bei jedem einzelen nachfragte ob er mit dem Urteil einverstanden ist.
Alle 7 sagen, dass sie mit dem Urteil zufrieden und die Meinung haben, dass die Jacksons nicht ihren Fall bewiesen haben und AEG nicht schuldfähig ist. Selbst wenn sie Frage 2 mit Ja beantwortet hätten sind sie sicher das die verbleibenden Fragen bzw. Frage 3 zum gleichen Ergebnis geführt hätte.

Die 1. Eidesstaat-Erklärung ist vom Jury-Sprecher. Er sagt das Chang (Jackson-Anwältin) mit ihm nach dem Urteil Kontakt aufnahm und ihm erklärte, dass die Mehrheit der Jury mit dem Urteil nicht einverstanden ist. Sie habe auch gesagt, dass sie Beweise habe das Gongaware von früheren Touren von Jacksons Profpofolkonsum wusste. Er fände dies seltsam, da nichts dieser Beweise im Prozess gezeigt wurde. Chang habe ihm ein später ein vorforumilierte Eidesstaat-Erklärung zugesandt zur Unterschrift, dass das Urteil fehlerhaft ist. Er habe nicht unterzeichnet, da er das Urteil nicht als fehlerheft ersehen.


Weitere Juroren sagen ebenfalls das Chang und oder Boyle mit ihnen Kontakt aufnahm und ihnen erklärte andere Juroren seien unzufrieden mit dem Urteil und ihnen die Gongaware-Story erzählte. Einem weiteren Juror sagte Chang, dass AEG Houghendal von der Aussage abhielt. Ein weitere Juror sagte, dass Chang ihr sagte sie hatte Albträume, dass ein Juror AEG-Angestellter sei.
Ein Juror, der E-Mails und telefon. Kontaktaufnahmeversuche der Jackson-Anwälte nicht beantwortete sagte, dass er bei mind. 3 Gelegenheiten auf seiner Arbeitsstelle darauf angesprochen wurde, dass Panish Kontakt mit seinem Arbeitgeber aufnahm und seinen Unterweiser beschuldtige "Ihr seid schuld, dass wir den Fall verloren, ihr bezahtl Euren Juror während seiner Jurymitgliedschaft. Eure Mitarbeiter sind nicht klug genug sich von den Pflichten eines Jurors zu befreien". Er sei verletzt über diese Vorgehensweise.

[Memphis]

interessant und wird sicherlich noch ein nachspiel für die jacksons-anwälte haben. wenn es sich tatsächlich so alles abgespielt hat.

[rip.michael]

... bin augenblicklich nicht in der lage, dem fortgang der dinge intensiv zu folgen. Deshalb grossen dank an @Lena u. a., die immer wieder zusammentragen, berichten, zusammenfassen, übersetzen. Ohne das könnte ich nicht mehr folgen.

[Memphis]

... Deshalb grossen dank an @Lena u. a., die immer wieder zusammentragen, berichten, zusammenfassen, übersetzen. Ohne das könnte ich nicht mehr folgen.

sehe ich ähnlich.......deshalb

[Lena]

Die Jacksons haben übrigens ihren Berufungsantrag gegen das Summary Judgement, also die Klagepunkte die von der Richterin bereits vor der Prozess abgewiesen worden sind wieder zurückgezogen und einen Antrag gestellt diesen wieder zu verwerfen. Somit wollen und können die Jacksons jetzt nur noch gegen den verbliebenen Klagepunkt der im Prozess selbst behandelt wurde und gegen dieses Urteil Berufung einlegen. (Fahrlässige Einstellung von Murray.


The summary judgment appeal Dismissal request by Jacksons

This was filed before the trial started.

Link : http://appellatecases.courtinfo.ca.g...doc_no=B248420

Opening brief due : 12/09/2013

Opening brief wasn't filed on time.

12/13/2013 Appellant notified re failure to timely file opening brief.

December 18th Jacksons filed a request to dismiss this appeal.

12/18/2013 Request for dismissal filed. appellant's counsel

[Lena]

Jacksons Antwort zu AEGs Antwort/Anträgen. Zusammenfassung von Ivy, MJJC
Jacksons have filed their reply to AEG's reply/ opposition. As the main points are same as their initial motion for a new trial, I'll just do brief updates.

- Kevin Boyle states that on September 11 he got an email from Deborah Chang about verdict questions and based on that during September 12 hearing he mentioned adding "at any time" to Q2 through Q5. He gave Q3 as an example. He accepted judge's ruling but did not abandon his argument, to the contrary he reserved it by making a record of it.
- Kevin Boyle sagt, das er am 11. September eine E-Mail von Deborah Chang über die Urteilsfragen bekam und auf der Grundlage in der Anhörung am 12. September er den Zusatz " jederzeit " zu Frage 2 bis Frage 5 machte . Er gab Frage 3 als Beispiel. Er akzeptierte die Entscheidung des Richters aber gab nicht sein Argument auf, im Gegenteil, er hielt es fest, indem er eine Aufzeichnung davon behielt.

- Jacksons state that Panish and Putnam explaining Q2 isn't enough because court gave the jurors the direction that they should follow the law as she explains it.
- Jacksons sagen, dass es nicht genug ist wenn Panish und Putnam die Frage 2 erklärten, denn Gericht gab den Juroren die Richtung , dass sie das Gesetz befolgen , wie sie es erklärt ist.
- Jacksons state that they argued against Q1 (Did AEG hire Murray) and they claimed hiring is not necessary for supervision or retention claims.
Jacksons sagen, dass sie gegen Frage 1 argumentierten (Hat AEG Murray angestellt ) und sie behaupteten, die Einstellung ist nicht für die Aufsicht oder Retentions Ansprüche erforderlich.

