Dr. Conrad Murray Sentenced to Four Years

Bump and Update: Dr. Conrad Murray has been sentenced to four years in jail. A restitution hearing has been set for January. Dr. Murray waived his right to be present. The defense will file a Notice of Appeal.

He was remanded to the custody of the LA Sheriff. They didn't handcuff him this time, and as he left, he blew a kiss to his family. [More...]

Original Post 11/28:

Dr. Conrad Murray, convicted of involuntary manslaughter in the death of Michael Jackson, will be sentenced tomorrow. The maximum is four years, but under California's new sentencing law aimed at alleviating prison over-crowding, he cannot be sent to the state prison, only the county jail. With good time, a four year sentence would be two years of actual time. And the Sheriff's could allow him to serve his sentence on home detention.

The judge was very critical of Murray in denying bail after the verdict. Jackson's family is expected to be in court. Here's the letter Dr. Murray's mother wrote the court.

Murray's lawyers will ask for probation while prosecutors will ask for the maximuum 4 years. [More...]

Considering this wasn't an intentional killing and Dr. Murray has no prior record, a maximum sentence is not called for. The judge may decide some jail is warranted due to interviews Murray gave during trial that MSNBC aired afterwards in a documentary in which Conrad did not accept responsibility for Michael's death. Prosecutors may play excerpts at the sentencing hearing.

I wonder if anyone will bring up what Michael would have wanted. Would he want Dr. Murray to go to jail? I doubt it.

< The Missing Fiscal Policy: Austerity Now? | Guide To Sully On "Race And Intelligence" >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    "what Michael would have wanted." (5.00 / 1) (#1)
    by Mr Natural on Mon Nov 28, 2011 at 07:57:00 PM EST
    - More plastic surgery.

    And..... (none / 0) (#9)
    by kdog on Tue Nov 29, 2011 at 11:21:20 AM EST
    more scripts.

    Come to think of it, why haven't his former plastic surgeons been charged with any felonies?  


    If (5.00 / 2) (#21)
    by lentinel on Tue Nov 29, 2011 at 04:31:09 PM EST
    Dr. Murray is in fact guilty, the sentence given to him in rather tame in comparison to the sentences handed out to others for what I consider lesser offenses.

    It is my understanding that Dr. Murray, upon realizing that Michael Jackson was experiencing extreme distress, did not call 911. He did, however spend an unconscionable amount of time on the phone calling others including personal acquaintances. To me, the chilling testimony came from a first responder who offered his opinion that Michael might have been able to be saved if they had been notified sooner.

    Contrast this sentence for involuntary manslaughter, something which feels to me more like negligent homicide, to the sentence meted out to Wesley Snipes for tax evasion. Three years for Snipes.
    Possible home detention for Murray.

    And there is the case of the young man, Rocrast Mack, who was fatally beaten in prison who had been serving a twenty year sentence for selling ten dollars worth of crack.

    I don't get it.

    Given a CA driver w/no measurable alcohol (none / 0) (#25)
    by oculus on Tue Nov 29, 2011 at 05:47:56 PM EST
    And/or drugs in. His system may be charged/w 2nd degree murder,  Dr. Murray benefited from the DA's exercise of discretion.  

    I"m (none / 0) (#26)
    by lentinel on Tue Nov 29, 2011 at 10:11:50 PM EST
    sympathetic to Jermaine Jackson's point of view: The doc should have been given 100 years.

    It was negligent homicide (none / 0) (#28)
    by MKS on Tue Nov 29, 2011 at 11:24:52 PM EST
    It was not murder or manslaughter.....

    Actually, (none / 0) (#30)
    by lentinel on Wed Nov 30, 2011 at 05:47:13 AM EST
    I agree with you... but they called it "involuntary manslaughter".

    I just keep picturing Michael in distress while that quack did nothing to help him. I don't know what you call that.

    But, as I said, I sympathize with Jermaine.
    It's an emotion.
    I realize it is not based on law.

