The Wall Of Sound Remains Unbreached -
Robert Hillburn/LA Times on Mick Brown's "book"
Eu penso que eu matei alguém
'I think I killed somebody'
Mick Brown
12:04AM GMT 12 Mar 2007
Audio: The Spector Tapes
Later this month, Phil Spector, one of pop music's greatest producers, creator of the Wall of Sound and records such as You've Lost That Lovin' Feelin', will stand trial in Los Angeles for the murder of B-movie actress Lana Clarkson.
The long-delayed case is certain to rival the O J Simpson trial in terms of courtroom drama, a hearing that will shine a light into the darkest corners of a life touched by genius, but afflicted by insecurity, failed relationships, heavy drinking, an obsession with guns and explosive losses of temper.
I TEND TO DOUBT IT WILL RIVAL OJ BUT DOMINICK DUNNE'S COVERAGE HERE IS PATHETIC. FAILED RELATIONSHIPS? WELL, THERE WAS VERONICA SPECTOR WHO EVIDENTLY
WASN'T AN APPROPRIATE WITNESS FOR THE DA. ODD. NEITHER WAS DEBORAH HARRY. STRANGE. MARKY RAMONE. RETRACTED THE STORIES. LEONARD COHEN. GOOD ENOUGH FOR THE GRAND JURY BUT NOT A JURY TRIAL? SEEMS SUSPECT. I'VE NEVER SEEN PHILLIP DRINK HEAVILY. HE HAS NO OBSESSION WITH GUNS BUT THE GOLD DIGGERS UNDERSTAND HOW THE SYSTEM WORKS - CALL A COP, LIE, HAVE THEM TAKE A REPORT, AND - WHEN NECESSARY - HEAD INTO COURT. OF COURSE THESE GOLD DIGGERS FORGOT TO FILE REPORTS AT THE TIME SO THEY ARE PROBABLY ENTIRELY FRAUDULENT AND FICTIONAL. THIS LINE OF THINKING WILL NOT WORK FOR MICK BROWN'S BOOK OR THE ANGLE HE APPEARS TO BE TAKING.
In the Saturday magazine, we published the first exclusive extract from Mick Brown's new biography of Spector, in which he traced the origins of his demons and dreams. In this compelling second instalment, he examines the events leading up to Lana's death - a death, Spector claims, that was the result of accident or suicide.
THE TELEGRAPH IS CLEAR ABOUT THEIR MOTIVE AND ATTEMPTING TO HELP MICK BROWN SELL BOOKS AT THE SAME TIME. THEY APPEAR TO KNOW LANA PERSONALLY BUT NOT
SPECTOR. NOT ONLY DOES SPECTOR CLAIM IT WAS AN ACCIDENT OR SUICIDE - IT WAS. INCONVENIENT AND GETS IN THE WAY OF SALACIOUS REPORTING ON THE PART OF THE TELEGRAPH.
It's an old axiom that actresses die twice in Hollywood, the first time around their mid-thirties, when they can no longer pretend to play young.
Related Articles
I WOULD ASSUME THAT WHEN YOU'RE OVER 40 AND NEVER REALLY HAD A CAREER YOU MIGHT WANT TO GIVE UP THE ILLUSION THAT YOU'RE AN ACTRESS.
10 March 2007: Mick Brown: Spector's dreams and demons
12 Mar 2007
8 February 2005: The Spector Trial
12 Mar 2007
At the age of 40, Lana Clarkson, an actress who had appeared in 15 movies and countless TV shows, had hit a lean time in her career, and was trying to get back on her feet.
PRIMARILY BARBARIAN QUEEN. NOT SURE THAT'S A MOVIE, HOWEVER.
For Lana, 2002 had been a particularly difficult year. The roles that had made her a minor cult star in her twenties, and sustained her through her early thirties, had all but dried up.
She had been named after the Hollywood movie star Lana Turner, a fact that seemed to set her destiny in stone.
Growing up in California's Napa Valley, she dreamt of being an entertainer, and when the family moved to Los Angeles in 1978, when Lana was 16, she began a career in acting and modelling.
DID MICK BROWN FIND THE STORY I DID - ABOUT LANA CLARKSON'S FAMILY LIVING IN A COMMUNE IN CALIFORNIA WHERE SHE WAS FED THE MEAT OF HER CHILDHOOD PONY?
