People of the State of California v. Conrad Robert Murray The involuntary manslaughter trial of Michael Jackson's personal doctor, Conrad Murray, was in the news seemingly every day for months. Even though the trial has concluded and the world knows that Dr. Murray was found guilty, it is important to look at the court proceedings and how the evidence led the jury to that verdict. Dr. Murray administered a powerful drug called propofol - an anesthesia drug that is only supposed to be used in closely monitored hospital settings - to Michael Jackson to help him sleep.

The argument by the prosecution was that Dr. Murray did this even though he knew the dangers, and that he administered too much of the drug to Jackson, resulting in a fatal overdose. At that point, Murray did not act quickly enough in calling the paramedics and did not do enough to save Jackson's life. In other words, he was more concerned with trying to cover up the fact that he had done something wrong, and that wasted precious time he could have been using to save Jackson. There was also the concern that Murray may have been too cavalier and negligent with monitoring Jackson when propofol was being used, resulting in Murray not noticing that Jackson had stopped breathing until some minutes after it actually happened.

Even though the verdict is already known, this paper is designed to predict whether Dr. Murray would have been found guilty and sentenced to four years in prison based on the evidence presented and the history of other cases that...

Based on the evidence available against Murray and the other cases that were similar to his, his chances of acquittal on the charges he faces are very low. For example, in People v. Broussard (1977), it was found that involuntary manslaughter was, inherently, a killing that was unintentional. While Murray likely did not mean to kill Michael Jackson, there appears to be enough evidence that Murray did, in fact, cause Jackson's death (i.e. Jackson would not have died at that time and place had Murray not been present).
Of course, even when there is a large body of evidence that appears to point to a guilty verdict in a criminal case, acquittal can be possible. It is simply very unlikely. Take for example the Casey Anthony case. Despite all of the evidence pointing toward Ms. Anthony as being the guilty party (or at least one of the guilty parties) in the death of her daughter, she walked free and was not found guilty. Many people believed she was guilty, but the evidence was not enough and she was not convicted. This could happen with Murray, but that scenario is not the expected ending.

In their text on criminal justice, Neubauer and Fradella (2010) discuss acquittal as what occurs when the judge or the jury decide that the defendant is not guilty of the crime for which he or she is accused. At that point, the case is concluded and the defendant (assuming there are no other charges or other issues pending) is free to go. When this does not take place, and the defendant is found guilty,…