Breaking News-Prosecution asks for delay in trial

[ForstAMoon]

This is different state and trial, but gives some overview of evidence sharing ideas.

SJC says defense must share evidence
Some lawyers warn change is radical
By Jonathan Saltzman, Globe Staff  |  March 15, 2006

A deeply divided Supreme Judicial Court ruled yesterday that prosecutors are entitled to know before trial what evidence criminal defense lawyers plan to use to cross-examine the state's witnesses, a decision prosecutors say levels the playing field but defense lawyers argue subverts the judicial system.

By a 4-3 vote, the state's high court decided that trial judges can order defense lawyers to share evidence they have gathered and intend to use to impeach the credibility of prosecution witnesses, including witness statements, documents, and recordings.

Under rules of evidence across the country, prosecutors already have to turn over the findings of criminal investigations to defense lawyers. But most states, including Massachusetts, have required defendants to provide the prosecution only with evidence their own witnesses were expected to testify about, not what the defense had learned to challenge government witnesses.

That is unfair, the high court said, even if the state typically has greater resources than defendants.

''The role of cross-examination, and the existence of an imbalance, should not override the right of the people and the victims of crimes to have the evidence evaluated by a truly informed trier of fact," Justice John M. Greaney wrote in the majority opinion.

The ruling drew sharply worded dissents from Chief Justice Margaret H. Marshall and Justice Robert J. Cordy, who were joined by Justice Roderick L. Ireland.

Marshall said the decision deprives defense lawyers of one of their most potent and constitutionally protected weapons: the ability to surprise a prosecution witness during cross-examination with evidence that shakes his or her testimony.

''This is not 'trial by ambush,' " she wrote. ''To the contrary, it permits the jury to assess for themselves the reliability of a witness's memory or whether an accuser is truthful."

Yesterday's decision, she added, ''all but guarantees constitutional challenges in the future."

Cordy, a former federal prosecutor, said the ruling was a ''sea change" that put Massachusetts at odds with federal courts and courts in most states. Invoking the phrase of a notable legal scholar, Cordy said the ruling will disable the ''greatest legal engine" ever invented to uncover the truth: cross-examination of witnesses.

In recent years, courts across the country have updated their rules of criminal procedure to require more sharing of information before trial. In Massachusetts, for example, rules require defendants to disclose alibi defenses and defenses based on mental illness to ensure that both sides will be able to prepare for key issues during a trial.

In the case that the court ruled on yesterday, the court said Superior Court Judge Margot Botsford had the authority to order Patrick John Durham, a murder defendant represented by a court-appointed lawyer, to turn over information gathered by a defense investigator to cross-examine prosecution witnesses. (Durham pleaded guilty to manslaughter while his lawyer appealed the ruling, making the issue moot to his case.)

The majority of the high court said that the rules of evidence supported Botsford's ruling and disputed Durham's lawyer's argument that it violated federal and state constitutional protections, including the right to confront one's accusers.

Suffolk District Attorney Daniel F. Conley applauded the ruling. He said it puts prosecutors on equal footing with defense lawyers, who often seek to catch witnesses off guard with prior statements they have made that contradict their testimony.

''This may deny some defense attorneys a Perry Mason moment when they surprise a witness and say, 'Gotcha!' " Conley said. ''But it's not television. It's not movies. It's real life."

He said the ruling will make the courts more open and fair and that his prosecutors will now ask for such evidence before trials.

But several defense lawyers predicted the decision will radically change the dynamics of criminal trials. Prosecutors, they said, now have the green light to share evidence with witnesses who will then change their stories before they are cross-examined.

''If you think of cross-examination like a test for the witness, this is like giving the witness the questions in advance of the test," said James L. Sultan, a lawyer for Durham who appeared before the high court.

Peter Krupp, who submitted a brief on behalf of two associations of criminal defense lawyers, said the ruling will make it harder for defense lawyers to challenge prosecution witnesses.

For instance, he said, in a murder case he worked on, a witness who testified for the state claimed he saw the defendant on a certain day, but Krupp confronted him on the stand with a record that proved he had been wrong.

Jonathan Saltzman can be reached at You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

[chloead505]

This is different state and trial, but gives some overview of evidence sharing ideas.

SJC says defense must share evidence
Some lawyers warn change is radical
By Jonathan Saltzman, Globe Staff  |  March 15, 2006

A deeply divided Supreme Judicial Court ruled yesterday that prosecutors are entitled to know before trial what evidence criminal defense lawyers plan to use to cross-examine the state's witnesses, a decision prosecutors say levels the playing field but defense lawyers argue subverts the judicial system.