SOUNDS LIKE PEOPLE WERE ON LSD AT THAT COMMUNE.
At 20 she made her film debut in Fast Times at Ridgemont High, playing the role of a geekish schoolteacher's improbably beautiful wife. She had one line of dialogue: "Hi..."
SO DID REBECCA DEMORNAY - COHEN'S INCREDIBLY ANNOYING EX.
Her big break came in 1985, in Barbarian Queen, as Amethea, a warrior in a fur leotard, leading a slave uprising.
I DON'T KNOW IF I WOULD VIEW THIS AS A BIG BREAK. IT LOOKED LIKE IT MIGHT BE AN ENTRY TO THE PORN INDUSTRY.
It was a part the statuesque Lana seemed made for, and became the passport to a succession of similarly low-budget films, such as Amazon Women on the Moon and The Empress Strikes Back, which brought her a large and devoted fan base.
Semi-nudity was an almost obligatory requirement of such films, but Lana was never comfortable with it. ]
SURE. DID SOMEONE HOLD A GUN TO HER HEAD?
According to her friend, the celebrity hairstylist Eric Root, Lana "wanted to be a superstar. And she was gorgeous enough."
BEAUTY'S RELATIVE AND WHAT ELSE WOULD HER HAIRDRESSER SAY? HE WAS PART OF HER IMAGE.
Her dream of fame is the oldest story in Hollywood. She worshipped the twin doomed deities of Elvis and Marilyn Monroe, and collected Monroe memorabilia, covering her walls with pictures of the star.
ACTUALLY CORRUPTION AND LA CONFIDENTIAL STORIES ARE SOME OF THE OLDEST IN HOLLYWOOD. ELVIS AND MARILYN WEREN'T DEITIES AND NEITHER IS JIHAD GIANELLI'S
DOG WHO SHITS OR VOMITS ON PUJAS AND HAS IT OUT FOR SHARMAPA - ANOTHER TARGET OF MICK BROWN'S WHO KNOWS NOTHING ABOUT THE 16TH KARMAPA. WHY WOULD THE
16TH KARMAPA LEAVE TIBET WITHOUT ONE OF THE SINGULAR MOST IMPORTANT ITEMS IN HIS LIFE - THE BLACK CROWN? ONLY A LIAR OR IDIOT WOULD BELIEVE THIS.
"This is not to imply that I wish to live the sort of lonely and narcotics-shrouded existence she did," she wrote on her website. "What I love about her is her essence, her work and her commitment to it."
UNFORTUNATELY, SHE DID LEAD THE LIFE OF SOMEONE SHROUNDED IN DRUGS AND ALCOHOL.
Lana knew everybody. She was said to have dated Jack Nicholson and Warren Beatty.
WELL, NOT SURE WHAT TO THINK HERE. YOU'RE SO VAIN COMES TO MIND HOWEVER.
Answering fans' queries on her website, Lana was careful not to give too much of herself away - "I prefer to keep my love life private!" she wrote in one posting, then hinted teasingly at revelations to come.
HOW ABOUT HER BABY DOLL GIBSON TRYSTS? HER LOVE AFFAIR WITH RAUL LEVY WHO SAID SHE PLAYED KINKY SEX GAMES WITH GUNS AND TRIED TO THROW HERSELF OFF A BALCONY IN FRONT OF HIM? DIDN'T MICK BROWN GOOGLE THESE
THINGS? WHY DID BROWN THINK THE JUDGE GAGGED GIBSON AND EVERYONE WITH A SENSE OF DECENCY?
"As far as past relationships, there have been some great loves (some of them famous), but you'll have to read about them in my book. That won't be completed for a couple of years yet."
WOW! NOT RELATIONSHIPS WITH FAMOUS PEOPLE. FOR THE RECORD, I WAS NOT LEONARD COHEN'S LOVER. UNFORTUNATELY, I MUST NOW WRITE A BOOK. I WANT TO SET
THE RECORD STRAIGHT FOR MY CHILDREN. AND, IF POSSIBLE, I WANT TO HELP MY DEAR FRIEND PHIL SPECTOR. I ALSO NEVER HAD SEX WITH OLIVER STONE EVEN THOUGH LEONARD COHEN HAS ACCUSED ME OF DOING THAT - HIS FIRST LINE OF DEFENSE WHEN HE HEARD I WAS REPORTING HIS TAX FRAUD TO THE IRS.
