Orange County Criminal Defense Lawyer Blog

As almost everyone on planet earth knows, Dr. Conrad Murray was convicted of Involuntary Manslaughter in the death of Michael Jackson. On November 29, 2011, Dr. Murray was sentenced to the maximum term of four years in State Prison. How did the judge determine that four years was the appropriate sentence?

The cynical among us might just say that because the deceased was the most famous pop star in the world that the judge would have been crazy to give Dr. Murray anything less than the maximum. Those of that opinion could easily conclude the public expected the maximum and therefore why would the judge do something that would enrage the public and possibly cost him his job in the next election? Those cynical enough to believe that would think the discussion would end right there. But, what did the judge have to do under the law in order to justify the maximum sentence? The answer can be found in the Rules of Court.

The Rules of Court set forth the criteria affecting probation (Rule 4.414). Dr. Murray was technically eligible for probation, no matter how unlikely that might have been as a practical matter. There are two sub-sets to consider: facts that relate to the crime and facts that relate to the defendant.

Factors relating to the crime include, but are not limited to: the nature, seriousness, and circumstances of the crime...., and; whether the defendant was armed or not, and; the vulnerability of the victim, and; whether the defendant inflicted physical or emotional injury, and; the degree of monetary loss..., and; whether the crime was committed because of an unusual circumstance, and; whether the defendant was an active participant, and; whether there was great provocation making unlikely the crime would re-occur, and; whether the crime was sophisticated or professional on the part of the defendant, and; whether the defendant took advantage of a position of trust or confidence to commit the crime.

Facts that relate to the defendant are also important for the judge to consider. These include: prior criminal conduct, prior performance on probation, willingness to comply with the terms of probation, ability to comply with reasonable probation terms, the likely effect of imprisonment on the defendant's dependents, the adverse collateral consequences on the defendant's life from the felony conviction, remorsefulness of the defendant, and the likelihood of danger to others if defendant is not imprisoned.

If the judge determines he wants to imprison the defendant he has to select the proper term from the range set forth in the crime itself. In this case it was either two, three, or four years. The court selected the upper, or maximum, term. This is based on any relevant factor including circumstances in mitigation or aggravation. The judge can look to the case record, the probation officer's report, other reports or statements, and evidence introduced at the sentencing hearing. (Rule 4.420) In effect, the judge could do anything he wanted due to his ability to look at all "relevant" evidence. This is where the judge's personality, personal and professional background, and own opinion on the state of the evidence weigh heavily on his decision.

As one can see from the above, the four year maximum term was almost a foregone conclusion. The sentencing hearing had to go forward but one could pick out many factors that can be found in the Rules of Court which foretold which way the judge was going to go. No one should have been surprised that Dr. Murray got the maximum. With public sentiment and Dr. Murray's own lack of remorse why should the judge have given him a break? The answer is clear; there wasn't any reason to and he got what he must have expected.

Dr. Murray killed Michael Jackson. No doubt about it since the jury found him guilty of involuntary manslaughter. He got sentenced to the maximum term of four years. Dr. Murray won his case when he got convicted. How can I say that when he went through a hard fought trial that lasted weeks and cost him and the taxpayers millions of dollars? According to the evidence, he lied to the paramedics, failed to call 911 in a timely fashion, treated his patient with an extremely dangerous drug under circumstances that failed to meet the most minimum of medical standards among a host of other omissions and commissions. So involuntary manslaughter was the charge and guilty was the verdict. Who says the Los Angeles County District Attorney's Office can't win the big ones? Who says that the District Attorney's Office loses one high profile case after another? They got their man here didn't they? Well, yes and no as far as I'm concerned.

Yes, the LADA got a conviction as charged. But, why only charge Dr. Murray with Involuntary Manslaughter? Why not seek a Second Degree Murder conviction? Why not charge both Murder and Involuntary Manslaughter? Based on the facts as presented by the prosecution, the jury could very easily have found Dr. Murray guilty of Second Degree Murder. Why? The real question is why not?

To find a defendant guilty of second degree murder you must look to CalCrim Section 520 which sets out the elements of Second Degree Murder. To prove this is the real crime Dr. Murray is guilty of the DA needed to prove the following: The defendant committed the act that caused the death of Michael Jackson and when he acted he had a state of mind of malice aforethought. The relevant malice element here is implied. Did Murray's actions consist of the following: 1. Did he intentionally commit an act, and; 2. The natural and probable consequences of the act were dangerous to human life, and; 3. At the time he acted, he knew his act was dangerous to human life, and; 4. He deliberately acted with conscious disregard for human life. Ask yourself, from the facts of this case, wasn't this the proper charge?

As a final thought, even if the DA had fallen short on one of the above elements for murder, would he have "lost" the case? The answer is absolutely not. Why? Because Involuntary Manslaughter is a lesser and included offense of Second Degree Murder. Therefore, if the DA had charged both Involuntary Manslaughter and Murder the jury could have considered both crimes in deliberations. Dr. Murray wouldn't walk free under any circumstance if both were charged. But, he didn't have to risk the possibility of a murder conviction and thus life in prison because the DA never charged him with anything more than Involuntary Manslaughter. When the charges came out from the DA, Dr. Murray had to be smiling because he won before the first witness was ever called.

Before 1997 if someone was injured by a defendant during the commission of a crime and died more than three years and a day after the crime, he could not be convicted of murder. Recently, a case came before the Court of Appeal that tested this assumption.

Two defendants, Robert Duston Strong and David Michael Knick were charged with murder because they shot a sheriff's deputy more than 30 years before and he recently died of complications from his injuries. Meanwhile, the defendants had served time in prison for their crimes and completed their sentences for the crimes they were charged with at the time.

The legal question became: could the defendants now be charged with murder because the sheriff's deputy finally succumbed to his injuries many years after the original crime?

The Court of Appeal issued a ruling that the law that was in effect in 1997 controls the issue. The defendants could not , in 2011, be charged and convicted of this greater crime, murder, even though the cause of death was undeniably the injuries caused by these defendants.

There isn't a statute of limitations on murder so why not now charge them with murder? The answer is found in the fact that back in 1997, the law provided that in order to have a murder, the death had to occur within the time period of three years and one day. If the death did not occur within that time then it simply isn't murder per the statute. To hold otherwise violates the Ex Post Facto provisions of the United States Constitution. Essentially, the law says you can't increase the punishment for a crime after it is committed and then punish the defendant with the greater punishment no matter how awful the original crime was.

The rule of law is basically that whatever the law is at the time the crime is committed, that is what controls whether or not the defendant can be charged and/or punished for the acts committed at that time.