All Blog Posts from Courtwatch

I'm not convinced that prosecutors would easily win a manslaughter case based upon what we now know. But if there was massive fraud in the creation of these aliases by Jackson so that he could get pills then the doctor or doctors involved might be in serious trouble for that, and that would be a much easier case to prove in court.

There are two components here. The first is whether the doctors violated their oaths and medial ethics rules that would put them in the doghouse with a licensing board. The other is whether their conduct constitutes a crime. And there IS some legal room between the two standards.

One key question no matter where the investigation goes from here is what role Jackson himself played in his own death or the steps leading up to it. If we DO see a criminal case here, one defense will be that Jackson knew the risks of taking all those meds and choose to continue to do so.

The doctor or doctors are going to be in trouble no matter what. The question is whether a provable crime was committed. So you can bet that prosecutors are going to be checking with independent, neutral medical experts to determine whether and to what extent Jackson's doctors crossed any ethical or legal lines-- remember the patient here apparently was a willing recipient of the medication.

---

(CBS)

Andrew Cohen is CBS News' Chief Legal Analyst and Legal Editor. CourtWatch is his new blog with analysis and commentary on breaking legal news and events. For columns on legal issues before the beginning of this blog, click here. You can also follow him on Twitter.

It's been ages since CourtWatch offered up one of its early staples; the in-your-face question-and-answer session. Why now? Because it's the middle of summer, dog-days-time, and the law's annual hibernation period is starting to set in all across the country.

Lawyers and judges, plaintiffs and defendants, witnesses and bailiffs, all are heading out, or already have, for their summer breaks. The Justices of the United States Supreme Court have scattered from Washington to the four corners of the world - speaking and teaching about what they do and why. But I am still here. And there are still a few decent legal stories swirling around that merit at least a little attention. So let's begin.

What's going to happen if there is a manslaughter charge against one or more of the doctors who were caring for Michael Jackson at the time of his death?

The most likely charge, based upon what little we now know, would be "involuntary manslaughter," a crime punishable by up to four years in prison. The key element of "involuntarily manslaughter" is a notoriously low bar; anyone who acts "without due caution and circumspection" in the commission of a "lawful act which might produce death" may be convicted. Would the mere administration of drugs do the trick? Stay tuned.




What's the deal with the Obama Administration delaying its report on how to close down the prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba?

In my family, we call what Team Obama did on this issue back in January "big eyes." As in, the White House and Justice Department had "big eyes" (unrealistic expectations) about how quickly they could transfers all of the terror detainees to other venues for trial or release or what have you. The fact is, the Bush Administration was trying to do the same for years without success. And "success"—the closing down of the miserable place—will only come when our leaders recognize the need for a new court system specifically designed for these men.

Read full post…

This article originally appeared in The Denver Post on June 14, 2005.

---

You had to see it to believe it. You had to be here, in this non-descript little conservative town nestled in one of the most beautiful parts of the country, inside a Santa Barbara County courthouse.

You had to watch Michael Jackson, his accuser and prosecutors and defense lawyers and judge to truly understand how and why the King of Pop finds himself today in the position he is in.

You had to see how much more pale he looks in person even than he appears on television. You had to see his entourage and the ghastly, ghostly way he walked into and out of court each day. You had to see his fans, the zealots who sacrificed the responsibilities in their own lives to come by day after day to lend support to the molestation and conspiracy defendant.

You had to see the parade of witnesses, so many of them sleazy or creepy or just downright odd, who paraded in front of jurors for three long months.

You had to see what a punk the alleged victim seemed like on the witness stand and how shaky the core of his testimony was. You had to see how delusional his mother seemed and how much her testimony lacked in credibility. You had to see how futilely prosecutors tried to convince jurors that it is a crime for a famous person, a target, to undertake good public relations or swift damage control. You had to see the evidence that piled up to prove the accusing family had a history of setting up and then hitting celebrities for payoffs.

Read full post…