- Jacksons main point in their reply is that Q2 did not allow the jurors to consider negligent retention or supervision or consider if Murray was unfit after he was hired / for the additional duties he was assigned.
Jacksons wichtigster Punkt in ihrer Antwort ist, dass Frage 2 es nicht möglich machte das die Juroren auch die fahrlässige Aufsicht prüften oder ob Murray ungeeignet war , nachdem er eingestellt wurde, / für die zusätzlichen Aufgaben die ihm zugeordnet wurden .

- They mention that Murray's duties might have changed after his initial hiring and he might have assigned new tasks such as include being in charge of MJ's rehearsal schedule, make sure he got sleep (one footnote says :the provision of Propofol for inducing sleep in MJ), make sure that MJ got on stage and perform and "treating a deteriorating insomniac who was exhibiting debilitating and frightening symptoms".
- Sie erwähnen , dass die Aufgaben von Murray sich nach seiner ersten Einstellung geändert haben könnten und er neue Aufgaben erhielt wie der Chef der Probenplans von MJ zu sein, stellen Sie sicher, dass er Schlaf bekommt(eine Fußnote sagt : die Bereitstellung von Propofol zum Einschlafen von MJ ) , stellen Sie sicher , dass MJ auf der Bühne steht und performt und " Behandlung einer Verschlechterung des Schalfes die Symptome beängstigend aufwies" .


- There's again mention of general negligence claim and how the judge was wrong in not allowing it.
Es wird erneut die generelle Fahrlässigkeit erwähnt und wie das Gericht falsch entschied es nicht zu erlauben.
- Jacksons argue that 4 juror affidavits they got shows the possibility of a hung jury and unless AEG can get 9 juror affidavits they cannot state that the outcome wouldn't be different regardless of Q2.
Jacksons sagen das die Eidesstatt-Erklärungen der 4 Juroren die Möglichkein einer Hung-Jury zeigen, wenn AEG keine 9 Eidesstaaterklärungen erhält und nicht darlegen kann das das Ergebnis nicht unterschiedlich wäre egal wie Frage 2 lautet.
- Jacksons oppose to AEG's motion to strike juror affidavits stating they are "objectively ascertainable statements, conduct, conditions and events". Jacksons argue that the 4 juror affidavit they submitted among other things show that jurors only discussed hiring but not the conflict, did not discuss if Murray became unfit after hiring and they did not discuss supervision and retention theories.

- Jacksons widersetzen sich AEGs Antrag die Eidesstaaterkärungen der Juroren zu streichen, sie sagen " sie sind objektiv feststellbare Aussagen , Verhaltensregeln, Bedingungen und Ereignisse ". Jacksons argumentieren, dass die eidesstattliche Versicherungen der 4 Juroren unter anderem zeigen, dass die Geschworenen nur die Einstellung aber nicht den Konflikt diskutiert haben , ob Murray unfit nach der Einstellung wurde und sie haben nicht die die Überwachungs- Theorien diskutiert.

- Jacksons state AEG showed no evidence that Jackson lawyers engaged in improper or coercive tactics to get the 4 juror declarations.
Jacksons sagen, dass AEG keine Beweise zeigt, dass die Jackson-Anwälte die Erklärungen der 4 Juroren in in unangemessener Weise oder mit solchen Taktiken erhielt.
- Jacksons file their own motion to object parts of the 7 juror affidavits AEG submitted. They are objecting to the statements 4 of the 7 jurors made in their affidavits about Jackson lawyers (such as what Deborah Chang said to them, what Panish said to one jurors boss etc.) saying that they are hearsay and the statements lawyers made after the verdict is irrelevant to the new trial motion.

- Jacksons haben ihren eigenen Antrag gestellt Teile der eidesstattliche Versicherungen der 7 Juroren, die AEG vorlegte entgegenzuwirken . Sie wehren sich gegen 4 Aussagen der 7 Juroren in ihren eidesstattlichen Erklärungen, die sie über die Jackson-Anwälte gemacht haben( wie, was Deborah Chang sagte zu ihnen: Was Panish sagte zu einem Geschworenen -Chef etc.) sagen, dass sei Hörensagen und die Aussagen die Juristen nach einem Urteil machen sind irrelevant für einen Antrag über neuen Prozess.


- Deborah Chang very briefly address the claims about her by saying she did not try to influence or pressure any juror. She attaches one of her notes of one jury interview after the verdict. Her only statement is that she drafted juror affidavits based on her notes about what the jurors said during the interviews after the verdict.
Deborah Chang geht sehr kurz auf die Vorwürfe gegen sie ein und sagt sie habe nicht versucht Einfluss oder Druck auf die Juroren auszuüben. Sie fügt eine Notiz hinzu, die sie beim Interview eines Jurors machte. Ihr einziges Statement ist, dass sie den Entwurf der Eidesstaat-Erklärung machte basierend auf das was der Juror während des Interviews nach dem Urteil sagte.
- Jacksons submit an affidavit by an investigator they hired in December to contact jurors and get the affidavits. She mentions she met with 4 jurors, read them the affidavits, 2 of them made changes and they signed the affidavits with no pressure and was unaware of the other juror affidavits.
Jackson übernmitteln eine Eidesstaat-Erklärung eines Ermittlers, den sie im Dezember einstellten um mit den Juroren Kontakt aufzunehmen um die Eidesstaaterklärungen zu erhalten. Sie erwähnt, dass sie die 4 Juroren traf, ihnen die Eidesstaat-Erklärungen vorlas, 2 von ihnen machten Änderungen und sie unterzeichneten die Erklärungen ohne Druck und ohne Kenntnis der Eidesstaat-Erklärungen der anderen Juroren.
-- They mention they emailed another juror an affidavit drafted based on the notes of the interview they made. This juror calls them and says Deborah Chang might be mistaken and perhaps she mixed up what he said with another juror. Got them make changes to the affidavit and initially was willing to sign the changed version but the next day called saying he/she wouldn't sign the affidavit.
Sie erwähnen, dass sie einen anderen Juror anmailten mit einem Entwurf einer Eidesstaat-Erklärung basierend auf den Notizen vom Interview. Dieser Juror rief Chang an und sagte ihr, dass sie sich wohl vertan habe und vielleicht verwechselt was ein anderer Juror ihr gesagt habe. Sie bekam sie dazu Änderungen in der Erklärung zu machen und sie war zunächst bereit die geänderte Version zu unterzeichnen, aber am nächsten Tag rief er/sie an, dass sie die Erklärung nicht unterzeichnen möchte.
- Note: Chang's interview notes allegedly from this juror includes stuff like Q2 was too specific, that they looked to the contract and considered "general practitioner". Interestingly the notes also mention in the jury there were opposite views and 2 people made it clear they would vote in favor of Jacksons no matter what and 2 people who would vote against Jacksons. This juror also commented that if they could get pass Q3 , Q4 and Q5 would be easily answered in Jacksons favor.

