Hi Randy,
I know you're busy, so I don't know if you've been following the Death of Michael Jackson trial, but as of today, things look bad for Dr. Conrad Murray: 33 prosecution witnesses have basically destroyed the man's reputation, leading many people to think he'll be found guilty for involuntary manslaughter in the death of [his patient]Michael Jackson. Now it's the defense's turn to call witnesses. Do you think they should call Dr. Murray to the stand? If so, why?
- Lenny, L.A.
Lenny,
I have indeed been following the trial, for I am as big of a fan of the King of Pop as I am of the American courtroom. Before going any further, I think it'd be helpful to review for my readers what "involuntary manslaughter" (which is what Dr. Murray is charged with) means:
Under California law, "involuntary manslaughter" is an unlawful killing that takes place 1) during the commission of an unlawful act (not amounting to a felony), OR 2)during the commission of a lawful act which involves a high risk of death or great bodily harm that is committed without due caution or circumspection."
Stick with me, readers. We'll get to Murray in a minute, but first, let's break an element of this law down in a way that's not only quick and painless, but fun.
"Involuntary manslaughtrer" is an unlawful killing. What this means is that Dr. Murray would be exempt from the charges under this statute if he committed a lawful killing.
What is a lawful killing?
Lawful, as you may guess, means "related to the law." Therefore, if you commit a killing inside a courtroom, or an attorney's office, a law school, or a Model United Nations summit at a local community center, that means you would have committed a lawful killing, and thus could not be held under the law for voluntary manslaughter.
We know from the facts that Michael Jackson was not killed in a location affiliated with the law; thus, we cannot say that Dr. Murray conmmited a lawful killing.
As for the other elements of the involuntary manslaughter statute, they have been, and will be, continually broken down in the courtroom. Let's get to your question: should Dr. Murray take the stand?
Let's face the facts: the jury knows Michael Jackson. The jury has heard "Beat It" and "Thriller" and "Black and White," songs that are transcendent beads of magic weaving audio necklaces around their listeners. No past accusation, however well-buttressed, of child molestation will damage Michael Jackson in the eyes of this jury. No present accusation about Michael Jackson self-medicating on drugs will damage him in the eyes of this jury. Conrad Murray's testimony about his accomplishments as a doctor won't damage Jackson.
Murray cannot hope to get the jury to turn on Michael Jackson. What Murray can do, though, is make the jury embrace Conrad Murray. And the way to do that is simple:
Murray Must Become Michael Jackson.
Wear his black hat and sparkling glove to court. Flash peace signs to the press. And finally, take the stand, and talk to the judge and the attorneys, and most importantly, the jury, in a soft, gentle, sensitive, Michael Jackson-is-back voice.
The effect will be dramatic. Will there be skeptics of this strategy? Of course. But what those skeptics don't understand is the concept of transference: by listening to Conrad channel Jackson, the jurors will become confused, too confused to throw the man in jail, for if Murray can effectively remind the jurors of the pop maestro they so dearly miss, the jury will feel it'd be insulting to Jackson's memory to put such a sweet evocation of him in prison.
Chances are my suggestion will fall on deaf ears. Critics will think I'm joking, or that I'm crazy.
The only thing that's crazy is the truth.
- Randy.
Caveat: This is my interpretation of the law. It is not yet accepted by many jurisdictions. Remember Randy McDowell's Legal Advice- Not Your Ordinary 1L is only to be used as an inspirational, not a binding, tool.
No comments:
Post a Comment