The Legal Examiner Mark The Legal Examiner Mark The Legal Examiner Mark search twitter facebook feed linkedin instagram google-plus avvo phone envelope checkmark mail-reply spinner error close
Skip to main content

Two of Dr. Conrad Murray’s lawyers visited him in county jail on Monday, the third anniversary of Michael Jackson’s death. According to Reuters, the physician told his lawyers that day that he regrets not testifying during his six-week trial last year. He began serving a four-year involuntary manslaughter sentence in November in connection with Jackson’s death.

You may recall that prosecutors accused Murray of gross negligence for:

  • injecting an anesthetic to help Jackson sleep;
  • failing to monitor the King of Pop while on the drug;
  • not calling 9-1-1 the night he stopped breathing; and
  • failing to tell paramedics that he’d given Jackson propofol.

According to, “Propofol provides loss of awareness for short diagnostic tests and surgical procedures, sleep at the beginning of surgery, and supplements other types of general anesthetics.” The Smoking Gun quoted Dr. Selma Calmes as saying Jackson’s toxicology screen revealed a propofol level "similar to those found during general anesthesia for major surgery." The Smoking Gun also reported that the medical examiner listed Jackson’s immediate cause of death as acute propofol intoxication. However, Murray’s lawyers argued that Jackson probably injected more propofol on his own and took other sleeping pills without Murray’s knowledge.

One of Murray’s lawyers, Valerie Wass, thinks Twitter may have tainted the jury pool.

“I think during the trial, it would have been difficult not to go on Twitter and see anything (about the case),” she told reporters. She added that since it was a high-profile case, she believes the jury should have been sequestered.

Murray’s other lawyer, J. Michael Flanagan, thinks his client will be released in two years for good behavior.

In the meantime, one wonders what Murray’s testimony would’ve done. Do you think it would've made a difference? Do you think the jury should have been sequestered?

Comments are closed.

Of Interest