By a 4-3 vote, the state's high court decided that trial judges can order defense lawyers to share evidence they have gathered and intend to use to impeach the credibility of prosecution witnesses, including witness statements, documents, and recordings.

Under rules of evidence across the country, prosecutors already have to turn over the findings of criminal investigations to defense lawyers. But most states, including Massachusetts, have required defendants to provide the prosecution only with evidence their own witnesses were expected to testify about, not what the defense had learned to challenge government witnesses.

That is unfair, the high court said, even if the state typically has greater resources than defendants.

''The role of cross-examination, and the existence of an imbalance, should not override the right of the people and the victims of crimes to have the evidence evaluated by a truly informed trier of fact," Justice John M. Greaney wrote in the majority opinion.

The ruling drew sharply worded dissents from Chief Justice Margaret H. Marshall and Justice Robert J. Cordy, who were joined by Justice Roderick L. Ireland.

Marshall said the decision deprives defense lawyers of one of their most potent and constitutionally protected weapons: the ability to surprise a prosecution witness during cross-examination with evidence that shakes his or her testimony.

''This is not 'trial by ambush,' " she wrote. ''To the contrary, it permits the jury to assess for themselves the reliability of a witness's memory or whether an accuser is truthful."

Yesterday's decision, she added, ''all but guarantees constitutional challenges in the future."

Cordy, a former federal prosecutor, said the ruling was a ''sea change" that put Massachusetts at odds with federal courts and courts in most states. Invoking the phrase of a notable legal scholar, Cordy said the ruling will disable the ''greatest legal engine" ever invented to uncover the truth: cross-examination of witnesses.

In recent years, courts across the country have updated their rules of criminal procedure to require more sharing of information before trial. In Massachusetts, for example, rules require defendants to disclose alibi defenses and defenses based on mental illness to ensure that both sides will be able to prepare for key issues during a trial.

In the case that the court ruled on yesterday, the court said Superior Court Judge Margot Botsford had the authority to order Patrick John Durham, a murder defendant represented by a court-appointed lawyer, to turn over information gathered by a defense investigator to cross-examine prosecution witnesses. (Durham pleaded guilty to manslaughter while his lawyer appealed the ruling, making the issue moot to his case.)

The majority of the high court said that the rules of evidence supported Botsford's ruling and disputed Durham's lawyer's argument that it violated federal and state constitutional protections, including the right to confront one's accusers.

Suffolk District Attorney Daniel F. Conley applauded the ruling. He said it puts prosecutors on equal footing with defense lawyers, who often seek to catch witnesses off guard with prior statements they have made that contradict their testimony.

''This may deny some defense attorneys a Perry Mason moment when they surprise a witness and say, 'Gotcha!' " Conley said. ''But it's not television. It's not movies. It's real life."

He said the ruling will make the courts more open and fair and that his prosecutors will now ask for such evidence before trials.

But several defense lawyers predicted the decision will radically change the dynamics of criminal trials. Prosecutors, they said, now have the green light to share evidence with witnesses who will then change their stories before they are cross-examined.

''If you think of cross-examination like a test for the witness, this is like giving the witness the questions in advance of the test," said James L. Sultan, a lawyer for Durham who appeared before the high court.

Peter Krupp, who submitted a brief on behalf of two associations of criminal defense lawyers, said the ruling will make it harder for defense lawyers to challenge prosecution witnesses.

For instance, he said, in a murder case he worked on, a witness who testified for the state claimed he saw the defendant on a certain day, but Krupp confronted him on the stand with a record that proved he had been wrong.

Jonathan Saltzman can be reached at You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

Exactly my point. That is why this is not commonly acceptable. It goes against the basic principle of consitutional rights - mainly to do with right to just trial.

[curls]

Thanks for your explanation a few posts back, chloead505, I hope you didn't think I was criticising your laughter - I was just puzzled because all this talk of delays is scaring me!

ForstAMoon, thanks for posting that article on evidence sharing. I liked this line:
''This may deny some defense attorneys a Perry Mason moment when they surprise a witness and say, 'Gotcha!' " Conley said. ''But it's not television. It's not movies. It's real life.

fordtocarr, interesting article from you too, thanks. This part hit me:

Flanagan angrily complained that the prosecution has not met all of its discovery obligations either.

The judge ordered Brazil and Deputy District Attorney David Walgren to turn over clean digital photos from Jackson's autopsy as well as all of the surveillance tapes recorded at his Bel Air home on June 25, 2009, the day he died of an overdose of the anesthetic propofol and other sedatives.

Pastor said that unless both sides quickly meet their discovery obligations, he will begin issuing sanctions of $1,500 per lawyer per day. The judge said he may have to start holding daily hearings in order to compel discovery.