    But - as I mentioned - at a time when they're handing out 20 years for selling $10 worth of crack - to have the doc sitting at home for awhile does not seem to fit the crime.


    Horrible, Just Horrible... (none / 0) (#33)
    by ScottW714 on Wed Nov 30, 2011 at 01:15:30 PM EST
     ...to give a grown A man what he wanted in a 'free' society.  If Michael had just drank himself to death...

    Not aimed at anyone.  
    It surprise me how many liberals are against Murray, many the same people who want to make drugs legal, which of course would not have made this a crime.

    Sorry to say, but junkies die everyday of overdoses, and yet their suppliers are never charged.  

    Many, many doctors screw-up far worse and never even get their licenses pulled, but I guess it's the price one pays when a media darling dies on your watch.


    There is a pro-cop (none / 0) (#34)
    by MKS on Wed Nov 30, 2011 at 02:02:40 PM EST
    pro prosecution bent to this blog, which is surprising.....l

    I don't (none / 0) (#36)
    by lentinel on Wed Nov 30, 2011 at 09:42:25 PM EST
    get it.

    Why is "pro-prosecution" to comment on the behavior or punishment of a person who has been convicted of criminal behavior?

    Murray was not beaten or coerced into a confession.
    He had an attorney.
    He was given the presumption of innocence.
    I also extended to him that presumption.

    And the evidence presented at trial led to his being convicted.

    So are we now to continue to say he's innocent - if we have also been convinced by the testimony that he was guilty as charged?


    Part of the tough on crime (none / 0) (#37)
    by MKS on Wed Nov 30, 2011 at 10:08:31 PM EST
    lock-'em-up-and-throw-away-the-key view of crime.

    I guess (none / 0) (#39)
    by lentinel on Thu Dec 01, 2011 at 05:06:02 AM EST
    we part ways on this.

    But we are dealing with the sentencing phase here I believe.
    It is no longer pro-prosecution or pro-defense.

    You believe that the loss of his license and home detention is sufficient punishment for what Murray did.

    I don't.

    But I don't think that makes me an across-the-board pro-prosecution-hang'em-high guy.


    I get (none / 0) (#35)
    by lentinel on Wed Nov 30, 2011 at 09:34:45 PM EST
    what you're saying, but there is a difference between a dope peddler and a doctor. Or at least there should be.

    Dope peddlers are honest about what they do.
    They sell what they have to people who wish to buy from them.
    It's like going to a liquor store.

    Doctors, on the other hand, are trained. They study medicine. They take internships. They take an oath to protect life. The dealer takes no such oath.

    Murray was supposed to protect Michael. What he did was unprofessional. A dope dealer would have been more professional.

    And what you say about "suppliers are never charged" puzzles me. I'm sure you read about the young man who was mortally beaten who had been given a sentence of 20 years for selling $10 worth of crack.

    And it's hard for me to imagine "screwing up far worse" than knowingly letting a patient die in front of you and not calling 911. Besides, Murray was not convicted of "screwing up". He was convicted of involuntary manslaughter. Negligent homicide is more like it.

    I have more sympathy for a dealer. You know who and what you're dealing with. If you're dealing with a doctor, there is an element of trust invested in him or her. And if a doctor is willing to be a dealer, they should be honest enough give up the medical profession and just deal dope.

    I am inclined to be on the side of the defendant.
    I believe in the presumption of innocence. I believe in Miranda.

    But once they are convicted, if I believe that they have not been railroaded by the State, I see nothing wrong with commenting on the nature of their conviction or offering a view of what would be an appropriate punishment.


    He won't (none / 0) (#38)
    by MKS on Wed Nov 30, 2011 at 10:10:54 PM EST
    be a doctor anymore.

    So, no more danger to society on that basis.

    Two years in the hell hole of the Twin Towers jail is not needed here.


