tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6757696342634699253.post5792123157119618817..comments2024-03-18T03:14:26.822-07:00Comments on Trials & Tribulations: Dr. Conrad Murray's Death Drip: Explained - - Part 4Sprockethttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03837416113512618694noreply@blogger.comBlogger131125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6757696342634699253.post-34946524216155936722011-02-15T18:05:09.081-08:002011-02-15T18:05:09.081-08:00I've answered this question before.
The prose...I've answered this question before.<br /><br />The prosecution witness list will be made pubic at some time, but I don't know if the defense is "required" to release theirs to anyone other than the prosecution and the court.Sprockethttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03837416113512618694noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6757696342634699253.post-2382362925698499282011-02-15T17:34:48.965-08:002011-02-15T17:34:48.965-08:00@Sprocket
I tried to post this at your latest blo...@Sprocket<br /><br />I tried to post this at your latest blog post but comments was closed - can you address this at that post please.<br /><br />MSM also reported that both sides gave witness lists consisted around 100 people for each side. Will those lists become public knowledge? thanks.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6757696342634699253.post-39786277795415704232011-02-15T16:27:15.002-08:002011-02-15T16:27:15.002-08:00Integrity, KZ. Thank-you. Another doctor, who ju...Integrity, KZ. Thank-you. Another doctor, who just calls 911 if there is a problem: http://www.oregonlive.com/lake-oswego/index.ssf/2010/12/oregon_medical_board_orders_emergency_suspension_of_portland_doctor_after_patient_dies.html. <br />I applaud the Oregon Medical Board for acting so quickly on this one; death on December 19, emergency order of suspension on December 22. There has been no word if there is any interest in pursuing criminal charges in this one. One note about another legal concept called collateral estoppel, which apparently affects the moves made by the California Medical Board, when a member is involved in a criminal proceeding, but they want to move to suspend his/her license. One may read more about that in the Gray v Superior Court case cited above. I kept wondering why the California Medical Board was moving before the superior court rather than making an emergency suspension. I understand the suspension coming from the California superior court rather than Board itself has affected the non-movement of the Nevada and Texas Boards. Amazing. One may find it quite shocking to read about the cases that are not investigated, or the hand-slaps given, by the Nevada Medical Board. I get the sense that you too, KZ, think that doctors, perhaps nurses and others, are really poor at patrolling themselves.Laurienoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6757696342634699253.post-91407143493832041572011-02-15T09:44:18.631-08:002011-02-15T09:44:18.631-08:00Forgot to mention that the $300K I was offered by...Forgot to mention that the $300K I was offered by the cosmetic dentist above was for working only 2-3 days per week giving anesthesia. So that's another example of how you can do something legally, cut corners, and put patients at risk to pocket a lot of money. In my state, CRNA's can legally work with medical doctors, dentists, and podiatrists. Dentists and podiatrists are not medical doctors, and do not attend medical school; their degree is DDS or DPM. Many people don't know this, and assume dentists and podiatrists are also medical doctors. Dentists who have completed a certification course in sedation are allowed to give certain kinds of anesthesia. However, with deep sedation/ general anesthesia, it is far safer to have a qualified provider giving anesthesia and monitoring the patient who is not also conducting the dental procedure. IMO, this qualified provider should be someone who is able to perform advanced airway management/ rescue procedures, and various forms of intubation, should the airway be compromised. A dental technician should not be giving deep sedation or general anestheisa, IMO.KZnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6757696342634699253.post-91163800335426332582011-02-15T09:44:02.902-08:002011-02-15T09:44:02.902-08:00Forgot to mention that the $300K I was offered by...Forgot to mention that the $300K I was offered by the cosmetic dentist above was for working only 2-3 days per week giving anesthesia. So that's another example of how you can do something