[karen924]

Since when do we exchange opinions and notes from defense to prosecution OUTSIDE of a courtroom and BEFORE the trial and as a goodie the judge complains about the lack of documentation?

I think I'm gonna save some carrots for the Bugs Bunnies we're gonna

I thought, in discovery, prosecution has to share their evidence with the defense, not the other way round? (where are our lawyers, here?).

Maybe it's a nod to Michael who was notoriously late for everything..

In my State which is not CA, any report done on a supeonaed witness, that information is to be shared with both sides. For example, if the defense has a expert witness or just a witness in general that they are going to present at trial, the State (prosecuting side) should have all records/reports on this witness before the trial begins. The law on this varies from State to State but it sounds like CA has basically the same law.
Hugs

[chloead505]

Well but 'sharing evidence' sounds weird, whatever it means in reality. Sharing records on witnesses isnt sharing evidence in the narrow sense cause in case of witnesses, evidence = their testimony,that is the contents of it. So sharing evidence would mean telling prosecution what the witness is going to say/testify. At least they should use proper terms.
Besides maybe MJ is THE witness, no wonder they dont want to share! :-D

[MJonmind]

''This may deny some defense attorneys a Perry Mason moment when they surprise a witness and say, 'Gotcha!' " Conley said. ''But it's not television. It's not movies. It's real life."

I'm sure Michael's got a lot of surprises up his sleeve for us all!

chloead505, I hope you will stay with us throughout the trial, so we will be able to catch all the humor/satire that MJ has so cleverly woven into the details and plot. Yet it will all appear so serious and to the non-believers a heart breaking fight for justice. It's art and it's all for L.O.V.E! The best is yet to come!

[MJTruth77]

To me it seems like they court scenes are not happening.  Katherine isn't going to court to sue AEG, and now the defense, Murray has presented no report to begin the case, when THEY were the ones that wanted a speedy trial.  It is like they don't REALLY want to do the court stuff...just try it in the MEDIA.

Hey! Where'd you hear that Katherine isn't going to court to sue AEG? I must've missed that because I never heard it.  Is there a link or article to it?  

Much thanks!

[fordtocarr]

To me it seems like they court scenes are not happening.  Katherine isn't going to court to sue AEG, and now the defense, Murray has presented no report to begin the case, when THEY were the ones that wanted a speedy trial.  It is like they don't REALLY want to do the court stuff...just try it in the MEDIA.

Okay...I guess I misunderstood what was being said.  Katherine is dropping 4 of the complaints.  Here's one of the articles.

LOS ANGELES (CBS) — Attorneys for Michael Jackson’s mother say she will not proceed with some of the original allegations in her complaint against the promoter of the London concert series her son was about to begin when he died, including fraud.

Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Yvette M. Palazuelos ruled Feb. 2 that lawyers for Katherine Jackson and her grandchildren will have to provide more concrete evidence of fraud, negligent infliction of emotional distress and civil conspiracy, which the lawsuit alleges. She gave them 20 days to amend the complaint.

However, the attorneys filed papers Tuesday stating they “do not intent to amend the complaint.” The case is now scheduled to go to trial on the remaining allegations of breach of contract, negligent hiring and employer responsibility.

The suit was filed on Sept. 15 by Katherine Jackson on behalf of herself and her son’s three children, Michael Jr., Paris-Michael Katherine and Prince Michael, also known as Blanket.

The suit alleges AEG Live is responsible for the medical decisions made by Dr. Conrad Murray, the singer’s personal physician at the time, who has pleaded not guilty to involuntary manslaughter in Jackson’s death.

The suit originally alleged Michael Jr. suffered negligent infliction of
emotional distress when he “witnessed his father suffering and accordingly
has suffered great trauma and severe emotional distress.” But according to
AEG, the Jackson family lawyers themselves do not allege the boy was present when Murray gave propofol to the singer, nor do they claim the boy was aware the physician was causing any harm to his father.

The 50-year-old singer died June 25, 2009, of acute propofol intoxication.

[lynnandsofee]

The judge has asked for autopsy pic's?? :shock:  :shock:  :shock:

[MJhasSpoken]

