August 09, 2011


On June 25, 2009, “Dr” Conrad Murray killed Michael Jackson. Subsequently, he was charged with one count of involuntary manslaughter and now faces maximum of 4 years.

The State of California is charging a battle they feel they will win than prosecuting
Dr. Quack with the charge that would somewhat serve justice: second degree murder.


Malice: Spiteful and deliberate wrongful act

Malice is not confined to ill-will toward the victim. It is any evil design in general

Malice aforethought: Intending to kill another person or intending to do an act with
knowledge that it is dangerous to human life

Homicide: Death of a human being by another human being 

Murder: Killing with the intention to kill (premeditated)

Second degree murder: Killing without the intention to kill

Negligence: Harm caused by carelessness or inattention

Criminal negligence: takes place when someone behaves in a way that is an extreme deviation from the way that a reasonable person would act.

California's standard jury instruction for involuntary manslaughter states that criminal negligence "involves more than ordinary carelessness, inattention or mistake in judgment."

A person acts with criminal negligence when:
1. He acted in a negligent way that created a high risk of death AND
2. A reasonable person would have known that such acts would lead to death

Criminal negligence in layman terms, defendant should have known the risks

Recklessness: criminal negligence + extreme indifference to value of human life

Recklessness in layman terms, defendant knew the risks and ignored them

Involuntary manslaughter: Death, without malice, arising out of criminal negligence

To prove that the defendant is guilty of this crime, the People must prove:
1. The defendant committed a crime that posed a high risk of death AND
2. The defendant's acts caused the death of another person

Depraved heart murder: Death, arising out of recklessness
Defendant’s acts must so dangerous that it is akin to playing Russian roulette.

To prove that the defendant is guilty of this crime, the People must prove:
 1. The defendant committed a crime that posed a high risk of death AND
 2. He knew the fatal outcomes but he consciously disregarded them AND
 3. The defendant's acts caused the death of another person

~Depraved Heart Murder~

California Penal Code Section 187
Murder is the killing of a human being with malice aforethought.

California Penal Code Section 188
Such malice may be express or implied. It is express when there is manifested a deliberate intention unlawfully to take away the life of a fellow creature. It is implied, when the circumstances attending the killing show an abandoned and malignant heart.

When it is shown that the killing resulted from the intentional doing of an act with express or implied malice as defined above, no other mental state need be shown to establish the mental state of malice aforethought. Neither an awareness of the obligation to act within the general body of laws regulating society nor acting despite such awareness is included within the definition of malice.

~Involuntary Manslaughter~

California Penal Code Section 192
Manslaughter is the unlawful killing of a human being without malice. It is of 3 kinds:
(a) Voluntary--
(b) Involuntary--in the commission of an unlawful act, not amounting to felony;
or in the commission of a lawful act which might produce death, in an unlawful manner,
or without due caution and circumspection.
(c) Vehicular--


In California "murder is the killing of a human being with malice aforethought".
The term malice aforethought does not necessarily mean that the killer planned or premeditated on the killing or that he or she felt malice toward the victim.

Depraved heart killing is when someone’s actions were SO dangerous that he showed virtually no regard to the safety of a human life and as a result killed someone. The death is considered deliberate b.c the defendant’s actions were active choice.

Depraved Heart killing constitutes second degree murder in the state of California.


Commonwealth vs Malone

On February 25, 1945, a 17 year old Malone obtained a gun from his uncle’s home. The same day, his friend, 13 year old William H. Long obtained a bullet from his father’s office. The next day, the two friends met. Malone suggested that they play Russian roulette. Long said “I don’t care, go ahead” So Malone pointed the gun at Long and fired twice. On the third round, the gun went off, killing William Long.

Malone was found guilty of second degree murder. He appealed, claiming that he could not be convicted of second degree murder because he didn’t have “malice aforethought”. Malone testified that the gun chamber he loaded was the first one to the right of the firing chamber and that when he pulled the trigger he didn't "expect the gun go off".  Malone stated that he had no intention of harming Long, who was his friend

Pennsylvania Supreme Court upheld the second degree murder sentence, ruling that Malone intentionally committed an act with a very high chance of causing death.

The distinction between murder and other types of killing is “malice.” However, the malice isn't necessary directed against the victim personally. Just because you didn’t mean to kill doesn’t absolve you. Malice could be “any evil design in general”. When someone commits an act of gross recklessness for which he must reasonably anticipate that the death is likely to result, he is guilty of implied malice.

The means were not accidental; the result (death) was.

Death may be accidental but it resulted from a malicious act intentionally committed.