legally, cut corners, and put patients at risk to pocket a lot of money. In my state, CRNA's can legally work with medical doctors, dentists, and podiatrists. Dentists and podiatrists are not medical doctors, and do not attend medical school; their degree is DDS or DPM. Many people don't know this, and assume dentists and podiatrists are also medical doctors. Dentists who have completed a certification course in sedation are allowed to give certain kinds of anesthesia. However, with deep sedation/ general anesthesia, it is far safer to have a qualified provider giving anesthesia and monitoring the patient who is not also conducting the dental procedure. IMO, this qualified provider should be someone who is able to perform advanced airway management/ rescue procedures, and various forms of intubation, should the airway be compromised. A dental technician should not be giving deep sedation or general anestheisa, IMO.KZnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6757696342634699253.post-80717519387228481682011-02-15T08:42:16.407-08:002011-02-15T08:42:16.407-08:00The tragic example of the Bonilla case demonstrate...The tragic example of the Bonilla case demonstrates yet again WHY we need to have a public discussion about what physicians are allowed to do in their private offices, private clinics, and homes. <br /><br />IMO, these are deplorable situations that put very rich, or very vulnerable people directly into the hands of those least qualified to care for them. Doctors who are willing to do anything for cash payments. There are a number of ways to structure regulation of these kinds of practice issues, to protect the public, and still allow physicians to apply for exceptions when needed. At least that would provide SOME oversight and a safety layer, which is currently lacking. Laws and Boards of Medicine, Nursing, etc. are charged to do just that. The Board of Nursing is not in existence to protect me; professional licensure boards exist to protect the public. <br /><br />The sad thing is that each time something like this happens, the Murray case, or the Bonilla case, it is presented in the media as if it is only one wacky occurrence. Boards of Medicine, in my experience are far more interested in advancing and promoting legislation that limits and restricts the practice of other health care professionals, when they should be focusing more of their efforts on policing their own profession. Make no mistake, their arguments have little to do with patient safety, and a lot to do with money and turf battles. Physicians are extremely reluctant to discuss any restrictions on their practice, because of the historical basis for their practice. IMO, those times are long past, and physicians should be subject to the kinds of laws and regulations that every other health care provider is subject to. If they want to do surgery in a private office, they should have to be licensed to do that, and demonstrate competence and compliance with standards of care. <br /><br />I once turned down a dentist who wanted me to set up a practice to give essentially general anesthesia in his office. After thoroughly evaluating what was needed, I produced a list of equipment and drugs he needed to buy to be in compliance with standards. He said he didn't think it was necessary to buy monitors, ACLS drugs, a crash cart, etc, and that if something ever happened, they would just call 911. I had a discussion about the risks to patients, etc, and let him know politely that I wasn't willing to practice in that environment, which I thought was cutting corners and substandard. He laughed, and said he'd find an anesthesiologist to do it under the table, so he wouldn't have to spend the money. How awful is that? By the way, the contract the dentist offered me was for nearly $300K a year, and yes, I walked away. He was willing to pay for anesthesia, but not purchase the equipment to give it safely. He didn't want his patients to feel like they were getting medical care, he said.KZnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6757696342634699253.post-9699441112255596022011-02-15T00:03:39.844-08:002011-02-15T00:03:39.844-08:00QUOTE:
Mesereau had stated on tv something to the ...QUOTE:<br />Mesereau had stated on tv something to the effect juries are reluctant to convict a doctor. But due to the egregious nature and unique facts and circumstances of this case, as delineated by KZ, there seens ti be a high probability that the jury would convict on murder charges in this case.<br />END QUOTE<br /><br />One of the things a good attorney will tell you, is that you can never "predict" what a jury will do.Sprockethttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03837416113512618694noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6757696342634699253.post-72261318366530815452011-02-14T23:20:16.381-08:002011-02-14T23:20:16.381-08:00Hyperlink for above article:
