John K. Pierson ESQ.
PIERSON FIRM
|
|
Spector Heading towards Mistrial, Both Sides Set Up for Possible New Trial
September 21st, 2007
New instructions to break deadlock issued that will also make it easier to challenge any verdict
By Stacey Silberman and Jeffrey Jolson
HOLLYWOOD, CA (Hollywood Today) 9/21/07 – With a mistrial resulting from a hung jury on the horizon, both sides and even the judge in the Phil Spector murder case are hoping for closure but prepping for a second trial.
HOLLYWOOD, CA (Hollywood Today) 9/21/07 – With a mistrial resulting from a hung jury on the horizon, both sides and even the judge in the Phil Spector murder case are hoping for closure but prepping for a second trial.
The defense already has an appellate attorney involved in the case, speaking to Judge Larry Paul Fidler in case of a conviction. The prosecution is angling for the conviction now, but is arguing points of law that may be too late to break the 7-5 jury impasse. Plus the DA would likely re-try the case anyway in the event of a mistrial. “They would re-try Spector because someone is dead,” surmised observing attorney John Pierson.
Even the patient and intelligent judge, now visibly tense and occasionally angry, is scrambling to re-instruct the jury and cover himself in an appeals court, backpedaling on what he characterized as an “absolute error” in the way he first presented the defense-drafted instructions to the jury on reasonable doubt.
All of which will make it very easy for either side to re-try the case no matter which way the Spector Trial Part One ends up.
Judge Fidler admitted that he made an error in the wording of special pinpoint instruction number three, which was proposed by the defense and vehemently objected to by the prosecution.
But Judge Fidler ruled in favor of the defense and included the confusing language in the special instruction.
After listening to jurors during a question and answer session yesterday, Fidler realized jurors were interpreting the instruction incorrectly. Some panelists admitted they were confused about the law and misunderstood the burden of proof element needed for a verdict.
Special Instruction Number Three read: “As I have instructed you, to be guilty of the crime of which the defendant is accused, second degree murder, the defendant must have committed an act that caused the death of Lana Clarkson. It is the prosecution’s contention that the act committed by the defendant that caused the death of Ms. Clarkson was to point a gun at her, which resulted in that gun entering Ms. Clarkson’s mouth while in Mr. Spector’s hand. The prosecution bears the burden of proving that Defendant Spector committed the act. If you do not find that the prosecution has proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant committed that act, you must return a verdict of not guilty,” as read by judge Fidler before deliberations began.
In accordance with yesterday’s ruling, Judge Fidler withdrew the old instruction and gave the deadlocked jury a new two-page instruction. He told jurors that to prove Spector guilty of second-degree murder, prosecutors must prove that he “committed an act with a firearm that caused the death of Lana Clarkson, such as placing a gun in her mouth or forcing her to place the gun in her mouth at which time it discharged, pointing the gun at her to prevent her from leaving the house or causing a struggle which resulted the gun entering her mouth and discharging.”
The judge warned jurors that “By using these examples I am not suggesting that any of these acts took place. These are inferences you may draw from the evidence but are not required to do so. You may reject them. These are only possibilities that you may consider,” Fidler said.
The judge went on to counsel jurors that to convict, the act by the defendant must be more than “drawing or exhibiting a firearm in the presence of Lana Clarkson in a rude, angry or threatening manner” and that he is required to have a state of mind called “malice aforethought,” which does not require hatred or ill-will toward the victim.
Defense attorney Bradley Brunon objected to the scenarios given by the judge to the jury, which only gave credence to the prosecution’s argument and gave nothing for the defense. Brunon asked, “Why don’t we give them (jurors) equivalent scenarios.”
The infuriated judge warned the defense that they were welcome to re-argue the case if they were concerned.
Spector attorneys fervently objected to the fact that Fidler gave these new instructions, which turn defense arguments against itself. Defense attorneys argued that they presented scientific evidence indicating that the actress pulled the trigger either intentionally or unintentionally herself.
District attorneys for the case maintained the judge’s position on grounds that there was ample evidence to support such a scenario. Judge Fidler agreed that “it’s a reasonable inference that can be drawn,”
The judge encouraged jurors to have an open mind and listen to each other’s positions during final deliberations.
According to reports, he alluded to a California legal precedent called People vs. Moore. It’s a law that apparently supports the change of instruction during jury deliberations.
Prominent Century City attorney John K. Pierson said in response to this issue that, “It’s very hard to un-ring that bell, because the judge is injecting himself into the jury deliberations, by signaling to them through the change in the jury instruction that there is more than one way to find Spector guilty of second degree murder.”
“If Spector is found guilty, then his defense team should interview the jurors and determine, how the change in jury instruction affected their deliberations,” Pierson told Hollywood Today. “Based on the conclusion of those discussions, it could provide the basis, for a motion of a new trial.”
“If the judge made a mistake, he should declare a mistrial,” said Pierson. If the judge does not declare a mistrial and the panel returns with a hung jury, “the prosecution will have the option to re-try Spector. My supposition is that they would re-try him because someone is dead.”
Defense attorneys are wary of rulings such as this. “My feeling is that it is certainly cause for concern. You don’t want a situation where a judge is directing a verdict or jury in any way. He has the authority to clarify jury instruction, but you get into very shaky territory as to whether or not he’s directing a verdict,” said Sherman Oaks defense attorney Alison Triessl.
Ms. Triessl did comment that this situation may be slightly different, because it is a “special pinpoint instruction” that was proposed by the defense.
Ms. Triessl has tried a murder case in the past that required the judge to reinstruct the jury after reaching an impasse. Within several hours after the correction, the defendant was convicted. “The case was not appealed,” said Triessl to HT.
The panel of nine men and three women only deliberated on Thursday for about an hour after Fidler withdrew and introduced the new instruction. They had already invested seven long days (28 hours), when the case came to an abrupt halt on Tuesday.
With a seven to five split now on the table, it’s anyone’s guess as to whether the jury will come through with a unanimous decision.
Jurors have been in court for over five month listening to complicated testimony that included over 75 witnesses and upwards of 500 pieces of evidence.
Hopefully, the jury can agree as to whether 40-year old Clarkson commit accidental or intentional suicide or whether 67-year old Spector, the eccentric gun-toting music mogul committed accidental murder on the night of February 3, 2003, in his Alhambra castle.
|
|
Los Angeles Address
2049 Century Park East, Suite 2100
Los Angeles, CA 90067
|
Telephone (310) 826-8009
Telefax (310) 943-2628
|
Minnesota Address
4900 IDS Tower
80 South 8th Street
Minneapolis, MN 55402
|
Contact John Pierson | JKP@Piersonfirm.com
|
|