Amicus curiae or amici curiae (plural) is a Latin legal phrase meaning “friend(s) of the court” refers to an independent person who is not part of a case volunteering to give information on a legal point of view which might be used by the court as the basis for decision making in judgment. Information contained in this document may comprise of a summarized legal opinion highlighting a testimony not presented by either of the parties involved or an informed treatise on the case at hand. However, acceptance or rejection of this piece of legal opinion is determined by the court’s discretion. In many instances, people confuse the role played by amicus curiae with the contribution of a party known as an intervener, having a wholesome interest in the final ruling by the court of law make. The role of amicus curiae is to assist the court to identify hidden premises which are revealed impartially through the advancement of circumstantial understanding and appreciation of views of the plaintiff and the other party (Arthur and Shaw, 38).
In this scenario, the case on involuntary manslaughter against MJ’s physician, Dr. Connor Morris, has attracted media attention as advocacy groups present a brief on this case before the appellate court irrespective of the litigant inclination. This being a case of public interest, it demands factual records of evidence from either side of the parties involved. Besides, the arguments presented should be reviewed appropriately to connote premises from which a legal opinion can be drawn. Since this case has broader implications, amicus curiae presented below articulates the wider concerns on equity, gender, race, class of an individual, criminal records, and rationality to bring to expound on the legal consequences of the court’s decision, though independent of either of the parties involved. The concerns addressed in this treatise reflect on the hidden aspects which in my opinion should be considered before a decision is made by the court concerning the suit against Connor Morris.
Often, it is an uphill task to determine the jeopardy a defendant might be placed in for an offense he/she is alleged to have committed. In the process of doing so, this process may violate the rights of the defendant depending on the level of interest attached to it. Moreover, the same process or conduct may violate or transgress a variety of statutes defined by the law of the United States of America on murder, manslaughter, or homicide. At the global level, law abstracts are specific and sometimes ambiguous especially when two contradicting acts operate simultaneously at independent levels (Arthur and Shaw, 68). One law may violate another. Where a legislature specifically authorizes cumulative punishment under two statutes, regardless of whether those two statutes proscribe the ‘same’ conduct under Blockburger, a court’s task of statutory construction is at an end and… the trial court or jury may impose cumulative punishment under such statutes in a single trial”(Arthur and Shaw, 87).
However, this clause is flexible to the rule of construction which limits the judiciary from imposing a series of punishments on the same case unless approved by congress (Arthur and Shaw, 182). Supported by the ‘same evidence rule’, it should be noted that Dr. Connor Morris might be a victim of racial hatred by the fact that he is from the minority: blacks, while his client MJ is from the majority group. In the transaction with his client, Connor Morris acted within the constitutional mandate and has been an outstanding medic with a stable mind and a successful career. Besides, the court is limited to passing only one judgment as any claim of collateral attack is based on sympathy and celebrity status of MJ rather than facts within the constitutional rights of Dr. Connor Morris.
Defined in the constitution as the unintentional and unlawful killing of a person, the involuntary slaughter charge is based on the defendant’s negligence, improper care, silence on the right course of action, and practice of wanton inaction or action. In the recidivism enhancement definition, as reported by the Seventh Circuit, involuntary manslaughter is a non-violent crime considering the US sentencing code in Illinois law. Giving an example with the recently concluded case of United States v. Woods, the court was clear on the fact that the perpetrator unwillingly committed murder act despite disregarding unjustifiable and substantial risks (Arthur and Shaw, 458).
Black Americans, just like other minority groups across the states of America, have lived with prejudice, discrimination, and exclusion. As reflected by the statistics since the beginning of this millennium, judgment on this kind of charge has always given defendants from minority groups maximum sentence when found guilty (Arthur and Shaw, 342). For instance, in a brief sentence after the court’s decision in the recently concluded case of involuntary manslaughter, Dr. Murray, Michael Jackson’s doctor made it clear that he had expected maximum sentence since he belonged to the minority class. In the final judgment, Dr. Murray was given the maximum punishment of four years as predicted by analysts who were following the case.