The killing of William H. Long by Malone resulted from an act intentionally done with disregard to the deadly consequences which was at least  %60 certain from his thrice attempted discharge of a gun known to contain one bullet and aimed at the victim.

This killing was, therefore, murder because malice is evidenced by Malone’s intentional act with callous disregard of its likely fatal outcome.


There is a razor-thin line between depraved heart murder & involuntary manslaughter.
The crucial difference is the level of recklessness, which is often hard to quantify.
Crystal clear instructions should be given to the jury as to both offences.

In ‘definitions’ section, I differentiated ‘negligence’ and ‘recklessness’ to put them in perspective but in criminal law, both are used interchangeably which contributes to the blur between involuntary manslaughter and depraved heart murder.

In layman terms, involuntary manslaughter is when the defendant SHOULD HAVE known that his acts would lead to death; a reasonable person would know it. In depraved heart murder, the negligence level is higher. It requires that the defendant KNEW that his acts were dangerous and that the natural consequences of his acts were dangerous to human life but he proceeded anyway.

Depraved Heart murder is about how dangerous the defendant’s conduct is, NOT how likely he thinks the result (death) will happen. In Malone case, playing Russian roulette with a loaded gun was extremely dangerous. Malone’s claim that he didn’t think the gun would go off is irrelevant.


Below is the Judicial Council of California's jury instruction for murder.

To prove that the defendant is guilty of murder, the prosecution must prove that:
1. The defendant committed an act that caused the death of another person
2. When the defendant acted, he had malice aforethought
3. He killed without lawful excuse or justification

To prove that Murray is guilty of murder, the prosecution must prove that:
1. Conrad Murray committed an act that caused the death of Michael Jackson
2. Conrad Murray acted with implied malice
3. He killed without lawful excuse or justification

Two kinds of malice aforethought exist: express malice and implied malice
Proof of either one is sufficient to establish the state of mind required for murder

The defendant acted with express malice if he intended to kill (not applicable to Murray)

Implied Malice can best be summed up as: “I know that what I am doing is dangerous to human life and it may cause death but I am going to do it anyway

The defendant acted with implied malice if:
1. He intentionally committed an act
2. The natural consequences of this act were dangerous to human life
3. At the time he acted, he knew his act was dangerous to human life
4. He deliberately acted with conscious disregard for human life

Conrad Murray acted with implied malice:
1. There is not one single act by Conrad Murray in his “treatment” of Michael Jackson that is in accordance with the standard of care. From the very beginning to the very end, every single act by Murray was dangerous acts, collectively and directly leading to Michael Jackson’s death.

  • Unlawful Prescribing & Purchasing Propofol
  • Transporting Propofol across States
  • Administering Propofol
  • Propofol to treat insomnia
  • Prescribing dangerous cocktail of drugs
  • Propofol in home setting
  • Free-drip without infusion pump
  • No monitoring/resuscitation equipment
  • Improper storage of unopened Propofol
  • Improper storage of empty Propofol
  • Leaving the patient while anesthetized
  • Failure to call 911 immediately
  • Improper CPR
  • Stopped CPR to hide evidence

None of these appalling acts were “involuntary”. Conrad Murray knowingly CHOSE
to commit these dangerous acts which subsequently lead to Michael Jackson’s death.

2. The natural consequences of these acts were dangerous to human life
3. At the time he acted, Murray should have known his act was dangerous
4. He deliberately acted with conscious disregard for human life

Conrad Murray invented a “medical treatment”, invented a “medical equipment” and invented a “controlled setting”. From purchasing Propofol to administering it via his little arts-and-crafts-project (Propofol vial inside saline bag) akin to fully loaded gun, Murray’s actions showed utter and absolute disregard to Michael Jackson's life.

By his own admission, Dr. Quack found Michael with a weak pulse. What Michael urgently needed was OXYGEN. Had Conrad Murray provided Michael with oxygen then immediately took him to UCLA, Michael Jackson most definitely would have been alive.

The oxygen tank in the room was empty and the breathing tube to the oxygen tank was NOT hooked up. Instead of finding an oxygen supply to his dying patient, Dr. Death prioritizes and began cleaning up the scene. Dr. Quack decided that it was more important to hide evidence than to save his patient's life!  If this is not the textbook example of sheer disregard to the value of human life, I don't know what is!

What’s the very first thing that Conrad Murray hides? His murder weapon!

STAY WITH ME FOR Part 2: Conrad Murray Murder Weapon


  1. This is so good! Looking forward to part 2. Would you consider sending to Dr. Drew Pinsky who apparently needs a good education?

  2. There must be someone with more authority than the D.A. who can change these charges to what they SHOULD be....what we have here is law enforcement corruption