Daily Breeze.com
Ju...Hyperlink for above article:<br /><br /><a href="http://www.dailybreeze.com/ci_15542228?IADID" rel="nofollow">Daily Breeze.com</a><br /><br />Just from the information in the above article, I can tell what sets Murray's case apart from the Inglewood case.<br /><br />In the Inglewood case, prosecutors learned something at the prelim they did not know before hand.<br /><br />I don't believe that was the case with Murray. I believe the prosecution knew exactly what each witness would testify to at Murray's prelim. They had all their ducks in a row, knew everything there was to know before they went ahead with the prelim.<br /><br />So, even though the Inglewood prosecutor thought he had enough to go with 2nd degree, a judge rejected the charge. The exact same thing could have happened with Murray. In a high profile case, that's something you DON'T want happening.<br /><br />Before you start ranting "The DA's office needs to investigate to increase the charges!!!" it's a good idea to at least learn a little bit <i>more</i> about the legal system of the country your ranting about.<br /><br />Maybe the Inglewood victim's family should be shouting from the rooftops to have "more investigation" to "dig deeper" to "find the evidence" to charge 2nd degree in that case. Oh wait, the LA County DA's office did just that and look what happened? A judge threw out the charge.<br /><br />Funny, it seems to me that <b>just a few days ago, I mentioned the possibility of this EXACT SAME SCENARIO for Murray.</b> And what do you know, a very kind Anonymous poster gives us this article in the Daily Breeze of an Inglewood case (still LA County jurisdiction) where the DDA brings a 2nd degree charge, but the Judge rejects it.<br /><br />Man, you'd think with <b>my opinions, </b>I was psychic or something, or maybe, just maybe, I know what I'm talking about. <br /><br />Maybe it could be that I've followed a lot of criminal cases over the years and I have a bit of understanding on how things work here in the US.Sprockethttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03837416113512618694noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6757696342634699253.post-39747785716257549252011-02-14T22:12:17.121-08:002011-02-14T22:12:17.121-08:00Anon at 3:47,
Thank you for your kind words and co...Anon at 3:47,<br />Thank you for your kind words and confidence in my writing. However, I'm quite sure the prosecutors and DA do not need to read anything I have to say. They don't need to read the blogs to formulate their arguments. They have the ACTUAL evidence and photographs-- much more information and evidence than we have been allowed to hear, so far. They have experts who, I'm sure, are much smarter than I am...or at least have much more important letters after their names! The prosecution does not need to concern themselves with reading blogs to formulate their arguments-- and I would be very worried if they did.<br /><br />My only goal in writing this series was to see if I could figure out exactly what was going on in that bedroom where Conrad Murray was pretending to play solo anesthesiologist. I was (am!) especially annoyed and angry that his actions have impacted my profession, and caused some patients to fear us giving them a drug that is safe in the proper hands, and proper environment. We still get patients who walk in the door saying "don't give me the drug that killed MJ." We always have to start these cases with a discussion reassuring them that the drug alone did not kill MJ-- the inappropriate use of the drug in the wrong setting, for the wrong indication, by an unskilled and recklessly incompetent provider, is what killed the victim. The drug did not explode out of the vial and kill the victim.<br /><br />The series was for US to read and discuss. I'm glad we all had great conversation! Sprocket and CaliGirl9 rolled out the welcome mat for me, and hosted a great coffee and dessert party! I thank them both very much for the invitation and hospitality! <br />~KZKZnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6757696342634699253.post-63396203391296725642011-02-14T20:39:28.896-08:002011-02-14T20:39:28.896-08:00The Inglewood case of Dr. Roberto Bonilla is amazi...The Inglewood case of Dr. Roberto Bonilla is amazingly similiar to Murray's. Here is one article from the Daily Breeze. The DA actually did increase the charges from involuntary manslaughter to <br />2nd degree murder based on the evidence presented at the preliminary hearing, however, in December another judge dismissed the murder charge, but let the manslaughter charge move forward.