    The Point I Was Making... (none / 0) (#41)
    by ScottW714 on Fri Dec 02, 2011 at 09:18:10 AM EST
    ... has more to do with a adult wanting to put a substance in his body and another giving it to him.  In a free society, with the conviction, we are saying adults are incapable of deciding what I would call THE most basic right, what one does with ones own self.

    The Hippocratic Oath is a joke, pretty sure most doctors will not treat people for free, which of course is in direct contrast to their pointless oath.  Plus isn't not like an oath in court, there is literally no repercussions for not adhering to it, except I suppose in medical school.  In reality, the oath is pointless, maybe one could call it a guideline, I would call it ego induced non-sense.  Even making sick or injured people wait is doing more harm.  Don't even get me started on Pharmaceutical Reps influence.

    I mentioned doctors doing worse, well let's see worse then giving an addict his junk.  Maybe cutting off the wrong leg, taking out the wrong organ, I think some doctor cut a guys junk off without asking, and on and on.  It's well known that bad doctors skip around from state to state, even after their license are pulled, which is extremely rare.  All far worse then giving drugs to a patient, which many do every day.

    And to be clear, Murray wasn't at Jackson's to ensure he lived to grow old, he was there to give him medication and had he not, Murray would not have been there.  He was a dealing in every conceivable way.

    And please stop with fair trail business, no one is saying it wasn't fair, the point is there should have never been a trail and I would put a lot of cash on the table that had you or I died in the exact same manor, there would be no trial.  The only lessons anyone can take away from this is the kdog rule of law, "Different Rules for Different Fools", even after they are dead.


    DA may not have felt he could (none / 0) (#29)
    by MKS on Tue Nov 29, 2011 at 11:34:21 PM EST
    get a conviction on s higher offense....

    Probably the lesson from the Casey Anthony acquital.


    Conrad Murray's lawyer and spokesperson (none / 0) (#27)
    by MKS on Tue Nov 29, 2011 at 11:23:34 PM EST
    said on Piers Morgan tonight that Michael Jackson was $400 million in debt, never paid Murray a dime, and Murray maxed out his credit cards caring for Michael Jackson.....

    Never paid a dime....Wow.....


    Apparently, (none / 0) (#31)
    by lentinel on Wed Nov 30, 2011 at 05:48:20 AM EST
    he was worth everything he was paid.

    Is it normal in California (none / 0) (#2)
    by Peter G on Mon Nov 28, 2011 at 08:14:35 PM EST
    for the sentencing in a serious case to be scheduled only three weeks after conviction?  How is there time for the probation department to do a Pre-Sentence Investigation Report and for the parties to respond and then file memoranda with the judge, collect good (or bad) character letters, line up experts (psychologist, medical, whatever applies), etc.?  In federal court it typically takes 70 days to get to sentencing after verdict.

    unless waives time, sentencing (none / 0) (#4)
    by oculus on Mon Nov 28, 2011 at 09:21:24 PM EST
    Must be w/statutory time limit.

    which is what? (none / 0) (#6)
    by Peter G on Mon Nov 28, 2011 at 10:06:04 PM EST
    22 days?

    I was thinking. 21 days. Not sure (none / 0) (#7)
    by oculus on Mon Nov 28, 2011 at 10:47:51 PM EST
    I (none / 0) (#3)
    by lentinel on Mon Nov 28, 2011 at 08:55:29 PM EST
    can't know what Michael Jackson would have wanted.
    But if some part of him was aware that Dr. Murray was fiddling around and making phone calls to acquaintances instead of calling 911, I think he would be genuinely annoyed.

    I have never heard of a sentencing (none / 0) (#5)
    by oculus on Mon Nov 28, 2011 at 09:24:36 PM EST
    Courtt considering the. "wishes" of a homicide victim.  

    sure they do (5.00 / 1) (#10)
    by Jeralyn on Tue Nov 29, 2011 at 11:59:12 AM EST
    That is the families (none / 0) (#23)
    by Amiss on Tue Nov 29, 2011 at 04:44:58 PM EST
    of a victim. Not the victim (him)(her) self. I could be mistaken tho

    Really? (none / 0) (#8)
    by sj on Tue Nov 29, 2011 at 10:57:34 AM EST
    I guess I thought that the family of the victim was often heard from at sentencing.  I expect the family often purports to speak for the victim.  Which, typically I think, they will do as well as they can.