Anmerkung: Changs Interview-Notizen angeblich von diesem Juror beinhaltet Material wie Frage 2 war zu spezifisch, dass sie in den Vertrag schauten und betrachteten "allgemeiner Mediziner". Intressanterweise steht in den Notizen, dass es in der Jury gegensetzliche Meinungen gab und 2 Leute klar machten, dass sie für die Jacksons entscheiden werden, egal was ist und 2 Leute sagten, dass sie gegen die Jacksons entscheiden werden. Dieser Juror kommentierte, dass wenn sie zu Frage 3, 4 und 5 kommen würden sie leicht zu Gunsten der Jacksons entscheiden können.

- Panish submitted an affidavit saying that he met with one of the jurors boss in a social setting and he states in a joking manner he said the juror was against them. He says he never made any comment about the intelligence of the juror. Panish says he also asked the juror's boss if they compensated the juror for the whole time. Juror's boss told Panish that they never had an employee who was on jury duty for that long and the company agreed to compensate the juror the whole time.

Panish übermittelte eine Eidesstaat-Erklärung, die sagt, dass er sich mit dem Chef eines Jurors in einem sozialen Umfeld traf und er in scherzender Weise zu diesem sagte, dass der Juror gegen sie war. Er habe nie einen Kommentar zu der Intelligenz des Jurors gemacht. Panish sagt, er habe zudem den Boss des Jurors gefragt ob sie ihn für die ganze Zeit (des Prozesses) bezahlt haben. Der Boss des Juros sagte, dass sie noch nie einen Mitarbeiter hatten, der solange Zeit einer Jurypflicht nachkommen musste und die Firma zugestimmt habe ihn in während der ganzen Zeit seinen Lohn zu zahlen.

And TMZ made a media request to cover (record/broadcast) the January 3rd hearing. It was denied
TMZ machte eine Medienanfrage die Anhörung am 3. Januar zu übertragen. Es wurde abgelehnt



Jacksons reply to AEG's opposition for a new trial

http://www.scribd.com/doc/194326285/...EGs-opposition

[geli2709]

The seven jurors’ affidavits – WHY DIDN’T THEY ASK JUROR #27?

Die sieben Juroren’ eidesstattliche Versicherungen – Warum haben sie nicht ASK von Juror #27?

December 29, 2013
by Vindicatemj (Helena)

http://vindicatemj.wordpress.com/2013/12/29/the-seven-jurors-affidavits-why-didnt-they-ask-juror-27/

[Lena]

Just zur Info 2 Artikel vom Dezember. Rückblicke zum KJ-AEG-Prozess in einem Magazin, dass sich ausschließlich mit Rechtssachen beschäftigt.
AEg-Anwalt Putnam hat zuletzt /bzw. seit Jahren auch Siegried & Roy gegen verschiedene Belästigungsansprüche erfolgreich vertreten.

Media & Entertainment MVP: O'Melveny's Marvin Putnam

Share us on:TwitterFacebookLinkedInBy Kelly Knaub 0 Comments

Law360, New York (November 15, 2013, 6:33 PM ET) -- In one of the most highly publicized trials of the year, O'Melveny & Myers LLP partner Marvin Putnam convinced a jury that Anschutz Entertainment Group LLC was not liable for Michael Jackson’s death, earning him a spot on Law360’s list of Media and Entertainment MVPs.

Putnam persuaded the six-woman, six-man Los Angeles jury to reject the claims by Jackson’s mother and three children — who had asked for $1.9 billion in damages — that the concert promoter was responsible for the late pop star’s death, during a high-stakes public trial that lasted six months. Jackson’s family accused AEG of negligently hiring and supervising Dr. Conrad Murray, who gave the music legend the fatal overdose of the powerful anesthetic propofol.

The media and entertainment lawyer said one of the biggest challenges of the wrongful death trial was its sheer length.

“You have to become really biopic and focus on nothing else every waking hour but the case,” Putnam told Law360. “And it’s hard to sustain that for any amount of time, so to sustain that for six months is a feat.”

Putnam also said an obvious challenge of the case was having Michael Jackson, a world famous figure of “mythic proportions” whom a lot of people have favorable ideas about, on the other side. It was hard asking a jury to not award damages to Jackson’s grieving mother in what he called “an incredibly sad situation,” but AEG was not at fault, he said.

