AEG Live scored a massive victory on Wednesday afternoon, as the jury
of its civil trial found the concert promoter not liable in the death
of pop superstar Michael Jackson. But with the Jackson family estate
almost certain to appeal, questions remain about where this long running
legal drama is headed next, and it appears the story is far from over.
Responding to the questionnaire put before them to establish
liability for the singer's death, the jury today gave unanimous
reactions to the first two questions (of 16) asked. A "yes" answer was
required for all of the first five questions in order for AEG to be
found liable .
To question #1: Did AEG Live hire Dr. Conrad Murray? — The jury answered: Yes
But for question #2: Was Dr. Conrad Murray unfit or incompetent to perform his duties? — The jury returned a "No" answer.
That response brought an end to the proceedings, letting AEG Live
walk away clean. Presiding Judge Yvette M. Palazuelos then thanked the
jurors "from the bottom of my heart" and referred to them as "model
citizens" for their five months of service.
[Related: Jury Rejects Claim That Jackson Promoter Negligent]
In a statement released immediately after the decision was read, AEG
Live lead counsel Marvin Putnam of O'Melveny & Myers LLP said, "The
jury's decision completely vindicates AEG Live, confirming what we have
known from the start — that although Michael Jackson's death was a
terrible tragedy, it was not a tragedy of AEG Live's making … There was
simply no evidence that anyone at AEG did anything wrong … Some people
make the mistake of looking at AEG Live as an easy target due to their
size and presence in Los Angeles. That's a mistake."
On the other side, however, the Jackson family made clear they do not
necessarily see this as the end of the line. "We are evaluating
everything at this time and will then decide," attorney Brian Panish
said following the verdict. "We are disappointed by the verdict but
respect the jury system."
So what does this ruling mean for both AEG Live and the Jackson
family estate? Omg! spoke with two attorneys not involved with this case
to get their takes.
Darren Kavinoky a criminal defense attorney at The Kavinoky Law Firm in California, also a TV legal analyst, frequent keynote speaker, and the creator and host of "Deadly Sins" on Investigation Discovery,
notes, "Given the inevitability of an appeal, this case is not yet
over. Some of the issues that were most contentious in the court of
public opinion, namely whether Jackson himself bore some responsibility
for his own demise, were never reached."
Could the tricky phrasing of the questions have influenced the
outcome? "Legal analysts have opined that the wording of the jury
question could have impacted this result," Kavinoky continued. "Since it
caused jurors to focus simply on whether he was competent at the time
of hiring, and didn't speak to the over-prescribing and reckless conduct
that led to the criminal conviction for manslaughter."
Speaking as a group outside of the courthouse after their verdict was
delivered, members of the jury addressed that issue. "The question was
over whether or not Dr. Murray was competent. We found that he was," the
jury foreman Gregg Barden said. "(He) had a license, he graduated from
an accredited college, and we felt that he was competent of doing the
job of being a general practitioner."
"Now That doesn’t mean we felt he was ethical," Barden continued. "If
ethical was in the question, it could have been a different outcome. In
the end, he was very unethical. He did something he shouldn’t have
done."
Still yet, he admitted, "Question #2 was confusing."
Kavinoky points out that the most awaited opinion, however, could be coming shortly.
"Trial watchers won't have long to wait to hear perhaps the most
interesting interview concerning this case: Dr. Murray himself! Conrad
Murray is expected to be released from custody in approximately three
weeks. Stay tuned!"
Tanya Acker, an attorney at Goldberg Lowenstein & Weatherwax LLP,
has followed the case closely and believes an appeal is in the works.
"An appeal is inevitable and the plaintiffs are already gearing up for
it," she says. "While the jury's finding that Murray was competent may
seem surprising in the context of Murray's criminal trial, that
competency finding isn't necessarily inconsistent with the criminal
verdict. Someone who is generally competent may nonetheless act
negligently, even criminally, in particular circumstances."
