Conrad Murray Case: Could New Evidence Help His Appeal?

Conrad Murray filed court documents on Monday in an attempt to have the judge deny prosecutors full restitution.

The court documents allegedly ask for the judge to release evidence that could ultimately support Murray's theory that Michael Jackson caused his own death, according to TMZ.

Throughout his trial, Murray argued that the 50-year-old "King of Pop" self-administered the fatal dose of propofol, a medical drug regularly used for anesthesia.

Murray, 58, was convicted of involuntary manslaughter for the death of Jackson in November, but his lawyers insist on proving Jackson contributed to his own death, which will likely impact the restitution.

Prosecutors are demanding that Murray, whose medical license was recently suspended, pay approximately $100 million in restitution for the Jackson family's loss.

Michael Flanagan, one of Murray's lawyers, insists that determining Jackson's responsibility for his own death is important for the judge prior to determining the amount of restitution.

Due to his conviction, Murray must accept partial responsibility for Jackson's death. His lawyers, however, are confident that the evidence, which they allegedly never received during the trial, will help reduce the proposed restitution amount.

Sources are speculating that if Murray's team succeeds in proving that Jackson was half responsible, the judge could reduce the restitution amount by up to 50 percent.

Back in November, Murray's lawyers expressed their disappointment with their client's "guilty" verdict, and Murray has since filed an appeal.

Murray's appeal attorney Nareg Gourjian, who represented him during the trial, told TMZ that "Dr. Murray is confident that the Court of Appeal will vindicate him."

While Michael Jackson fans have displayed overwhelming support in favor of Murray's conviction, critics have not fully agreed thus far.

Some have argued that the father of seven was unfairly targeted as a scapegoat to conceal Jackson's alleged addiction to prescription drugs, but the jurors have insisted that their decision was fair and in accordance with the law.