Judge in Michael Jackson manslaughter case says he might delay trial of doctor

LOS ANGELES, Calif. — Lawyers for Michael Jackson's doctor, insisting on a speedy trial on an involuntary manslaughter charge, appeared headed for a roadblock, with a judge saying Monday he doesn't think they are ready for trial and he may have to delay the planned March 24 start.
"I am extremely distressed about the state of this case and whether the defence is prepared for trial and its obligations to Dr. Murray," said Superior Court Judge Michael Pastor.
Prosecutors urged the judge to delay the start of jury selection, and Pastor asked them to present case law on the matter Wednesday, when he ordered Conrad Murray to appear. The doctor, who has pleaded not guilty, has been absent from the past few hearings under a waiver that allowed him to continue working at his clinics in Texas and Nevada.
Murray's medical license to practice in California has been suspended by Pastor. Defence attorney J. Michael Flanagan told the judge the urgency of getting to trial involves Murray's fear that if it takes too long, Texas and Nevada will lift his medical license as well.
Flanagan also suggested that Murray is running out of money to fund his defence.
"We need to go to trial right away," he said. "We don't have the budget that would let us draw this out."
Flanagan acknowledged, "We are still preparing this case," but said it was normal for evidence to develop even after the trial has begun.
"We will be ready for trial March 24," Flanagan said. "We are not ready today."
Prosecutors objected that they are entitled to receive discovery of defence evidence 30 days before trial starts, a deadline which has already passed. Deputy District Attorney Deborah Brazil said she has received no reports from defence experts or any statements from proposed defence witnesses.
Flanagan angrily complained that the prosecution has not met all of its discovery obligations either.
The judge ordered Brazil and Deputy District Attorney David Walgren to turn over clean digital photos from Jackson's autopsy as well as all of the surveillance tapes recorded at his Bel Air home on June 25, 2009, the day he died of an overdose of the anesthetic propofol and other sedatives.
Pastor said that unless both sides quickly meet their discovery obligations, he will begin issuing sanctions of $1,500 per lawyer per day. The judge said he may have to start holding daily hearings in order to compel discovery.
Among the experts Flanagan said he expects to call is a leading authority on the use propofol. Flanagan said the witness believes Jackson was addicted to the pain killer Demerol and was withdrawing it at the time of his death, which may have complicated his reactions.
Outside court, Flanagan said prosecutors had 20 months to prepare their case while the defence began developing evidence in the past six weeks after a preliminary hearing.
Flanagan said outside court that he believes Pastor can't overrule the speedy trial requirement unless the defence is found unprepared on the day of trial. By then, the judge will have called hundreds of prospective jurors to the courthouse and arranged for extra security. He stressed that arranging for such a high-profile trial is time consuming and complicated.

Does anyone know what time this will start and which courthouse it is in?

[Sinderella]

Need to catch up on this when I've slept,I see we have some brilliant legal insights =]

[ladylee1979]

Lawyers representing DR. CONRAD MURRAY have urged a judge not to delay the upcoming involuntary manslaughter trial into MICHAEL JACKSON's death - because they "don't have the budget" for lengthy court proceedings.

The medic stands accused of administering the drug Propofol which killed the King of Pop in June 2009.

The case is scheduled to begin on 24 March (11), but Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Michael Pastor could push back the start date of the trial after prosecutors called for a later hearing, according to the Associated Press.

Speaking on Monday (28Feb10), he said, "I am extremely distressed about the state of this case and whether the defense is prepared for trial and its obligations to Dr. Murray."

But Murray's legal team have appealed to Judge Pastor to keep 24 March as the start date - as they are running out of cash.

Defense attorney J. Michael Flanagan pleaded, "We need to go to trial right away. We don't have the budget that would let us draw this out."

Reports suggest prosecutors are objecting to the trial start date because they are entitled to receive discovery of defense evidence 30 days before trial starts - a deadline which has already passed. The judge threatened Murray’s lawyers with hefty fines for failing to share evidence with prosecutors.

He told the attorneys for the pop icon’s personal physician that he would impose the fines or other sanctions on Wednesday (02Mar11) unless they met their legal obligation to turn over witness statements and expert reports to prosecutors.

Meanwhile, the judge has ordered Deputy District Attorney David Walgren to turn over digital photos from Jackson's autopsy as well as all of the surveillance tapes recorded at his home on the day he died.

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

[ignisaeternus]

In my State which is not CA, any report done on a supeonaed witness, that information is to be shared with both sides. For example, if the defense has a expert witness or just a witness in general that they are going to present at trial, the State (prosecuting side) should have all records/reports on this witness before the trial begins. The law on this varies from State to State but it sounds like CA has basically the same law.
Hugs

Thank you, Karen.  Interesting how "scripted" cases become this way...especially, this one.  

[bec]

I hope the trial won't be delayed. And again I hope Michael comes back this year. He told in TII that we have only 4 years to get it right mentioning 2012. So whatever his plan is according to the end of the world, it would be too late if he comes back in 2012 in my opinion. He needs to come back this year. So I'm crossing my fingers for this trial not to be delayed.

Don't worry PureLove, because I suspect the trial needs to be delayed a little bit.

But just a very little bit. March 24th as a start date is just a tad early if this is to last 6 weeks.

[Sinderella]

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

Just an update on the fines/delay from the LA Times