Dr. Conrad Murray’s preliminary examination started yesterday in Los Angeles. He is charged with involuntary manslaughter in the death of Michael Jackson.

The preliminary examination is held to to determine whether there is sufficient evidence to to try Murray for Jackson’s death. In state courts in California it is a normal procedure in felony cases. ¹ It is expected to last over a week.

The District Attorney will try to put on sufficient evidence to convince the judge that there is probable cause to hold Murray for trial. ² Because the standard of proof is so low at a preliminary examination defense counsel rarely risk showing their hand at this stage by putting witnesses on the stand.

Murray is charged with involuntary manslaughter. Involuntary manslaughter is defined under California law as “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.” The district attorney is alleging that Dr. Murray “without due caution and circumspection” gave Jackson an excessive dose of the anesthetic propofol to help him sleep and then left him alone in the room, resulting in his death. In order to get a holding order the district attorney must introduce “some evidence” of each element of the offense. In this case they must show that there is evidence that (1) Murray committed an act, (2) which might cause an unlawful death, (3) without due caution and circumspection. But not much evidence is needed of each element and it is a relatively easy standard to meet. While the charges are sometimes changed at a preliminary examination it is rare that a case is dismissed at this stage. Generally district attorneys are able to meet their rather light burden and get a holding order.

Charles Bizilj took his two sons, Christopher, age 8, and Colin, age 11 to the 2008 Machine Gun Shoot and Firearms Expo in Westfield, Massachusetts. Those attending the Machine Gun Shoot and Firearms Expo were allowed to shoot machine guns at pumpkin targets. All ages were allowed to participate, although Massachusetts law prohibited those under 18 from using machine guns. Dr. Bizilj allowed Christopher to shoot a 9-millimeter Micro Uzi submachine gun, thinking that a small gun would be easier for the eight year old to shoot. The first two times Christoper attempted to shoot the gun it jammed. The fifteen year old who was supervising the shoot then checked the gun and reloaded it. Christopher put his finger on the trigger and then attempted to balance the gun on his shoulder. But as he was balancing the gun it went off, killing him.

Former Pelham Police Chief Edward B. Fleury who sponsored the event and two other men who provided the weapons are charged with involuntary manslaughter. Hampden District Attorney William M. Bennett did not charge Dr. Bizilj although at a minimum it seems that he may be guilty of child endangerment. ¹

During the shoot Dr. Bizilj videotaped the incident, dropping the camera when his son was shot. The trial was scheduled for last week but it was continued when Fleury got sick. In pretrial motions the defense requested that the prosecution be prevented from playing the video before the jury. The prosecution argued that the video was necessary “to show to the jury ‘how dangerous, how lethal’ the machine gun was in the hands of an 8-year-old boy.” But the defense attorney, Rosemary Curran Scapicchio, argued that there was no question that Christopher was shot or that he died and therefore it is not relevant. The question before the judge was whether the video’s probative value outweighed by it’s predjudicial effect upon the jury. The video is a strong tool and may take the emphasis off whether or not Fleury ² is quilty of manslaughter and place it on the horrendous nature of the death. To prove manslaughter District Attorney William M. Bennett will have to show “an unintentional killing occasioned by an act which constitutes such a disregard of the probable harmful consequences to another as to be wanton or reckless.” The Court ruled that in this case the probative value of the tape which will show the effects of allowing the child to shoot the gun and the lack of control over the child’s use of the gun makes it sufficiently probative that the evidence ought to come in. But at the same time the court withheld deciding whether the auditory part of the tape after the camera was dropped in which the father is heard telling his son that he loves him and praying will be used. The judge indicated that that portion of the tape may be excluded.