Following his comments yesterday regarding the possibility the prosecution may not meet the burden of proof, today Judge Perry questioned the application of current California law used to prosecute Eroshevich, Kapoor and Stern. Although Perry decided the trial will move forward, he said that “he did not realize until researching the law on Tuesday night that the California Legislature changed the definition of an addict after most of the incidents the three are accused of allegedly happened.” Perry indicated the guidelines on prescribing drugs for pain relief have changed since 2006 as well as understanding of the critical role prescription medication can play in treatment. According to the defense, Smith’s drug use occurred because of chronic pain and emotional effects from her son, Daniel’s death.
Reports indicate the trial will last at least another two weeks. More to come tomorrow!
Bookmark to
This entry was posted
on Wednesday, September 1st, 2010 at 5:11 am and is filed under Uncategorized.
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
9 Responses to “Criminal Trial of Co-Defendants Stern, Kapoor & Eroshevich: Day Twenty Two”
Janice, could you offer an explanation as to how the judge’s comments about the defination of an addict changing might affect the case. Does this mean that since most of the overt acts occurred before the definition changed that this is a blow to the defense? And that since 2006 doctors can prescribe pain medications to know addicts without being held criminally responsible?
The drugs Dr. Khris prescribed were mostly for anti anxiety and sleep so I guess she cannot use the pain defense?
I also find it very unusual to hear reports of judges criticizing the prosecution like this one has. Of course, we are not watching video but the reports coming out sure sound odd…..
Thank you for your comment Napoli. Yes, there are many unusual circumstances surrounding this case, as well as all the other cases related to Anna Nicole Smith and/or her estate. I don’t believe the change in definition of an addict will have much bearing on the overall picture. It is the behavior of the defendants that is central-not the behavior of the deceased. As far as the comment by Judge Perry, that he failed to research the law before allowing this case to go to trial when there was a somewhat lengthy preliminary hearing last year, I am just as surprised as you! Another unusual and interesting detail is that these doctors have not been sued by the Estate of Anna Nicole Smith for medical malpractice in a civil court despite experts who have testified it was well below the standard of care to prescribe what equates to a pharmaceutical death. The defendants are charged with conspiracy relating to how the deadly drugs got to her, and soon enough we shall see whether the jury finds that the evidence warrants conviction against these defendants.”
A link to the charges against the three defendants can be found at http://www.aolcdn.com/tmz_documents/0313_ans_complaint.swf. Readers, what is your opinion? Do you believe elements of those crimes have been met? I would be interested in your thoughts.
Birkhead cannot sue anybody because he gave Anna drugs as well. Anna’s bodyguard “Big Moe” said during preliminary hearing in Oct. 2009 that Birkhead gave Anna ecstasy, cocaine, alcohol. Birkhead said under oath during body custody trial that he intentionally impregnated Anna though he knew she was heavily medicated on sedatives and methadone. What kind of a man whould want to impregnate a heavily medicated woman $$ People who think that Birkhead is a “knight in a shining armor” are in deep trouble.
I agree, the estate of which Howard Stern is executor will never sue for wrongful death or malpractice. Larry Birkhead and Howard Stern made a deal when the paternity was in question.
It also looks like Ford Shelly who “recanted” previous testimony yesterday has made a deal. He is being sued by the estate…. wonder when that lawsuit will be dropped… Would this be considered witness tampering?
I would have no problem convicting these three based on the warrant information, I am appalled that the doctors still have licenses, but I have not sat in court and listened to the judge tell the prosecutors what a bad job they are doing either….or heard these prosecution witnesses change their tune to defense witness and “recant” previous testimony and media statments Most of the reports are scanty AP or ET paid interviews so I appreciate your unbiased legal analysis.
Ms Brenman, unfortunately, because we cannot depend on the reporting of Linda Deutsch, and because there is no other reporter giving the public DETAILS about the events and actions occuring in court, there’s no way for a layperson to know if the elements of the crimes have been met. Those of us who have followed the events of Anna’s life and death closely since Sept. 2006, know that the prosecutor had adequate evidence to accuse and prosecute all three. We don’t know what Sadow has gotten restricted or removed. We do know that some of the witnesses for the prosecution are now lying under oath and it’s being allowed. I believe the judge is suppressing the witnesses testimony, forcing them to testify to slightly less than actually occured, which should be a crime in itself. We can only hope that the jury “gets” what is being attempted and looks at all available facts.
I invite you to share your comments and welcome debate and differing viewpoints. Please note that comments submitted are moderated, and will be reviewed but not edited. I ask that the conversation be kept civil, and that commenters honor the following guidelines:
No baseless attacks that identify individuals, companies, or other organizations.