After Jackson’s mother and children initiated the case last year, the entertainment lawyer also persuaded a Los Angeles Superior Court judge in February 2012 to dismiss a separate wrongful death suit brought by Jackson’s father, Joseph Jackson, without leave to replead. Putnam argued that the separate claims failed to comply with California’s long-held “one action” rule, which mandates that only one wrongful death suit be filed jointly by all heirs and prevents those who do not join from filing claims later.

The win in the Jackson case was part of a string of victories the lawyer scored for AEG and several other clients over the past year.

Putnam convinced a community activist coalition to end its efforts to block AEG’s proposed construction of a $1.5 billion Farmers Field football stadium in downtown Los Angeles earlier this month. The suit, brought by Play Fair at Farmers Field Coalition, had challenged the constitutionality of a law that amended California’s environmental review process. Putnam struck a deal in which AEG agreed to contribute $17 million to numerous community initiatives, including funds to bolster low-income housing in the neighborhood, in exchange for the coalition's dropping the suit.

Putnam said that Los Angeles really wants and needs an NFL team and that he felt honored and privileged to have worked on the case to prevent the potential roadblock.

“It’s difficult when you have a client like AEG that a lot of people can look at and say, hey, I got a payday here for me,” Putnam said. “It’s important to not allow that to happen or else you open the door for that to happen.”

Last October, Putnam represented AEG affiliate Bristol Bay Productions LLC in a $50 million consumer fraud action brought against publisher Simon & Schuster Inc. for artificially inflating book sales. Bristol Bay said it had produced the film “Sahara” after relying on misrepresentations that author Clive Cussler had sold 100 million books, when he actually sold about 40 million.

The case was first dismissed on preclusion grounds because of an earlier suit the author had filed against the publisher, which Putnam successfully tried. But the lawyer argued that the finding was not consistent with long-standing Colorado law and convinced the state’s Supreme Court to grant certiorari on the dismissal. Both parties await the ruling.

In yet another case, Putnam landed a victory for Siegfried Fischbacher and Roy Horn, stars of Las Vegas’ Siegfried & Roy show, when in July the Ninth Circuit ruled in favor of a substantial sanctions award Putnam had obtained against the plaintiff, who appealed on the grounds that the award was unprecedented and misused a federal statute.

Putnam, who has represented the entertainers against a series of harassment claims for years, initially blocked the sale and dissemination of a sex tape through a temporary restraining order and secured the dismissal of a federal action and most of a state action.

He told Law360 his strong oral argument skills come from extensively preparing the case from the beginning by learning what happened, talking to all the people involved and looking at the law broadly and deeply over a period of time. The lawyer also said understanding the personalities in each case is a crucial element of that preparation.

“If you understand the people involved, then you understand what happened and why,” Putnam said.

Putnam began concentrating his practice on the media and entertainment industry 10 years ago, when he moved to Los Angeles and realized it was the best practice in the region. He joined O’Melveny & Myers for its trial team and cutting edge trial litigation, he said. Prior to his work in the entertainment industry, he spent years in high-stakes litigation for corporate clients, including ExxonMobil Corp., Barclays PLC and General Electric Co.

The most rewarding part of his job is defending someone’s reputation and good name, he said.

“In the Jackson matter, AEG had been excoriated in the press for years for their supposed hand in Michael Jackson’s death,” Putnam told Law360. “Well, those allegations were without any merit at all, but the world did not know that. It was great to get to show the truth — that AEG had done nothing wrong. I like defending against such scurrilous attacks.”

http://www.law360.com/articles/48915...-marvin-putnam

_________________

How They Won It: O'Melveny Bests Michael Jackson Death Suit

Share us on:TwitterFacebookLinkedInBy Stewart Bishop 0 Comments

Law360, New York (December 03, 2013, 7:21 PM ET) -- To beat back the $1.5 billion lawsuit alleging AEG Live LLC was liable for the death of pop icon Michael Jackson due to the concert promoter’s hiring of the doctor found to be complicit in Jackson's overdose, attorneys from O'Melveny & Myers LLP say they capitalized on the plaintiffs’ overreach and stuck to the facts.

After a marathon trial that lasted nearly six months, a California jury in October rejected the claims from Jackson’s family that AEG was negligent in hiring and supervising Conrad Murray, the doctor who gave Jackson a fatal overdose of the powerful anesthetic propofol.

The Los Angeles Superior Court jury found that while AEG had hired Murray, the doctor was not unfit or incompetent to perform the work for which he was hired. The verdict concluded a high-stakes wrongful-death trial in which Jackson's mother and three children based their damages figure on an estimate of what Jackson would have earned from new music, tours, endorsements and a Las Vegas show if he had lived.

Lead AEG attorney Marvin Putnam says that after O’Melveny managed to trim all the counts from the case except for the negligent hiring and supervision claim, it became apparent that AEG couldn't lose if it ensured that the jury saw the whole picture, as opposed to the snippets of fact and outright falsities being pushed by the plaintiffs.

“We believed the only way the plaintiffs could win is by telling half-truths and misrepresentations about what had actually occurred,” Putnam told Law360. “We said this from the very beginning and preached it really consistently throughout the case.”

Once AEG knew they the case would be proceeding only on the one count, the plaintiffs were left with a very specific list of what they had to establish, O'Melveny’s Jessica Stebbins Bina said. But with Murray tainted by his 2011 involuntary manslaughter conviction for his role in Jackson’s death, the O'Melveny team would have to paint a very real-world and nuanced portrait of Murray as someone who bore responsibility in Jackson’s death but at the same time was a competent doctor, fit to perform the job for which he was hired.

