J, Michael Flanagan FILED | FLANAGAN, UNGER & GROVER ; * | 150 N Brand Boulevard tele creuace eect Glendale, California 91202 2 || Telephone: 818/244-8694 JAN Dg 2012 Atlomeys for Defendant SPINA CLANE BONE REERELERK 5 | 6 7 5 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 7 FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES a0 21 || THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ) Case No.: $A073164 2 || CALIFORNIA ) Plaintiff, ) NOTICE OF MOTION FOR a3 YI. ) DISCOVERY FOR RESTITUTION _ ) HEARING; MEMORANDUM CONRAD MURRAY, ) a5 ) Date: pervs 997 2 a Defendant, ) Time /gi39 Am ) Dept: el geeceees /0°7 1s TO THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA AND ITS COUNS RECORD: 20 NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that off, /&, 2012 at 8:30 a.m. o soon 21 || thereafter as the matter may be heard in the curtroom of Department /O of the above- 22 | entitled court, Defendant, DR, CONRAD MURRAY, through his attorney will move this 23 |} court for an order for discovery so that the defense can properly prepare for the restitution 24 || hearing. as ‘This motion requests that the trial court order discovery, from the evidence that 26 || was admitted in trial. The defendant wants to analyze the residual substance, contained 27 |i within the 100 ml Propofol bottle identified as People’s Exhibit number 30. ae [if i NOTION FOR DISCOVERY25 26 28 ‘The motion will be based on this notice of motion, the supporting Memorandum o| Points and Authorities, and the Declaration of attomey J, Michae] Flanagan and such evidence as may be presented at the hearing of the motion. / Date:\_/ ew i QO Respectfully submitted, eae UNGER & GR¢ J. Michael Flayifgan Attorney for Ifr. Murray MOTION FOR DISCOVERY10 a 2 a u ay ae 19 20 a 22 23 24 as 27 28 MEMORANDUM STATEMENT OF THE CASE On November 7, 2011, a jury found Dr. Conrad Murray guilty of a violation of Penal Code section 192, subdivision (b), involuntary manslaughter. During the course of the criminal jury trial complex legal and medical issues were at the heart of the adversarial process. Dr. Murray was sentenced on November 29, 2011, and a restitution hearing was scheduled for January 23, 2012. PREVIOUS REQUEST FOR DISCOVERY On November 21, 2011, the defense asked this court for permission to analyze Exhibit number 30, the 100 ml. Propofol boitle, prior to sentencing, which request was denied. Now that the court has determined to have a hearing, i.e. restitution, the new issue of comparative fault has arisen and the defense believes the new analysis is relevant for comparative allocation of responsibility. RESTITUTION Pursuant to the California Constitution, Article I, Section 28 subdivision (b), as implemented by Penal Code section 1202.4, trial courts, in imposing sentence or in granting probation, the court must make specified orders concerning restitution to victims unless the court finds compelling and extraordinary reasons not to. People v. Clifton, (1985) 172 Cal.App.3d 1165, In restitution hearings a prima facie case can be made for restitution through the victim’s testimony, claims, or statements about the amount of economic loss. When the People make their prima facie showing of economic loss suffered by the vietim(s) the burden shifts to the defendant to demonstrate the loss is different than that claimed by the victim(s). People v. Prosser, (2007) 157 Cal.App.4th 682, 690-691 The standard of proof| ata restitution hearing is by a preponderance of the evidence, People v. Baker, (2005) 126 Cal.App 4th 463, 46: n, (1985) 176 Cal, App.3d 67, 80 Mt People v. Bawmai 3 MOTION FoR DIscovERY