Dr Steven Shafer
Today it was the chance for Ed Chernoff to cross-examine Dr Shafer. Chernoff’s main questioning regarded the demonstration Dr Shafer conducted earlier in the week, on how he believes Conrad Murray administered Propofol to Michael Jackson. Dr Shafer’s theory was that Murray hooked up an IV drip to Michael’s leg which then continuously feed Propofol into Jackson’s body. As there was no regulatory equipment the dosage was not monitored and this contributed to Jackson dying of acute Propofol overdose. The type of IV bag Shafer believe Murray used was a vented IV bag, which allows air into the Propofol bottle, allowing the Propofol to drip out. Chernoff highlighted that no vented IV line was ever found at the scene. Shafer still stood by his theory as Murray had ordered vented IV’s in the past and the tubing is small enough to have been removed from the room.
Chernoff questioned Dr Shafer about his belief that the bottle of Propofol was put inside a cut saline bag. Shafer admitted that he had used Alberto Alverez’s account to draw this conclusion. The defence then stated that Alverez’s account may not be credible, as even though he stated he hid the Propofol bottle and cut saline bag his fingerprints were never found on these items.
Chernoff brought to Dr Shafer’s attention inaccuracies about his timeline of events. Shafer testified that he believed Murray gave ten 4mg doses of Lorazepam to Michael every ten minutes from midnight. Chernoff stated this theory cannot be plausible as Jackson did not arrive home until around 1AM on 25th June 2009. Dr Shafer acknowledged this error.
Chernoff also quizzed Dr Shafer of the possibility that Jackson had killed himself. Shafer testified that it would have been possible for Michael to have awoken and released the clamp from the drip. Shafer then went on to say that even if this were the case it does not make Murray any less guilty, as he should not have left Jackson alone and used such a dangerous set up. Shafer said "if Michael Jackson had reached up, seeing the roller clamp, and opened [it] himself, this is a foreseeable consequence of setting up a dangerous way of giving drug [and] is in no way exculpatory for the fact that Dr Murray was not present and permitted this to happen."
Aggressive questioning
The tone in the courtroom became very tense when the defence’s questioning of Dr Shafer turned particularly aggressive. Dr Shafer’s testimony has been damning towards Murray and stated there were 17 egregious violations of standards of care and Murray actions contributed to the death of Michael Jackson. Chernoff asked Shafer if he knew the difference between opinion and fact. "Everything you said in the last two days was your opinion. You do understand that, right? Do you understand that?" Shafer then went on the defensive and replied, "I stated my name, which I think is a matter of fact."
Chernoff then repeated that would Shafer agree that everything else Shafer stated were his opinions. Shafer replied that they were his opinions as a physician and that "to say that one should not lie at UCLA Medical Center is my opinion." (This comment referenced the fact that Murray withheld information from both paramedics and emergency doctors at UCLA hospital when they were trying to save Jackson’s life.)
Chernoff also criticised Shafer for saying he was disappointed in Dr White, the anaesthesiologist the defence are set to call as a witness. Chernoff accused Dr Shafer of making “dismissive” comments about Dr White and stated Shafer “preferred to shove it down his professional throat.” Judge Pastor ruled this question out of order. The defence are keen to try and show there is a case of one-upmanship between Dr Shafer and Dr White, as Dr Shafer trained under Dr White.
Chernoff also tried to show that Dr Shafer was a bit of a wildcard as he admitted that in the lead up to this trial he himself drank Propofol to disprove Dr White’s report that an oral dose of Propofol can kill. Shafer stated he did this because he knew there were no adverse effects of drinking Propofol.
Aside from the main court case there could possibly be some further bad news for the defence. One of their key witnesses, Dr White the anaesthesiologist, could be charged with contempt of court.
During Dr Shafer’s testimony, when he was demonstrating how he believed Murray had administered Propofol to Jackson, Murray whispered to Dr White “can you believe that?” at which point Dr White replied “what a scumbag”. This was heard by reporters in the court room. Dr White has also been caught on camera in the courtroom rolling his eyes and reacting with facial expressions to what is being testified. Prosecution lawyer, David Walgren complained about this to Judge Pastor.
Judge Pastor had let medical experts into the courtroom so they could hear what was being said and how this might inform their testimonies. But this was under the agreement that they would not comment or react publically on what they had heard.
