Judge in Michael Jackson manslaughter case and defence spar

[ladylee1979]

LOS ANGELES, Calif. — A judge overseeing the upcoming Michael Jackson trial has questioned defence attorneys about why they are not preparing reports and statements on possible witnesses.

Defence attorneys for Dr. Conrad Murray, who has pleaded not guilty to involuntary manslaughter in the death of Jackson, said at a hearing Thursday they don't plan to prepare any such reports before the trial scheduled to start in late March.

Prosecutors called the move a clear attempt to thwart rules intended to prevent surprises from occurring during trial.

Superior Court Judge Michael Pastor called the strategy "a recipe for disaster."

A prosecutor asked Pastor to vacate the trial date, but the judge refused.

He ordered attorneys to return on Monday, when potential evidence will be discussed again
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

[scorpionchik]

:lol:  :lol: prosecution afraid of losing the case to defense. But there are more than enough evidence that Murray is negligent. It is good judge did not postpone the date. We are tired of waiting.

[wishingstar]

I have said this before....I just find the judge's name hilarious (no disrespect, intended)...it's just that of all names...Michael Pastor...Pastor Michael :lol:  :lol:
I digress.....back to the thread
Blessings Always!

[dom425]

This trial gets more and more.......what's are the word um in your that he isn't dead. I love it though. I can't wait to see the looks on all of the peoples faces who didn't believe when he returns.

[gwynned]

LOS ANGELES, Calif. — A judge overseeing the upcoming Michael Jackson trial has questioned defence attorneys about why they are not preparing reports and statements on possible witnesses.

Defence attorneys for Dr. Conrad Murray, who has pleaded not guilty to involuntary manslaughter in the death of Jackson, said at a hearing Thursday they don't plan to prepare any such reports before the trial scheduled to start in late March.


You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

First off, would a Judge really make public a communication like that to the defence team?  Also the terms 'reports and statements on possible witnesses' don't seem like standard legal terms.  Depositions would be more standard.

And then the defence response is even more ridiculous.