Home Celebrity Michael Jackson: Family Will Ask for New Trial, Wrongful Death Decision Will...

The family of Michael Jackson lost their wrongful death suit against AEG Live, but the story isn’t over. I am told that the family will not only appeal the jury decision, but they will file for a new trial as well. That’s right, there could be a Trial 2.0, dragging everyone and everything back through the courts.

The word is that the Jacksons’ lead lawyer, Brian Panish, already has a law firm that specializes in appeals writing the documents now. But it’s not just an appeal. They will also ask the court for a do- over based on the jury getting wrong marching orders or misunderstanding the questions they received to make their deliberations.

Separately Panish appeared on an internet radio this week where he talked a little bit about the case and the potential appeal. He doesn’t actually say anything, but I am told definitively that Jackson v. AEGLive is not over, at least not for the Jacksons. Panish says Katherine Jackson was happy that it was proved that AEG hired the doctor that killed Michael Jackson. But remember the jury decided that AEG hired a doctor. They didn’t know, and no one did, that he’d kill Jackson.


6 replies to this post
  1. To the Jackson family, whatever you do I’m with u. I love you all so much. I miss Michael so much. Because of him, I feel special and loved. He is truly the King of Pop.

  2. I think Michael’s family is despicable. They need to accept that they certainly played a part in the difficulties of Michael’s life and have a hand in his death as they are currently demonstrating through their deplorable behavior. I know it’s hard for them to accept that they can’t get their hands on any of his money – smart man Michael- but they need to accept it and move on. It’s still not too late for them to get jobs and make their own money – they might find it quite gratifying. I am heartsick that Katherine still retains guardianship of Michael’s children. They obviously are not a priority and their happiness and well-being obviously are not a concern of hers. Do they plan on keeping Paris locked up/hidden away for the rest of her life while they – the family – continue to slander and drag her father through the mud hoping to profit from it? Please, someone remove those children from that family before they destroy them one by one – or maybe that’s their plan and they think they can receive the money by default. Someone needs to intervene on behalf of the children.

  3. Smart move by the lawyers to keep milking the Jackson family. The next trial AEG should reveal every dirty detail they found out about Michael & his whole family. No holding back.

  4. That is an opinion. You don’t know what AEG knew and according to emails that were sent and received, they did know and that is not an opinion, I was there, in the courtroom and I saw what they saw. They knew something was wrong with Michael Jackson and they knew something was awry with Conrad Murray. Blessings. db

  5. A typical Jackson family move………always blaming the other guy. The judge wrote jury instructions for question #2 and the jury clearly understood it enough for a majority vote. Also question #3 would have been a “no” vote also, so to rehash another trial again is a waste of time. Thank goodness the appellate court consists of judges only who obviously understand the legal system and question #2 CM was neither “unfit” nor “incompetent.” at the time of hiring. The keywords are “at the time of hiring”. No one on earth could have known or predicted what Murray & MJ were doing in secret behind closed doors on THEIR OWN TIME, not AEG Live’s time.

    Under the legal doctrine of Respondeat Superior an employer is legally responsible for the actions of his employees when they are acting within the course and scope of employment UNLESS THE EMPLOYEE DEVIATES FROM HIS ASSIGNED DUTIES.

    Vicarious liability:
    Employee conduct that bears relationship to the work will be considered within the scope of employment. The question whether an employee was acting within the scope of employment at the time of the event depends on the particular facts of the case. A court may consider the employee’s job description or assigned duties, the time, place, and purpose of the employee’s act, the extent to which the employee’s actions conformed to what he was hired to do, and whether such an occurrence could reasonably have been expected.

    The Jackson appeal will be denied.

Leave a Reply

Print This Post Print This Post