No discriminatory, defamatory, offensive, libelous, threatening or rude language.
No comments especially long ones, posted on multiple sites for propaganda purposes.
No invasion of privacy; no racially, ethnically or otherwise objectionable language.
No material in violation of trademark or copyright laws or other laws.
No irrelevant comments that do not address the topic in the blog post.
No spam, flaming, flooding, advertisements or solicitations.
Janice, could you offer an explanation as to how the judge’s comments about the defination of an addict changing might affect the case. Does this mean that since most of the overt acts occurred before the definition changed that this is a blow to the defense? And that since 2006 doctors can prescribe pain medications to know addicts without being held criminally responsible?
The drugs Dr. Khris prescribed were mostly for anti anxiety and sleep so I guess she cannot use the pain defense?
I also find it very unusual to hear reports of judges criticizing the prosecution like this one has. Of course, we are not watching video but the reports coming out sure sound odd…..
Thank you.
I agree. I’d like to hear Ms Brenman’s opinion of the freakin’ judge in this JURY trial.
Thank you for your comment Napoli. Yes, there are many unusual circumstances surrounding this case, as well as all the other cases related to Anna Nicole Smith and/or her estate. I don’t believe the change in definition of an addict will have much bearing on the overall picture. It is the behavior of the defendants that is central-not the behavior of the deceased. As far as the comment by Judge Perry, that he failed to research the law before allowing this case to go to trial when there was a somewhat lengthy preliminary hearing last year, I am just as surprised as you! Another unusual and interesting detail is that these doctors have not been sued by the Estate of Anna Nicole Smith for medical malpractice in a civil court despite experts who have testified it was well below the standard of care to prescribe what equates to a pharmaceutical death. The defendants are charged with conspiracy relating to how the deadly drugs got to her, and soon enough we shall see whether the jury finds that the evidence warrants conviction against these defendants.”
A link to the charges against the three defendants can be found at http://www.aolcdn.com/tmz_documents/0313_ans_complaint.swf. Readers, what is your opinion? Do you believe elements of those crimes have been met? I would be interested in your thoughts.
stern isn’t going to sue the dr.’s and he for sure isn’t going to sue himself.
brickhead made a deal with the devil. If he cared one whit about DL or her mother he would have sued stern and the drs.
Yes, they are all 3 guilty as charged and all 3 should lose their licenses.
And I am ticked that FL did NOTHING. perper should be forced to retire, he is a buffoon.
Birkhead cannot sue anybody because he gave Anna drugs as well. Anna’s bodyguard “Big Moe” said during preliminary hearing in Oct. 2009 that Birkhead gave Anna ecstasy, cocaine, alcohol. Birkhead said under oath during body custody trial that he intentionally impregnated Anna though he knew she was heavily medicated on sedatives and methadone. What kind of a man whould want to impregnate a heavily medicated woman $$ People who think that Birkhead is a “knight in a shining armor” are in deep trouble.
I agree, the estate of which Howard Stern is executor will never sue for wrongful death or malpractice. Larry Birkhead and Howard Stern made a deal when the paternity was in question.
It also looks like Ford Shelly who “recanted” previous testimony yesterday has made a deal. He is being sued by the estate…. wonder when that lawsuit will be dropped… Would this be considered witness tampering?
I would have no problem convicting these three based on the warrant information, I am appalled that the doctors still have licenses, but I have not sat in court and listened to the judge tell the prosecutors what a bad job they are doing either….or heard these prosecution witnesses change their tune to defense witness and “recant” previous testimony and media statments Most of the reports are scanty AP or ET paid interviews so I appreciate your unbiased legal analysis.
Ms Brenman, unfortunately, because we cannot depend on the reporting of Linda Deutsch, and because there is no other reporter giving the public DETAILS about the events and actions occuring in court, there’s no way for a layperson to know if the elements of the crimes have been met. Those of us who have followed the events of Anna’s life and death closely since Sept. 2006, know that the prosecutor had adequate evidence to accuse and prosecute all three. We don’t know what Sadow has gotten restricted or removed. We do know that some of the witnesses for the prosecution are now lying under oath and it’s being allowed. I believe the judge is suppressing the witnesses testimony, forcing them to testify to slightly less than actually occured, which should be a crime in itself. We can only hope that the jury “gets” what is being attempted and looks at all available facts.
It seems to me that these defendants are no better than common street dealers.
i agree with Janice…conspiracy is the one ingredient in this whole bowl of soup.