This website uses cookies so that we can provide you with the best user experience possible. Cookie information is stored in your browser and performs functions such as recognising you when you return to our website and helping our team to understand which sections of the website you find most interesting and useful.
Jacksons v AEG Timeline Legal
Murray lawyers file appeal
By CMU Editorial | Published on Tuesday 31 July 2012
Lawyers working for Conrad Murray, the doctor convicted for causing the death of Michael Jackson through negligence, have filed papers with the Californian appeal courts. Reps for the incarcerated medic said Murray planned to appeal both his conviction and sentence almost as soon as he was convicted and sentenced.
According to WENN, legal papers filed this week by Murray’s attorneys focus on the vial of propofol found at the scene after Jackson’s premature demise in 2009.
As much previously reported, the late king of pop died from an overdose of the powerful anaesthetic, which he was taking to treat insomnia. The court that tried Murray ruled that the doctor had negligently administered the fatal dose of the drug to Jackson by intravenous drip, in a domestic setting with no monitoring equipment, and then carelessly left the unconscious singer alone.
Murray’s defence team always claimed that Jackson self-administered the fatal shot of the drug. They want the appeal court to test whether there was any presence of lidocaine in the bottle in which the fatal shot of propofol was stored. Lidocaine is commonly mixed with anaesthetics by doctors to ease a patient’s pain, and Murray would have done just that, the defence say. So if there is no trace of lidocaine, then that might point towards the self-administration theory.
The judge in Murray’s original trial twice declined to order such tests. He was of the opinion that the evidence for self-administration was weak and, anyway, the prosecution always argued that even if Jackson had injected the fatal shot of propofol himself, Murray would still have been criminally negligent for allowing his patient to access the drug in a domestic environment.
It remains to be seen how the appeals court now responds.