By the mid-1990s, Lana's film and television career was on the wane and she would say that nowadays she considered herself a comedienne.
THIS VIDEO OF HER AS LITTLE RICHARD COULD ACTUALLY PROVE HOW SERIOUS HER DRUG PROBLEM WAS. ONLY THE LOST ANGELES DISTRICT LUNATIC WOULD ATTEMPT TO
GLAMORIZE THIS SITUATION.
She devised a stand-up routine, developing a range of comic characters, along the lines of Tracey Ullman, and started working small comedy clubs. Lana's shows were always full. But in the absence of acting roles, she needed something else.
WHERE WERE HER SOLD OUT SHOWS? WHAT ELSE DOES SHE NEED? RIGHT - VICODIN.
In December 2002 she applied for a job as hostess at the House of Blues on the Sunset Strip, across from the Chateau Marmont Hotel. The Foundation Room, or VIP lounge, of HOB is frequented by high rollers from the rock and film worlds. Membership costs $1,000 (£500) a year; champagne, $250 a bottle.
LOTS OF EXCESS IN HOLLYWOOD AND YET PHILLIP IS DEMONIZED FOR HELPING WAITRESSES BY LEAVING THEM EXTREMELY GENEROUS TIPS THAT ANYONE WOULD APPRECIATE.
It wasn't Lana's first choice for a job but she told friends she enjoyed the work, and was optimistic it would lead to better things. "I am going to meet people," she told one friend. "And it might get me another job."
WHAT WAS HER FIRST CHOICE FOR A JOB? MAYBE GOING HOME WITH PHIL SPECTOR WOULD HELP HER GET ANOTHER JOB. SHE CLEARLY THINKS LIKE THAT.
She worked from 6pm until 2am. It was 1.45am on February 3 when Phil Spector walked in. The details of what occurred would emerge during the next two years, from a combination of police evidence, the coroner's report and testimony to a grand jury.
THE DETAILS DIDN'T EMERGE. THE POLICE REPORTS ARE DERANGED AND SOUND LIKE THEY THOUGHT THEY WERE STORMING THE BASTILLE. AH, THE GRAND JURY. MICK
BROWN KNOWS - LEONARD COHEN TESTIFIED AGAINST PHIL SPECTOR. I GUESS BROWN WAS UNABLE TO GOOGLE ALL THE VERSIONS OF COHEN'S STORIES - INCLUDING THE ONE WHERE HE'S BITING INTO REVOLVERS IN HAMBURGERS IN A DARK PERIOD.
At a few minutes before 7pm on February 2, Adriano De Souza, Spector's stand-in driver, arrived at the producer's secluded home, the Alhambra castle.
HOW SECLUDED WAS HIS HOME? SOUNDS SO MYSTERIOUS.
Spector had a dinner date with a woman friend, Romy Davis. Two hours later, Spector dropped Davis off at her home and returned to the restaurant - he had made another assignation with a waitress, Kathy Sullivan.
DID PHILLIP MAKE AN ASSIGNATION? HOW ODD.
They ended up at the House of Blues, arriving at 1.30am. According to the police, Spector had been drinking at each stop along the way, consuming three, possibly four, daiquiri cocktails as well as two Navy Grog cocktails, each containing three shots of different kinds of rum.
WAS IT THREE OR FOUR? DID HE FINISH THEM? DO WE HAVE PHOTOGRAPHS OF THIS? VIDEO FOOTAGE? OVER HOW MANY HOURS? HOW ABOUT CLARKSON'S TEQUILLA CONSUMPTION? THAT SOUNDED FAIRLY HEAVY.
Lana was waiting at her post at the entrance of the Foundation Room to greet new arrivals.
THE HOUSE OF BLUES SHOULD INVESTIGATE THE BACKGROUND OF ITS EMPLOYEES.
There was a moment's confusion; Lana did not know or recognise Spector and initially refused to let him into the members-only area.
SHE REALIZED WHO HE WAS FAIRLY QUICKLY.