Dr White also spoke to an E! News reporter and told him his personal view of Dr Shafer had changed after hearing his testimony. E! News then wrote an article using quotes from Dr White where he said "I am going to take the high road not the low road with him…I was his teacher when he was a medical student. The truth will come out. It always does."
Judge Pastor was highly unimpressed with Dr White’s conduct stating "you have no business making those comments, Dr White." Judge Pastor went on to say "I don't want to harm Dr Murray or defence counsel in this case by excluding Dr White at this juncture if defence counsel still want him here, because I have to balance my concern about decorum with the defendant's right to a fair trial. But this may very well constitute a violation of the court's order." Judge Pastor then stated he was going to review Dr White’s conduct and see if he should be sanctioned in contempt of court. A hearing has been set for the 16th November.
Summery
The trial today was certainly explosive but it did feel a bit uncomfortable to watch. Instead of viewing a court case it felt like a slanging match between Ed Chernoff and Dr Shafer. This certainly was not behaviour I feel is appropriate in a courtroom.
I understand the defence need to use hard questioning to see if when put under pressure the witness’s story still measures up. But the level of aggression today seemed highly unnecessary. Instead of trying to disprove some of Shafer’s statements it seemed Chernoff went off on a personal attack. Chernoff seemed almost out of control at times.
Previously when questioned by the defence a few of the prosecution witness have answered in a defensive manner. I feel it is always better to try and have a measured response. But today I do feel that Shafer had somewhat of a reason to react to Chernoff’s chiding. Although childish sniping should never be present in a court.
For the beginning of the trial I always felt Chernoff came across as a poor choice of lawyer. He was often confused in his questioning and bumbled through his cross-examinations. But today I felt that Chernoff lost any reverence or authority that he may have had left. The defence were always going to have a tough time as there is a lot of evidence and testimonies that do not bode well for Murray. But it seems like the pressure has got to Chernoff. He knows it is almost certain Murray will get found guilty but instead of trying to find a reasonable alternative argument to present, the defence are breaking under the pressure and aren’t going to go down without a fight. This would be a good attitude to have if purveyed in a constructive way. Shouting at a witness is never going to help your argument.
I think Chernoff’s behaviour will not favour well with the jurors. Being that aggressive doesn't help highlight the weaknesses in the witness’s testimony; it simply makes the defence less likable and look incompetent. It is not professional to lose your cool when you are a lawyer. If I was a juror I would now believe Chernoff to be a bit of a wildcard and I would not necessarily trust his reliability. I think it comes across as Chernoff may be out of his depth.
It is wise to remember that Conrad Murray has nowhere near the amount of money that the Michael Jackson estate have, therefore he would not be able to hire the first class lawyers similar to what the prosecution have.
I think Murray’s defence team are highly damaging to his case. I feel a big problem with the defence is their behaviour means Murray will not get a fair trial. He will be judged by their actions and if they do not present themselves well it will impact on people’s view of Murray. Chernoff is making it easy for the prosecution because they do not even need to try to imply he is incompetent, he is prove that by himself. Flanagan is a far more competent lawyer, and although his questioning can be aggressive it is in line with what a lawyer should do. I am surprised that Chernoff has been the lead for the defence. I feel this could be a critical error.
As well as Chernoff’s behaviour another damaging aspect to the defence is the constant need of Judge Pastor to berate them for speaking publically about the case. Judge Pastor already had placed a gagging order on the defence team as they had spoken to the US media about the case. And now a key witness may be in contempt of court. This is a huge blow to the defence. It is clearly stated people cannot speak of the case outside the courtroom. I cannot understand why the defence would put themselves at risk of being discredited in such a difficult case.
I also cannot understand why Dr White was allowed to talk to Murray. Surely this is highly unethical? Again witnesses are told when on the stand that they may not speak to anyone else involved in the court case until after it has finished. By a witness being able to sit with the defence team and speak to the defendant seems highly inappropriate and completely against this court order.
I feel some of my views may just be a cultural difference as the rules of a court in the UK are far more stringent than in the US, so behaviour like this is completely unacceptable to me coming from a British perspective. I believe that one of the problems with the courts being so open and allowing the case to be televised, especially in such a high profile case like this, is that a media circus is created. And when so many outside influences become involved a fair trial can never be achieved.
It will be interesting to see if the defence change their tact and how they conduct their questioning when they open their case next week.
The trial enters week 5 and resumes on Monday.
Sophie Dewing
http://exploredreamdiscoverblog.blogspot.com/
No comments:
Post a Comment