<br /><br />The article:<br /><br />A second-degree murder charge was added last week to the case against an Inglewood doctor accused of killing a patient during surgery in a converted residence.<br /> <br />Prosecutors cited evidence that surfaced during a four-day preliminary hearing to support the new charge against Dr. Robert Bonilla, who already was charged with involuntary manslaughter. <br /><br />The case against Bonilla highlights the risks underinsured or uninsured patients take in seeking medical care at subpar facilities, authorities say. <br />But Bonilla's attorney said his client is providing a service to a segment of the community that not many others are willing to do. <br /><br />Deputy District Attorney John Lonergan said he added the murder charge after hearing testimony that he believes shows Bonilla committed a series of acts he knew would be dangerous to his patient's life. <br /><br />"It was an extreme deviation from the normal standard of care," Lonergan said. <br /><br />Bonilla is accused of causing the death of a 30-year-old gallbladder and hernia patient on May 27, 2008<br />The man, an illegal immigrant, paid at least $3,000 cash for the surgery in a house-turned-medical office on East Arbor Vitae Street. <br /><br />After Bonilla administered a local anesthesia, the man became unconscious. Bonilla and his staff tried to resuscitate him, according to the evidence, but they were not successful. <br /><br />In emotional testimony, two of the man's relatives said they arrived at the clinic and were asked to authorize a mortuary to remove the dead man. One of them called 911. <br /><br />Initially, a coroner's report opined that the death was accidental. However, following further investigation, the coroner determined that he died from an overdose of the local anesthesia. <br />Lonergan said medical experts testified that such surgery is considered major, and should be performed under general anesthesia - with an anesthesiologist present - in a hospital or surgical center. <br /><br />"When doing such risky procedures, something will ultimately go wrong," Lonergan said. <br /><br />That Bonilla did not summon help shows his motive was to make money and protect himself, Lonergan said. <br /><br />http://www.dailybreeze.com/ci_15542228?IADIDAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6757696342634699253.post-47750115698881093802011-02-14T15:47:43.100-08:002011-02-14T15:47:43.100-08:00Thank you so much for your hard work on this proje...Thank you so much for your hard work on this project... I knew it I knew it..... You are brilliant.. this Dr.. is in deep dooo dooo ... WOW... you are good... Thanks again..<br />I hope the prosecution reads your report....Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6757696342634699253.post-66780308441148383032011-02-14T13:20:32.411-08:002011-02-14T13:20:32.411-08:00Thanks for providing Mesereau's quote:
"...Thanks for providing Mesereau's quote:<br /><br />"I`d rather see them bring involuntary manslaughter if they know they can prove it and get a conviction that sticks."<br /><br />The key part is: "IF THEY KNOW THEY CAN PROVE IT."<br /><br />He's right -- everything depends on the DA.<br /><br />The key question is:<br />How deep did the DA office dig or are willing to dig to find the evidence for the MURDER charge?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6757696342634699253.post-41097018316932901542011-02-14T12:48:54.371-08:002011-02-14T12:48:54.371-08:00Mesereau ALSO SAID, back in February, TWO THOUSAND...Mesereau ALSO SAID, back in February, TWO THOUSAND TEN, 2010 on an episode of Jane Velez-Mitchell's show:<br /><br />QUOTE:<br /><b>TOM MESEREAU, MICHAEL JACKSON`S ATTORNEY:</b> I understand it completely from an emotional standpoint; the family and the fans want to see a murder charge. But you got to be careful with that from a practical standpoint. If the prosecutors bring murder charge and they can`t prove it, the jury may discredit everything they say and acquit him of both murder and involuntary manslaughter. <b>I`d rather see them bring involuntary manslaughter if they know they can prove it and get a conviction that sticks.</b><br />END QUOTE<br /><br />How is what I'm saying about the DA's office, any different than what Mesereau said OVER A YEAR AGO? Last I checked, Mesereau is not in the DA's office pocket. Far from it.