“What we were trying to do was present him as a real person, not some cardboard cutout of an evil doctor,” Putnam said. “Here’s someone who by all accounts had been a very capable and accomplished cardiologist.”

Furthermore, the O’Melveny attorneys stressed at trial that there was no evidence that anyone at AEG knew that Murray was administering doses of propofol to Jackson.

Putnam had argued to the jury that Murray's secret treatment for Jackson's insomnia with propofol was “far outside his job description and something no one would expect [him] to do.”

“The job for which he was hired most certainly was not to provide Michael Jackson with propofol,” Putnam said. “It was to be a general practitioner.”

He noted that Jackson had not asked for an anesthesiologist to keep him fit as he prepared for his “This Is It” comeback concerts in London, and that AEG had no idea Murray “would be administering a hospital-grade anesthetic to Mr. Jackson behind closed doors.”

Jackson's family had also argued that by paying the financially distressed Murray $150,000 per month to make sure Jackson performed the concerts it was promoting, AEG had created a conflict of interest that caused Murray to make poor medical decisions including administering the fatal overdose.

“Their argument was that he was unfit and incompetent because he had personal financial problems making him subject to manipulation,” Bina said. “I believe the jury could and did rightly reject the argument that personal debt makes you more likely to commit a crime.”

Throughout the trial, Putnam said the defense team was constantly battling misinformation and sometimes lies from the other side, which misstated facts about Jackson’s long history with propofol.

“It was really clear from the beginning that they were going to wave these incomplete documents in the jury’s face and make unsubstantiated claims,” Putnam said. “Then we would come back and say, ‘No, this is what really happened.’ And we asked the jury to reserve judgment until the end.”

Despite a belief on the AEG side that the facts were in their favor, Bina said one challenge of the case was to deal with its immense tragedy, including the effect of Jackson’s death on his family.

“I think the hardest thing to overcome was the sheer sadness of the situation. Here you have three kids who have lost their only active parent,” Bina said. “We laid it out for the jury that, yes, it’s sad, but that doesn’t make his concert promoter responsible for what happened.”

The O'Melveny team also had to deal with the ongoing trial of public opinion taking place outside the courtroom on the street and in the press and attempt to ensure that AEG was not being unfairly maligned — no easy task when some news outlets were taking unsupported allegations put forth by the plaintiffs as fact, according to Putnam.

While most news outlets put out accurate coverage, Putnam said CNN’s coverage was woefully misinformative, considering even gossip sites like TMZ and Radar Online were getting it right.

“You have to monitor these things to make sure real outlets get it right,” he said. “With the 24/7 news cycle now, people are being tried in two very different arenas.”

When it came time for closing arguments, Putnam reiterated that it was Jackson who had chosen Murray to treat him as he was preparing for his comeback tour and that it was Jackson who demanded the propofol to help him sleep.

Putnam said Jackson was desperate to proceed with the tour to redeem his public image and that he and his doctor “did everything they could” to conceal from AEG how and for what Murray was treating him at his home in the Holmby Hills neighborhood of Los Angeles.

“AEG Live never would have agreed to finance this tour if it knew Mr. Jackson played Russian roulette every night in his bedroom,” Putnam argued. “Is a concert promoter liable for Michael Jackson's overdose in his bedroom at night behind locked doors ... at the hands of his doctor?”

After AEG had fought the case for more than three years, the jury took just 2 1/2 days to find in its favor.

The plaintiffs are represented by Brian J. Panish, Kevin R. Boyle, Deborah Chang and Robert S. Glassman of Panish Shea & Boyle LLP and Michael Koskoff of Koskoff Koskoff & Bieder PC.

AEG is represented by Marvin S. Putnam, Sabrina H. Strong, Jessica L. Stebbins Bina and Kathryn A. Cahan of O'Melveny & Myers LLP.

The case is Katherine Jackson et al. v. AEG Live LLC et al., case number BC445597, in the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Los Angeles.

--Additional reporting by Matthew Heller. Editing by Elizabeth Bowen.

http://www.law360.com/articles/49143...son-death-suit

[Lena]

AEG has filed a reply to Jackson's reply
AEG hat eine Anwort auf die Antwort der Jacksons eingereicht:

This one is going to get a little technical so bear with me

- AEG states that the Civil Code of Procedure only allows for a motion for a new trial and an opposition to be filed so they claim Jacksons reply is not allowed by the law. AEG also states Jacksons did not file their reply brief 5 court days before the hearing as well. So they ask the judge to disregard Jackson's reply but if chooses to consider it also consider AEG's reply to it.

- AEG besagt, dass die Zivilprozessordnung für den Antrag auf einen neuen Prozess nur einen Antrag und eine Gegenantwort erlaubt und damit sei Jacksons Antwort nach Gesetz nicht erlaubt. AEG sagt auch das dieJacksons ihren Anwortbrief nicht 5 Tage vor der Verhandlung eingereicht haben, so dass sie den Richter bitten, Jacksons Antwort zu ignorieren , aber wenn das Gericht entscheidet diese zu beachten, dass es dann auch AEGs Antwort beachtet.

- In their reply AEG is claiming Jacksons have misrepresented the law and facts and that Jacksons started to mention new stuff in their reply such as "incompetent and unfit" wasn't defined or that 4 juror affidavits meet the burden of proof for the possibility of a different verdict (hung jury)

- In ihrer Antwort sagt AEG , dass Jacksons das Gesetz und Fakten falsch dargestellt haben , und dass Jacksons begonnen haben neue Sachen in ihrer Antwort wie " inkompetent und ungeeignet " zu erwähnen und das es nicht definiert wurde oder dass die vier eidesstattlichen Erklärungen der Juroren die Möglichkeit eines anderen Urteils (Hung-Jury )aufzeigen.