Spector began to complain loudly, and another House of Blues employee, Euphrates Lalondriz, came to smooth things over, telling Lana who Spector was and that he was to be treated "like Dan Ackroyd - like gold". (Ackroyd has a share in the club.)
WHO WOULDN'T COMPLAIN? I TRIED TO LEAVE THE VIP ROOM. MY EX-HUSBAND AND I WERE THERE, AT THE INVITATION OF THE REGGAE PERFORMER WHO WANTED TO SPEAK
TO HIM ABOUT PRODUCING HIS ALBUM, WHEN I DECIDED TO LEAVE. I HEADED FOR THE EXIT SIGN AND SOME INSANE BOUNCER STARTED AN ARGUMENT WITH US. LINDSEY NEARLY HIT HIM. I ASKED FOR THE MANAGER, EXPLAINED WHO WE WERE, AND WAS OFFERED A LIFE TIME MEMBERSHIP. IT WAS AND REMAINS A PSYCHOTIC EPISODE.
Spector ordered a shot of Bacardi 151 rum "straight up". When Kathy Sullivan ordered only water, Spector grew angry, telling her to "get a f****** drink". Sullivan, who had been complaining of tiredness, refused and Spector told her: "That's it - you're going home."
ST I SEE PHILIP HAD IT WITH KATHY.
Spector called for Lana and told her to walk Sullivan to his car and tell De Souza to take her home, then return to collect Spector. He had purchased an $8.50 alcoholic drink and a $5 water and left a tip of $450. After settling the bill, Spector tried to order another drink but was told the bar was closed.
MOST PEOPLE CALL FOR THE STAFF WHEN THEY NEED SOMETHING. NICE OF PHILLIP TO SHIP KATHY HOME WITH HIS DRIVER. I WONDER WHAT THEY GOSSIPED ABOUT ON THE
WAY HOME.
At around 2am, Lalondriz overheard Lana on his headset asking if she could accept an invitation from Spector to have a drink.
SOUNDS OUTRAGEOUS.
Lalondriz heard the club manager tell her that she could not drink, but could sit with Spector. Lana was seen talking to Spector for a few minutes before the two walked out of the room together.
HOW CONVENIENT FOR THE HOUSE OF BLUES. I SEE THEIR LAWYERS THOUGHT THEY HAD LIABILITY.
Two minutes later, De Souza saw Spector emerge from the club, helped by Lana. As De Souza opened the door, Spector invited Lana to go home with him. She declined.
WHY WAS CLARKSON WALKING WITH HIM IF SHE WASN'T LEAVING WITH HIM?
Spector then offered her a lift to her car, which Lana accepted. During the drive, Spector continued to press his invitation, "More than once. Two, three times," according to De Souza. Finally, Lana relented.
THIS SOUNDS DERANGED. TWO, THREE, FOUR, FIVE, SIX, SEVEN, EIGHT DIFFERENT STORIES ABOUT PHILLIP. FOUR PERJURED STATEMENTS TO IMMIGRATION. AND VOILA - A GREEN CARD. INTERESTING HOW GOVERNMENT WORKS.
At the House of Blues employee parking lot, Lana got into her car. De Souza and Spector now followed Lana to a side street off La Cienega Boulevard where she parked her car.
As Lana got into Spector's Mercedes, she leant forward to De Souza and told him, "This will be quick. Only one drink." Spector turned to her. "You don't need to talk to the driver."
LANA CLARKSON NOW CONTROLS PHIL SPECTOR'S DRIVER. THE SITUATION IS NOW OUT OF CONTROL. I HAVE WITNESSED THIS SO MANY TIMES, IT IS NOT FUNNY. SEE SCOTT RABBS ARTICLE IN ESQUIRER AND THE SITUATION WITH BILL PAVELIC AND MICHELLE BLAINE WHO APPEARED TO BE ABOUT READY TO PROJECTILE VOMIT.
They arrived at Spector's home at about 3am. Spector and Lana got out and set off up the 88 steps towards the house. According to De Souza, Spector had some difficulty walking.
WHY?
Around 15 minutes later, Spector came out of the back door. According to De Souza "he looked mad" and disoriented. For the next 90 minutes or so De Souza waited in the car.