<br /><br />Everyone wants to see the prosecution bring a 2nd degree murder charge, but they are not thinking the process through to completion. There is always the possibility the jury will not convict the doctor on anything.<br /><br />Going the conservative route means it is more likely the prosecution will secure a conviction.Sprockethttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03837416113512618694noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6757696342634699253.post-28179421510497011042011-02-14T07:26:58.961-08:002011-02-14T07:26:58.961-08:00Mesereau had stated on tv something to the effect ...Mesereau had stated on tv something to the effect juries are reluctant to convict a doctor. But due to the egregious nature and unique facts and circumstances of this case, as delineated by KZ, there seens ti be a high probability that the jury would convict on murder charges in this case.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6757696342634699253.post-24138592327199855252011-02-14T07:04:58.291-08:002011-02-14T07:04:58.291-08:00Anon @ 5:54am:
It's evident you still don'...Anon @ 5:54am:<br /><br />It's evident you still don't understand case law.<br /><br />The doctor-patient relationship issue is <i>my opinion</i> as to why the DA's office did not charge 2nd degree. It's not "fact" as to why the DA's office went with involuntary manslaughter. <br /><br />According to Tom Mesereau, in his interview with Matt Lauer of TODAY, he indicated there were lengthy discussions in the DA's office as to what "charge" to go forward with. <br /><br />(This tells us the DA's office spent considerable time going over what would be the <b>defense arguments</b> for each charge. In other words, what type of "defense" could Murray's legal team mount, to the charge of 2nd degree. My thoughts are, <b>my opinion,</b> the doctor-patient-care relationship issue was discussed.)<br /><br />Evidently, there were some in the DA's office who felt there was enough in the evidence to charge 2nd degree, malice murder. However, involuntary manslaughter won out.<br /><br />We can never know for certain, "why" the DA's office decided to go forward with involuntary manslaughter, but that's the charge they decided on. They decided to go forward with the single, lesser charge.<br /><br />Sometimes, at the end of the trial, the defense, or the prosecution will argue in motions to the Judge, to include for the jury to consider a <b>lesser charge</b> than the initial charging document. This is what happened in Spector 2. Spector was charged with 2nd degree. At the end of the case, the prosecution presented a compelling enough argument to the Judge, for the Judge to add for the jury to consider, Involuntary manslaughter. (The prosecution cited "case law" in their motion, where in a previous case, the appellate court indicated that involuntary manslaughter should have been added for the jury to consider. That prior case was reversed on appeal on that issue. I believe the prosecution's argument, from what I remember was' Judicial responsibility" to add the charge of involuntary manslaughter.)<br /><br />The defense argued against it. Their defense position of the case always was that Lana Clarkson killed <i>herself</i>, so the charge of Involuntary manslaughter should not be put to the jury.<br /><br />The Judge, citing the case law presented by the prosecution, added the involuntary charge for the jury to consider.<br /><br />Spector was still convicted on 2nd degree.<br /><br />But note the difference between Spector and Murray. Prosecution went forward from the beginning with 2nd degree. IF THE EVIDENCE WARRANTS IT, and case law is cited in the motion by a particular side, the Judge can rule to have the jury consider <b>lesser charges</b> under the initial charging document; <b>never greater.</b> That would violate the defendant's rights.<br /><br />In this case, in Murray, the prosecution went forward with the lesser charge. They are not going to go back at a later date, dismiss the current charge and bring a newer, higher charge. Not on such a "high profile" case. That will never happen.<br /><br />The time to petition the DA's office to charge 2nd degree is long past. It's done.Sprockethttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03837416113512618694noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6757696342634699253.post-46493171965873438212011-02-14T05:54:56.502-08:002011-02-14T05:54:56.502-08:00Laurie, Thank you for your explanation!