- AEG mentions that Jackson lawyer repeatedly asked for and included Q2 in their verdict forms and the transcripts also show that some of their claims aren't true. Such as Panish saying "I'm not saying pick BAJI" and so on. There's a whole section talking about how Jackson lawyers misrepresented section 647.

- AEG erwähnt auch dass Jacksons Anwalt wiederholt in ihrem Urteilform nach Frage 2 gefragt haben, diese wollten und sie Frage 2 einbezogen, dass einige ihrer Behauptungen nicht wahr sind. Wie Panish sagte: "Ich sage nicht, nehmt Baji " und so weiter. Es gibt einen ganzen Abschnitt dazu wie die Jackson-Anwälte Abschnitt 647 falsch darlegten.

- AEG states Jacksons for the first time in their reply mention that "incompetent or unfit" wasn't defined and that was an error. AEG says not only this argument should be disregarded as it wasn't in Jackson opening brief and Jacksons should have asked for a definition to be given to the jurors while they are preparing the verdict forms. Also AEG states that Jacksons failed to show that "incompetent or unfit for the job for which he was hired" was so far beyond the understanding of ordinary jurors that a special definition was needed.

- AEG sagt, dass die Jacksons zum ersten Mal in ihrer Antwort einwenden das " inkompetent oder untauglich " nicht festgelegt war , und das dies ein Fehler gewesen wäre . AEG sagt das nicht nur dieses Argument nicht beachtet werden sollte , da es nicht in Jacksons Eröffnungsbrief stand und die Jacksons hätten nach einer Definition fragen müssen, die den Juroren gegeben werden kann , während der Herstellung der Urteilsform . Auch sagt AEG dass die Jacksons verfehlten zu zeigen, dass " inkompetent oder ungeeignet für den Job , für den er eingestellt wurde, " so weit vom Verständnis des gewöhnlichen Geschworenen entfernt war , dass es dafür eine spezielle Definition benötigt hätte.

- AEG again states that jury affidavits that are about juror's mental processes are inadmissible. They say that after verdict during interviews it's not uncommon for jurors to express confusion, sympathy, even regret and jurors might say things in the interviews to please both sides.

- AEG sagt, dass dieeidesstattlichen Erklärungen der Juror psychische Prozesse sind und unzulässig sind. Sie sagen, dass es nach dem Urteil in Interviews nicht unüblich ist, dass Juroren Verwirrung, Sympathie auszudrücken , selbst bedauern und Juroren könnten die Dinge in den Interviews sagen , um beiden Seiten zu gefallen.

- In order to give example of the above AEG mentions what the 4 jurors told them during their interviews which is conflicting to what is written in their affidavits submitted by Jacksons.
--- The first Jackson affidavit juror told AEG that the experience as a juror was positive and he/she believed AEG did not know anything about what Murray was doing to MJ.
--- The second Jackson affidavit juror told AEG that deliberation process was good, everyone had the opportunity to be heard before the verdict reached and the verdict form and instructions were clear and understandable.
--- The third Jackson affidavit juror told AEG that he/she wanted to ask about Q2 to the judge but then jurors talked about it and figured out what it meant and he/she was ultimately satisfied with the verdict.
--- The fourth Jackson affidavit juror told AEG that satisfaction with the verdict, made decisions based on facts and Jacksons did not prove their case.

- Um Beispiel zu geben sagt AEG , was die vier Juroren während ihrer Interviews Aussagen trafen, die sie sich mit ihren eidesstattlichen Erklärungen die die Jacksons vorgelegten in Konflikt stehen.
--- Der Juror der ersten eidesstattlichen Erklärung der Jacksons sagte gegen+ber AEG , dass die Erfahrung als Juror positiv war und er / sie glaubte AEG konnte nicht wissen was Murray gegenüber MJ tat.
--- Der Juror der 2. eidesstattliche Erklärung sagte AEG, dass der Beratungsprozess gut war, jeder hatte die Möglichkeit, gehört zu werden, bevor das Urteil gefällt wurde und das die Urteilsform und Anweisungen klar und verständlich waren.
--- Der dritte Juror der eidesstattlichen Erklärung der Jackson sagte AEG , dass er / sie wollte wegen Frage 2 den Richter fragen, aber dann sprachen Juroren darüber und haben herausgefunden, was es bedeutete, und er / sie war letztendlich mit dem Urteil zufrieden.
--- Die vierte Juror der eidesstaatlichen Erklärung der Jacksons sagte , dass die Zufriedenheit mit dem Urteil basierend auf Fakten liegt und Jacksons nicht ihren Fall beweisen konnten.

- AEG states even there was an alleged confusion with Q2, Jacksons was unable to show that the verdict would have been different. AEG states 4 jurors claims that negligent supervision and retention wasn't considered is countered by the 7 juror affidavits that say such claims were discussed.

- AEG sagt, das selbst wenn es eine angebliche Verwirrung mit Frage 2 gab Jacksons nicht in der Lage waren zu zeigen, dass das Urteil anders ausgefallen wäre . AEG sagt, dass die Behauptung von 4 Juroren, dass fahrlässige Aufsicht und Retention nicht betrachtet wurden von den sieben Jurymitgliedern in eidesstattlichen Erklärungen widerlegt wurden , die sagen, diese Ansprüche wurden diskutiert.



- AEG also points out that out of the 4 juror affidavits only 2 of them state they wanted to vote for Jacksons and the other 2 only mentions dissatisfaction with the deliberation process and want to deliberate more.
- AEG weist auch darauf hin , dass von den 4 eidesstattlichen Versicherungen(die Jacksons vorlegten) nur zwei von ihnen sagen, sie wollten für Jacksons stimmen und die anderen 2 nur die Unzufriedenheit mit der Beratungsprozess erwähnten und das sie mehr beraten wollten.