    25 minutes of babble (none / 0) (#11)
    by CoralGables on Tue Nov 29, 2011 at 12:00:28 PM EST
    from a judge that comes off as a blowhard. Ultimately it's a four year sentence.

    But judge said he had no (none / 0) (#12)
    by MKS on Tue Nov 29, 2011 at 01:12:52 PM EST
    authority to send to state prison given California statutes.

    Time in the LA County Twin Towers jail?  Home confinement?


    Hopefully home confinement... (5.00 / 1) (#13)
    by kdog on Tue Nov 29, 2011 at 01:18:04 PM EST
    its the last strand of sanity to grab at in this sorry case.

    Is there anyone, anywhere outside the DA's office, saying they need the state's protection from the lines of a Conrad Murray?


    CA Bd. of Medical Quality Assurance. (5.00 / 2) (#15)
    by oculus on Tue Nov 29, 2011 at 01:24:18 PM EST
    Dr. Murray is a dangerous charlatan.  

    Not for nothing.... (none / 0) (#16)
    by kdog on Tue Nov 29, 2011 at 01:50:35 PM EST
    I think MJ was banking on his Dr. Feelgood not balking at danger.

    And unless MJ asked for a script Murray wouldn't deliver I don't see how you could call him a charlatan.


    Will elaborate over Guiness (none / 0) (#17)
    by oculus on Tue Nov 29, 2011 at 02:04:44 PM EST
    Well, (none / 0) (#22)
    by lentinel on Tue Nov 29, 2011 at 04:37:54 PM EST
    I would say that the guy is dangerous, charlatan or not.

    Let's just assume that he is a doctor feelgood: that alone makes him dangerous. He is supposed to uphold some standards borne of his medical studies and oath. He is supposed to guide his patients.

    As for being a charlatan, I personally would go with that description because he (apparently) did not put on his shingle that he would give anything to anybody if the price was right. And he did exact a hell of a lot of money for his "services".


    First on the (5.00 / 2) (#24)
    by Amiss on Tue Nov 29, 2011 at 04:50:18 PM EST
    Nurses oath and sure on Doctors as well, is " Do No Harm" As a nurse, I feel he abdicated his oath as a Dr. when he showed up at the residence without a Blood Pressure cuff, then failed to monitor his patient. No excuse for that.

    He played the game... (none / 0) (#32)
    by kdog on Wed Nov 30, 2011 at 07:42:54 AM EST
    prohibition created.

    Where our opinions differ is I don't consider this guy a doctor at all, MD after his name or not...he was a drug dealer.  And thats what MJ was looking to hire imo...a drug dealer, not a doctor.

    He ain't the only drug dealer posing as a doctor to avoid problems with the law out there...I wish we could let doctors be doctors and drug dealers be drug dealers but apparently no matter how old ya are you're a child who can't make his/her own decisions.


    doesn't seem like an ongoing danger (none / 0) (#14)
    by MKS on Tue Nov 29, 2011 at 01:22:38 PM EST
    Judge seemed emotionally invested (none / 0) (#18)
    by vicndabx on Tue Nov 29, 2011 at 03:10:29 PM EST
    from what I saw of the sentencing hearing.

    Not the impartial arbiter we're supposed to expect.

    - muttering something politically incorrect (none / 0) (#19)
    by Mr Natural on Tue Nov 29, 2011 at 03:21:56 PM EST
    From my layperson perspective, seems reasonable (none / 0) (#20)
    by Addison on Tue Nov 29, 2011 at 03:24:04 PM EST
    Is this one of those California sentences where he'll serve 1/20th of the time?