So it is ...Laurie, Thank you for your explanation!<br /><br />So it is understood that rulings in past cases are used to support subsequent cases (is this tantamount to "case law"?).<br /><br />So, if precedent is set in Murray's case, that can be used to support subsequent cases, which is a great reason to do something significant with this case.<br /><br />Based on the comments here, the main issue in this case seems to surround the "doctor-patient" relationship. Some feel that the situation in this case is so egregious that it would trump that relationship argument and thus that the case should go to the jury and let them (not the DA) decide how to interpret how the law should apply in this situation.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6757696342634699253.post-48048362169449865302011-02-13T19:31:26.025-08:002011-02-13T19:31:26.025-08:00Anonymous at 5:07 pm and 6:13 pm, a couple of the ...Anonymous at 5:07 pm and 6:13 pm, a couple of the sentences in Sprocket’s earlier entry were a bit confusing, so for facility she has removed them. To answer part of your question, there is California case law that specifically relates to, but not solely to, admissibility of evidence, and it stems from interpretation of California law (statutes, regulations, rules, etc). Case law - interpretation - is broad and covers most areas of law or is used to inform interpretation of new law. Interpret does not mean “how the law is applied,” but actually what the law means, including what Congress or the legislature intended, when they wrote the law. Here Judge Pastor applies it to the unique facts and circumstances of the Murray case.<br /><br />As an example, I am attaching a link to a case that I understand was cited (as case law) in court papers (motions) and discussed at argument on a given issue that has come before Judge Michael Pastor. Gray v. Superior Court of California - caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data2/californiastatecases/a107367.pdf. The appellate court in Gray ruled on various issues on appeal in that case, then decided it was important enough to publish. The points of law therein are now binding on the trial courts of California. For example, if the Attorney General had moved in Pastor’s court to suspend Murray’s medical license as a condition of bail without due process - adequate notice to the Murray, Pastor would likely have cited Gray in denying the motion on the grounds of a violation of Murray’s due process. <br /><br />A point I believe Sprocket is trying to make is that new California criminal law is made in the State legislature. One issue, however, is that often new statutes and regulations often have an effective date that is not retroactive. It may or may not apply to crimes committed, or convictions made, prior to the date of the law’s effective date. Sprocket said that CalCrim520 was recently revised and whatever that version is, which may be the one copied above, will apply to People v. Murray.Laurienoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6757696342634699253.post-75720956381731561292011-02-13T19:16:36.390-08:002011-02-13T19:16:36.390-08:00Anon @6:39 pm:
For the DA to "up the charges...Anon @6:39 pm:<br /><br />For the DA to "up the charges" the current charge would have to be dismissed and a new charge and prelim brought.<br /><br />I do not believe that will ever happen. I believe the DA's office decided to go forward with the current charge. I think they got all their ducks in a row first, THEN went to prelim. I think they are completely ready for trial and that if there are any delays, it will be due to the defense asking for a delay in the proceedings.<br /><br />I don't believe they will learn anything new at trial that would cause them to up the charges. If I had a nest egg, I would bet it all that there will NOT be a 2nd Degree murder charge brought about via evidence at trial.<br /><br />Anon @ 6:44pm:<br />You still don't understand US Law. As of this point, it's not my job to educate you or spend any more time trying to. <br /><br />Anon @ 6:59pm:<br />How would that be accomplished? A jury hasn't even been CHOSEN yet. The DA still has to <b>present the case to them.</b> And then the defense gets to present their interpretation of the facts. Then the prosecution gets to present a rebuttal case. Then there are closing arguments. After closing arguments, jury instructions are read. Then the jury gets the case.<br /><br />There will be only a single charge before them to decide: Involuntary Manslaughter.Sprockethttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03837416113512618694noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6757696342634699253.post-47528984644492579102011-02-13T19:06:23.757-08:002011-02-13T19:06:23.757-08:00Thanks Sprocket & KZ. And yes. Your answer doe...Thanks Sprocket & KZ. And yes. Your answer does make sense. i was think along those lines, but I just did not have the intimate knowledge of malpractice to solidify my thought process.<br /><br />It honestly scares me how much nuance and how many gray areas there are in our laws.<br /><br /> What Murray did was reckless & wrong. And he knew that it was. The guy who washes my car would never take a job to fix the engine. It's not his station. It should be that simple, but yet in our justice system it isn't.Ebonyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15879499038396859111noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6757696342634699253.post-56121635128022094372011-02-13T18:59:24.643-08:002011-02-13T18:59:24.643-08:00It seems what some are saying is to let the jury d...It seems what some are saying is to let the jury do their job and decide this case with the evidence already on hand. Not the DA, but the jury.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6757696342634699253.post-40011127007649569562011-02-13T18:44:51.606-08:002011-02-13T18:44:51.606-08:00Interpreted meaning how the law is applied to the ...Interpreted meaning how the law is applied to the specific unique facts and circumstances of a case.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6757696342634699253.post-24547313029466884092011-02-13T18:39:44.077-08:002011-02-13T18:39:44.077-08:00Sprocket,