- AEG also rejects Jacksons claims that AEG was required to provide 9 juror affidavits to show the verdict wouldn't be different. AEG states the burden of proof is on Jacksons. AEG states Jackson lawyers had 3 months after the verdict and they were only able to get 4 affidavits which only 2 said they would vote for Jacksons and AEG was able to get 7 affidavits in 9 days right before Christmas. They state this indicates majority of the jurors would have voted in AEG's favor in both Q2 and Q3. They state that even the jury was hung on Q2 they could move on the next question and come to a verdict in AEG's favor based on that.

- AEG lehnt auch Jacksons Behauptung ab, dass AEG von 9 Juroren eidesstattlichen Erklärungen liefern muss , um zu zeigen das Urteil nicht anders gewesen wäre. AEG sagt, die Beweislast liegt bei den Jacksons . AEG erklärt Jackson Anwälte hatten 3 Monate nach der Urteilsverkündung Zeit, und sie konnten nur vier eidesstattlichen Erklärungen bringen von denen nur zwei sagten, dass sie für die Jacksons stimmen würden und AEG konnte sieben eidesstattliche Erklärungen in 9 Tagen vor Weihnachten erbringen. Sie erklären dies zeigt an, dass die Mehrheit der Geschworenen zu Gunsten von AEGentscheidet sowohl in Frage 2 als auch in Frage 3. Sie erklären, dass selbst wenn es in Frage 2 ein Hängen gab sie zu der nächsten Frage weitergehen konnten und zu einem Urteil zu Gunsten von AEG kommen konnten auf dieser Grundlage.

- AEG also filed a second document to oppose Jacksons and support their motion to strike jury affidavits. AEG again claims Jacksons are misrepresenting the law and the examples they given. AEG's main point is that jury affidavits can only be admissible if they are about a jury misconduct. AEG gives several examples of cases which rejected juror affidavits and they also state that the 4 case examples Jacksons gave (that showed Judge accepting the juror affidavits) all had jury misconduct element. Such as in one of examples Jacksons gave jurors actually considered attorney fees and income taxes while they were determining damages , Court and appeal court ruled to inflate the damages to offset lawyer fees and income tax was a jury misconduct. As I mentioned AEG gives several examples how subjective mental processes of the jurors and even confusion isn't admissible.

AEG hat zudem einen. 2. Antrag eingereicht um die Erklärungen der Juroren zu streichen. Sie geben mehrere Beispeile das diese dem Gesetz widersprechen und das sie nur bei Jury-Fehlverhalten einbezogen werden dürfen.

Quelle: Ivy, MJJC

[Lena]

Heute ist der Anhörungstermin. Gericht verneint tendenziell den Antrag von Kathrine Jacksons Anwälten für einen neuen Prozess gegen AEG. Dies stellt wohl die Entscheidung basierend auf den eingereichten Dokumenten dar vor der Anhörung, die noch folgt.

Margaret Carrero @MargaretCarrero 38m
Judge tentatively DENIES request by Katherine #Jackson lawyers for a new trial against #AEGLive, but both sides are being heard. @KNX1070

Details
Margaret Carrero @MargaretCarrero 4h
Will Katherine #Jackson get another shot at #AEGLive? Her lawyers argue for a new trial today. @KNX1070 @CBSLA
Details

Edit: Die Anhörung scheint wohl auch vorbei zu sein und dauerte 2 Stunden. Die Richterin traf die vorläufige Entscheidung keinen neuen Prozess zuzulassen, hat die Entscheidung nach der Anhörung aber noch nicht direkt finalisiert.

JUDGE TENTATIVELY RULES AGAINST NEW JACKSON TRIAL
By ANTHONY McCARTNEY

LOS ANGELES (AP) — A judge has issued a tentative ruling against granting a new trial in a negligence case filed by the mother of Michael Jackson claiming a concert promoter is financially liable for the singer's death.

Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Yvette Palazuelos issued the lengthy ruling on Friday but did not immediately finalize it after hearing more than two hours of arguments from lawyers.

A jury in October rejected Katherine Jackson's lawsuit claiming AEG Live LLC negligently hired the doctor convicted of giving her son an overdose of anesthetic in 2009.

Her lawyers argued the verdict form didn't allow jurors to fully consider evidence in the case.

AEG's lawyers contend there was no basis for a new trial.

http://bigstory.ap.org/article/judge...-jackson-trial

[Lena]

Noch 2 upgedatete Artikel:

Richterin sandte den beiden Parteien vor der Anhörung ein 45-seitige Begründung basierend zu den eingereichten Dokumenten der Parteien warum sie den Antrag der Jacksons auf neuen Prozess vorläufig ablehnt. Nach der 2-stündigen Anhörung der beiden Parteien hat die Richterin die Entscheidung noch nicht umgehend finalisiert. Dafür hat sie bis zum 13. Januar Zeit. Bestätigt sie die Entscheidung so haben die Jacksons dann die Möglichkeit einen Berufungsantrag bei einem höherem Staatsgericht einzureichen.

Anm. Das werden sie dann wohl tun womit wir dann beim eigentlichen Berufungsantrag sind. Wird sich dann wohl 2 Jahre ziehen bis das Gericht darüber dann entscheidet.

Updated AP story

JUDGE TENTATIVELY RULES AGAINST NEW JACKSON TRIAL
By ANTHONY McCARTNEY

LOS ANGELES (AP) — A judge issued a tentative ruling Friday against granting a new trial in a negligence case filed by the mother of Michael Jackson claiming a concert promoter was financially liable for the singer's death.