In the case against Connor Morris, It is a fact that MJ’s death was as a result of an overdose of an illegal tranquilizer which was administered under close supervision of his doctor as the protocol for practicing medicine states. Having a personal doctor is a blessing in American families who can afford their fees. Connor Morris in this case has been performing the sole role of maintaining MJ’s life as a medical physician. It is a fact that the two shared a cordial working relationship because MJ recommended him for this job even though he is from a minority group. As a physician, especially a private doctor, the client has invested heavily in him in the belief that this would guarantee the best service providers available in the market. Reflectively, Dr. Connor Morris has been performing this duty diligently with a lot of professionalism. In this context, his decision to be around his client was not guided by the benefits involved but rather a cordial working relationship. However, on a material day, when MJ lost his life, several discrepancies have been noted. In the first instance, the evidence categorically implied that the victim had an overdose of the restricted drug in his blood above the normal count even though Morris’s attorney concur in court that the drug was administered under the supervision of the defendant. Considering the issue of ethics, and the fact that MJ was then sick, that is why he had to take the drug and had subscribed to services of a private doctor, Dr. Connor Morris was careless with his duty. Though Dr. Connor Morris might have warned his client of the harmful effects of this drug, he somehow made it available to him. This is an irony and completely against the medical practice protocols which control the operations of registered doctors (Arthur and Shaw, 335). Why would a personal doctor entrusted with life become this careless? What then was the motive behind this line of action adopted by Dr. Connor Morris? Did Dr. Connor Morris consider the consequence or was he just being casual with a life entrusted to his care?
The evidence provided is very clear that there were some discrepancies against the medical conduct adopted by Dr. Connor Morris, and that is why the case is in the court of law. In the first instance, negligence of this responsibility is part of the evidence for involuntary manslaughter. Irrespective of the circumstances at the time of negligence, the doctor ought to have made it clear to his patient of the Harmful effects of this drug. Besides, the dilemma is how the overdose reached MJ’s blood (Arthur and Shaw, 151). This was not the case since no explanation was offered as far as the court can confirm. This being the second piece of evidence, Dr. Connor Morris has failed to offer a logical explanation though it is within his constitutional rights. In either direction, the case might take, justice to both parties would be the best way to solve this puzzle. Despite having been trusted by MJ to be his doctor, the concept of mistrust cannot be ruled out.
Referring to the recently concluded case involving Dr. Murray, in providing his evidence, the state prosecutor Davis Walgreen presented the jury the argument of collateral damage by asserting that:
For Michael’s children, this case will go on forever, because they do not have a father. Conrad Murray is criminally liable. Justice demands a guilty verdict. Michael Jackson trusted Conrad Murray. He trusted him with his life. He trusted him with his own life and with the future lives of his children. Conrad Murray corrupted that relationship and because of that, Michael Jackson paid with his life (Ruda, BBC news).
The judgment adopted this line of action and Dr. Murray’s medical practicing certificate was withdrawn and he was sentenced to a maximum possible period of four years.
In the case against Dr. Connor Morris, his attorneys presented the argument that Morris, as an African-American faces a greater statistical chance of conviction and capital sentence than an Anglo-American doctor would, and this, therefore, violates his protections under the Fourteenth Amendment to equal protection of the law. They do not contend that any given official has exhibited racial animus, but instead that the system itself tends to generate racially-biased outcomes.
Though the prosecution may find a case against Dr. Connor Morris, some issues are unclear and function on ambiguity. Thus, the court should reflect on the following before deciding on the weight of punishment on Dr. Connor Morris, who in my opinion is guilty of negligence as a contributory factor to the death of MJ. First and foremost, the constitution of America is clear in defining the rights of every citizen. In the process of finding justice, it is essential to note that this should not infringe the rights of both the victim and the accused. Since Doctor Connor Morris is a low-risk citizen he should be detained in a house arrest arrangement in line with the new California state regulating overcrowding in jails. As presented before the court, Dr, Connor Morris has had a clean record with the homeland security and relationships as testified by the girlfriend of a previous relationship who described him as a man of stable mind and high morals. Also, it is of essence to put into consideration the class of both the victim and the defendant before deciding on the type of punishment to be accorded (Ruda, BBC news).
