May 11 Update

Michael Bush Deposition

Michael Bush is one of the witnesses that is late added by Jacksons. AEG wants to depose Michael Bush before he testifies. IT's not clear if Jacksons actually plan to call him to stand. 

Conrad Murray police interview

Jacksons and AEG is arguing over Murray's interview with the police on June 27 2009. (This is the interview that was shown during the criminal trial).

AEG wants to use the interview to show that Murray said Michael asked him to be on his team, and Murray believed that he was the employee ofMichael Jackson. AEG says this will show Murray's state of mind. AEG says Murray's state of mind can show that AEG and Murray never entered into a contract and it rebuts that Murray had conflict of interest or divided loyalties.

AEG points out that Jackson experts use other parts of the interview (that Murray gave Michael propofol for 6 weeks, Murray talked with AEG people at the hospital and how Detective Martinez learned 3 bags of Propofol from Murray and so on) but oppose AEG using this part of the interview. AEG calls it unfair. 

AEG states statements that show state of mind, emotion, physical sensation, intent, plan, motive is admissible when they are used to show the person's state of mind and and explore or prove act of conduct of that person.

Jacksons respond to this calling Murray's interview inadmissible hearsay. Jacksons also argue that Murray's belief that he was MJ's employee is irrelevant and whether Murray was employed or independent contractor of Michael or AEG needs to be determined on the basis of several objective factors. Jacksons also ask Murray's statement about employment to be excluded because it can mislead the jury. Overall Jacksons argue that it's the jury that should determine whether Murray was hired by AEG or Michael. 

AEG responds pointing out Jacksons arguing Murray's state of mind being irrelevant is outrageous. AEG argues that Murray's statements aren't hearsay because they won't be offered as truth , they will be just offered as evidence. 

AEG states that they don't plan to use the statements to argue or prove that Murray was Michael's employee. They say that the statement shows that Murray did not consider himself to be contractually bound to AEG Live. Similarly AEG argues Murray's subjective belief as who he was actually working for is relevant to determine whether in fact Murray could have felt the pressure claimed by Jacksons. AEG argues Murray could not have felt pressure from a conflict he did not know existed. AEG states Murray's statement shows Murray did not believe he was in the service of AEG Live at the time he treated Michael, is admissible to show his state of mind. 

(Note: These last set of documents also again reference that "Murray was at most an independent contractor is the law of the case")