Superior Court Judge Yvette Palazuelos did not immediately finalize the ruling after hearing more than two hours of arguments from lawyers.

A jury in October rejected Katherine Jackson's lawsuit claiming AEG Live LLC negligently hired the doctor convicted of giving her son an overdose of anesthetic in 2009.

Her lawyers argued the verdict form didn't allow jurors to fully consider evidence in the case. Lawyers for AEG Live countered that there was no basis for a new trial.

AEG Live attorney Jessica Stebbins Bina told the judge it was actually Katherine Jackson's lawyers who included the disputed language in drafts of the verdict form and instructions.

Jackson family attorney Deborah Chang, however, said the question that brought jurors to end the case couldn't have been corrected and should have been excluded from the form.

Palazuelos did not indicate when she would finalize her ruling. If she stands by it, Katherine Jackson's attorneys could pursue an appeal with a higher state court.

Jurors heard more than five months of evidence in the lawsuit trial.

Katherine Jackson sued AEG Live on behalf of herself and her son's three children, accusing the concert promoter of hiring Dr. Conrad Murray and creating a conflict of interest in his care of the pop superstar.

Murray, who was deeply in debt, expected to be paid $150,000 a month to care for Jackson while the singer prepared for a planned series of comeback concerts in London's O2 Arena. Jackson died on June 25, 2009, after receiving an overdose of propofol, which Murray was giving Jackson as a sleep aid.

Murray was convicted of involuntary manslaughter in 2011 and released in October after serving two years in jail.

The trial offered a close look into Jackson's personal life as well as his routines as an entertainer and medical treatments for a variety of ailments.

Jurors later said their verdict did not mean they thought Murray was ethical in his care of Jackson, but that he was fit and competent to serve as his doctor.

AEG Live denied any wrongdoing throughout the trial and said there was no way executives could have known that Murray was giving Jackson propofol in the bedroom of his rented mansion.


CBSLA

Judge Denies Katherine Jackson’s Request For New Trial Against AEG
January 3, 2014 6:58 AM

LOS ANGELES (CBSLA.com) — A judge on Friday tentatively denied a motion by Katherine Jackson’s attorneys for a new wrongful death trial against concert promoter AEG Live.

Jackson’s attorneys claim the jury instructions and verdict form were misleading during the trial, prompting jurors to clear AEG of wrongdoing in the death of Jackson’s son Michael back in October.

Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Yvette Palazuelos sent attorneys a 45-page tentative ruling denying the motion by lawyers for the Jackson family matriarch Thursday night, in advance of a hearing on the issue today.
Details of the judge’s ruling were not immediately available.
Jackson’s attorneys argued that once the panel found that Dr. Conrad Murray was fit and competent to be Michael Jackson’s doctor when he was hired, it prevented the jury from deliberating AEG Live’s actions in supervising and retaining Murray.
KNX1070 legal analyst Steve Meister says Jackson’s lawyers would have to have a specific argument that the court did something wrong to taint the outcome that unfairly resulted in a bad verdict.


http://losangeles.cbslocal.com/2014/...t-against-aeg/

[Lena]

LA Richterin hat heute Kathrines Antrag auf neuen Prozess abgelehnt.

Michael Jackson's mother won't get new trial
Maria Elena Fernandez NBC News
36 minutes ago
Katherine Jackson won't get a new trial.
Ethan Miller / Getty Images
A Los Angeles judge has denied Katherine Jackson's request for a new trial.
A Los Angeles Superior Court judge ruled Wednesday that Katherine Jackson will not get a new trial in her negligence case against concert promoters AEG Live, whom she alleges are financially liable for the 2009 death of her son, pop superstar Michael Jackson.

A jury in October rejected Jackson's claims that AEG Live negligently hired the doctor convicted of giving her son an overdose of anesthetic in 2009.

Jackson sued AEG Live on behalf of herself and her three grandchildren, accusing the concert promoter of hiring Dr. Conrad Murray, who was convicted of involuntary manslaughter in 2011 and released from prison in October.

Jackson testified that AEG Live never told her family that her son was sleep-deprived for 60 days, was paranoid, losing weight and deteriorating before everyone's eyes. Jackson died shortly before his comeback tour in London was scheduled to begin.

Jurors heard more than five months of evidence in the trial. Throughout the case, AEG Live maintained that there was no way executives could have known that Murray was giving Jackson the anesthetic propofol in the bedroom of his rented mansion. Jurors said later that they found Murray was "fit and competent" to be Jackson's doctor but that doesn't mean they thought his actions were ethical.

In their request for a new trial, Jackson's lawyers argued the jury instructions and verdict form were flawed and didn't allow jurors to fully consider evidence in the case. But lawyers for AEG Live told the judge during a two-hour hearing that it was actually Jackson's lawyers who included the disputed language in drafts of the verdict form and instructions.
In Ihrem Antrag für einen Prozess argumentierten die Jackson-Anwälte das die Juryinstruktionen fehlerhaft waren und den Juroren nicht erlaubte die volle Beweislage im Fall zu betrachten. Aber Anwälte für AEG erwiederten dem Gericht in einer 2-stündigen Anhörung das es die Jackson-Anwälte waren die die besagte Wortwahl in ihren Entwürfen und Instruktionen einschloss.

Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Yvette Palazuelos agreed with the concert promoters. Jackson is expected to appeal her case to the California's 2nd District Court of Appeal.
LA Superior Richterin Yvette Paluzelos stimmte mit dem Konzertpromotor überein. Es wird erwaretet das K. Jackson vor dem Californiaa 2nd District Court of Appeal einen Berufungsantrag einreicht.

http://www.nbcnews.com/entertainment...ial-2D11879270