1. Parallels of a Civil Action and the AEG/Jackson Case

2. This AEG/Jackson case has three direct parallels to the A Civil Action case. First, unlike 95% of civil as opposed to criminal cases, both cases did not settle before trial. The Hollywood movie opened with a monetary settlement. The AEG attorneys said that in the AEG business, it was not possible to payout money to unhappy business associates. That is of course not true. But $1.5 billion or even some percentage would be worth the legal costs of going to trial. Remember the comment, “Deep pockets to settle is also deep pockets to defend.”

3. The second parallel is that the plaintiffs have to make their case by evidence. That is the challenge the plaintiffs have this week; namely, to charge the defendants for the Mock Trial not with the fact that children died which is a tragedy but with evidence that proves responsibility.
The third parallel is that proof not be beyond a reasonable doubt but with the preponderance of evidence.

4. The verdict need not be unanimous as in a criminal trial, but with some lesser amount of votes. In the A Civil Action case, the first phase had a vote of 4 to 2. In the Jackson case it took 9 jurors to be in agreement to proceed to the next of five questions.

5. Question #1
Who hired Conrad Murray?
AEG hired Conrad Murray (this was the position of the Jackson family)
Michael Jackson hired Conrad Murray (this was the position of AEG Live)
The jury unanimously voted A.
The class votes:
AEG
Michael Jackson

6. Question #2
Was Dr. Conrad Murray unfit or incompetent to perform the work for which he was hired?
Yes No
The jury voted 10 to 2 that Conrad Murray was competent

7. The foreman of the jury speaking to the public said the reason for the 10 to 2 vote was that Murray had gone to an accredited medical school and was licensed to practice medicine in California.
The foreman said that if the question had been phrased differently, such as had Murray been ethical, there might have been a different answer. The moral for the plaintiffs is to choose your wording carefully.

8. Question #3
Did AEG Live know or should have known that Murray was unfit for the job?
(the jury never got to question 3 because they voted no the way the question was phrased.)
How would the class answer question 3 above
Yes No

9. Question #4
Did Conrad's incompetence harm the Jackson family?
Yes No

10. Question #5
Did Jackson's lawyers prove the need for damages?
Yes No
(commentators said they thought the lawyers for the Jackson family did a better job. That is of course subjective.)