Didn't you say somewhere previously...Sprocket,<br /><br />Didn't you say somewhere previously that the DA can "up" the charges and refile during the trial if they come up with more evidence to prove 2nd degree murder?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6757696342634699253.post-18368804957640108442011-02-13T18:25:27.729-08:002011-02-13T18:25:27.729-08:00Ebony, Generally the difference is state of mind. ...Ebony, Generally the difference is state of mind. Civil negligence/ malpractice has 4 elements: duty, breach, causation, and damages. The BREACH must CAUSE the DAMAGE. A breach alone is not sufficient. Judgements are money, but subsequent to the money damages can come loss of licensure, inability to get insurance in the future, listing on the National Practitioner Database, reputation problems, future reimbursement problems if companies won't contract to pay a doc with a history of malpractice, etc. etc. Lots of consequences that can interfere with a provider continuing to practice. <br /><br />I'm a little more familiar with civil cases than crimninal, and have worked with attorneys on civil cases. You can pile on all the breaches you want in a civil case, but the key breach must directly cause the damage the plaintiff brings suit over. The plaintiff in a civil negligence case is the victim or heirs. The plaintiff in a criminal case is the People of the State.<br /><br />As I understand it, the contributing elements for criminal charges are state of mind and circumstances. For murder, an element of malice must be there. For manslaughter, the intentional actions of the individual directly caused the death, but there was no malice intended. This is very different from an accident, where the outcome of death could not be anticipated as the defendant was moving through the situation. <br /><br />So, for manslaughter, the intentional actions of the defendant produced a death. I think manslaughter could be boiled down to "you should have known better than to do THAT." ie, give propofol in a completly nonstandard manner for a reason (insomnia) that is not valid or supported by medical literature and prescribing information. That there are no indications for this drug to ever be given in a home environment in this manner means that the incompetence and recklessness of the doctor rises to a criminal level, subsequent to the death of the victim.<br /><br />As we've discussed above at length, the issue for CM is that there is no standard of care for what he was doing, and what he was doing in a private home was dangerously reckless and directly produced a death, but not done with the intent to kill. As Sprocket wrote, the DA took his time bringing charges, and thoroughly investigated the situation, as well as possible charges and case law. As I wrote above, the golden parachute was CM's MD license and his employed status. That provided some insulation from a murder charge. <br /><br />I think the setting is important, too. If a patient died while receiving propofol in a hospital under the exact same circumstances as MJ in his home-- nonstandard administration, no indication, abandonment by the medical provider who was found to be elsewhere on his cell phone, etc-- I think an identical manslaughter charge could be filed, in addition to negligence.<br /><br />That was a long answer-- hope it makes some sense!KZnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6757696342634699253.post-39066677116344083632011-02-13T18:25:26.546-08:002011-02-13T18:25:26.546-08:00Anon @6:16 pm:
No, I've not "heard"...Anon @6:16 pm:<br /><br />No, I've not "heard" of that. What do you mean by "interpreted?"<br /><br />To convict Murray of second degree murder, you must FIRST <b>charge him</b> with second degree murder.<br /><br />Murray was not charged with 2nd degree murder.<br /><br />You can't charge him with involuntary and then after all the evidence has been presented, try to add another charge, a HIGHER charge, and convict him of 2nd degree. That. Just. Does. Not. Happen. That would violate the defendant's rights. That I know for certain.<br /><br />The initial "charging document" sets the bar for what violation you can convict the defendant of.Sprockethttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03837416113512618694noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6757696342634699253.post-43109123528283426132011-02-13T18:20:57.821-08:002011-02-13T18:20:57.821-08:00Ebony, you make a great point. Something needs to...Ebony, you make a great point. Something needs to be done about that "license to kill." Murray's case would be a great place to start.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com