Doctor Connor Morris is a person of reputation who has had a successful career alongside keeping a stable family reflecting on his age of 58 years. Considering that he comes from the minority group in America: the negro group, and the victim from the majority: white, the weight of the judgment should never be swayed by emotions nor be subject to the past and present, but hidden discrimination tendencies as feared by Dr. Murray. In a brief statement after the verdict, though found with a case to answer, he has expressed genuine concern through his lawyer on the course the case would have taken had he been a white and the victim black. Dr. Connor Morris’ attorney asserts that judgment based on race would “therefore violate his protections under the Fourteenth Amendment to equal protection of the law. They do not contend that any given official has exhibited racial animus, but instead that the system itself tends to generate racially-biased outcomes.” Even though this is not part of the case, the jury should consider the current statistics on cases involving Anglo-American and African-American doctors. On the claim of any collateral damage, the court should consider the amendments on chapter fourteen which limits any intention of a judge to pass two different judgments for a single case. In my opinion, the collateral damage is the victim who in the process of the crime lost his life (Arthur and Shaw, 423). Reviewing the fact that,
Where a legislature specifically authorizes cumulative punishment under two statutes, regardless of whether those two statutes proscribe the ‘same’ conduct under Blockburger, a court’s task of statutory construction is at an end and… the trial court or jury may impose cumulative punishment under such statutes in a single trial (Arthur and Shaw, 423) and not as independent of each other.
As reflected in the past decade statistics, and also as expected by many analysts who are following the case, it is feared that racism might overshadow the weight of judgment. Though this is subject to debate, the past court ruling on more or less the same case took different directions depending on the class of the plaintiff and that of the defendant. Where the plaintiff was black and the accused white, the weight of the judgment was always minimal especially when the defendant was a low-risk citizen. However, this direction often changed when the victim was white and the accused from a minority group despite the constitutional clause on equality and equal rights to a free and fair trial (Arthur and Shaw, 151). In my opinion, considering the stability and records of the defendant, and the circumstantial evidence presented before this court of law, it is only fair to note that no one can prove that Dr. Connor Morris was the one who administered the prescription to the victim represented though he admitted supervisory roles in MJ’s treatment. Also, it is a fact that the two have had a stable and cordial working relationship, confirmed by the commitment above celebrity status and class in terms of skin color. Therefore, the court should suspend the medical practicing certificate for the minimum period possible concurring with the punishment and not deregister Dr. Connor Morris from practicing medicine in America considering that there are many other Americans whose rights will be infringed. These include his patients, family members, and the government of America, who needs his services.
Conclusively, in my opinion, after having considered the circumstances before, at the time, and after the crime committed, Dr. Connor Morris is guilty of professional negligence which contributed to the death of MJ. However, this is based on circumstantial evidence. Besides, should the court find it wise to cancel his practicing certificate, Connor Morris would no longer be a threat to citizens of America since he would not have the legal authority to offer medical services. In addition, the crime was a result of an involuntary occurrence that doesn’t touch on the morals and ethical values of the accused. Since Dr. Connor Morris is from the minority grouping, and the victim from the majority, emotions should be kept out of the case. Rather, reasoning and sincerity should control the process as part of the decision making criterion. Therefore, the judgment should operate on these revelations rather than emotions and the intensity of public interest the case has drawn.
Works Cited
Arthur, John and Shaw William. Readings in the Philosophy of Law. 5th Ed. New Jersey: Prentice Hall, 2009. Print.
Ruda, Steve. “Paramedic on Jackson 911 calls,” BBC News, 2009.