DID HE LOOK DISORIENTED? WHAT COULD THAT POSSIBLY MEAN? FELL ASLEEP IN THE CAR. HAD A SIESTA. ATE SOME SNACKS. WAS LISTENING TO THE RADIO. FOUNTAIN ON. AN ILLEGAL WORKER IN THE U.S. IS ABOUT TO BE FORCED TO ENCOUNTER THE POLICE OVER WHAT COULD BE - IN HIS MIND - A MURDER.
Then at 5am he heard what he would later describe as a soft popping sound. De Souza, who had served in the Brazilian military, thought he recognised it as a gunshot. He got out of the car, but could see nothing amiss and returned to the Mercedes.
DID SOMEONE FROM THE BRAZILIAN MILITARY THINK A GUNSHOT SOUNDED LIFE A SOFT POPPING SOUND? THE BRAZILIAN MILITARY MIGHT WANT TO VET THEIR SOLDIERS MORE CAREFULLY. THE DRIVER SEES NOTHING AND PROBABLY NEVER GOT OUT OF PHILLIP'S CAR. COMPLETELY IRRELVANT IN ANY EVENT.
It was then that Spector emerged from the back door, dressed in the clothes he had worn that evening. In his right hand was a revolver, which he was holding across his body. De Souza could see blood on the back of Spector's hand.
DID HE EMERGE FROM THE BACK DOOR? ISN'T PHILLIP LEFT HANDED? WHY WOULD HE BE HOLDING A GUN ACROSS HIS BODY? HOW DID HE SEE BLOOD ON THE BACK OF PHILLIP'S HAND - DOES HE HAVE XRAY VISION? OH RIGHT, MICK BROWN AND THE DA AND GOLD DIGGERS ARE WRITING THIS ... WHAT AM I THINKING?
It was at that point, according to De Souza, that Spector said: "I think I killed somebody." Looking past him into the hallway, De Souza could see Lana, slumped in a chair with blood on her face.
HE WASN'T GAZING PAST HIM OR LOOKING LOVINGLY IN HIS EYES? I SAW CLARKSON SLUMPED. IT LOOKED LIKE SHE FELL BACK INTO THE CHAIR AND PHILLIP WOULD HAVE TO BE STRATTLING HER TO HAVE SHOT HER IN THE MOUTH WHICH SOUNDS DERANGED.
He asked: "What happened, sir?" Spector shrugged and said, "I don't know." He then turned back towards the house.
SIR. I THOUGHT PHILLIP JUST SAID HE KILLED HER SO WHY WOULDN'T HE KNOW WHAT HAPPENED NOW?
De Souza tried to call 911 on his mobile phone, but was so shaken he was unable to make the call. He climbed back into the car and set off back down the drive.
IS THERE EVIDENCE THAT HE TRIED TO CALL 911 PRIOR TO CALLING BLAINE? WHY DID HE TAKE PHILLIP'S CAR? WAS HE GOING TO STEAL IT?
Part of the way down, he stopped and telephoned Spector's assistant, Michelle Blaine, leaving a message on her voice mail: "You have to come here. I think Mr Spector killed somebody." He then continued down the driveway to the entrance and dialled 911.
THE PERFECT STORM BEGINS. BLAINE HAS STOLEN NEARLY $1 MILLION FROM PHILLIP.
The first police car arrived at the gate of Spector's house shortly after 5am.
WHERE'S THE AMBULANCE?
According to Officer Michael Page, Spector appeared "mildly agitated". Spector was told to put his hands up, and did so before putting them back into his pockets. He turned to go into the house saying: "You got to come see this."
REALLY. MILDLY AGITATED. HE TOLD HIS COUSIN ANTHONY THAT PHILLIP LOOKED LIKE HE WAS GOING FOR A GUN. PHILLIP INVITES THEM INTO HIS HOUSE AND WHAT
UNFOLDS IS PSYCHOTIC.
He was again warned to take his hands out of his pockets and, when he refused, Page fired a Taser dart at him. It didn't work. Spector backed further into the house, pursued by another officer. Another dart was fired, again with no effect, and Spector was restrained and handcuffed.
THE TASER DART WORKED. PAGE IS A PATHETIC LIAR AND SO ARE HIS COWORKERS. TWO TASERS HAD NO EFFECT. TO SAY PHIL SPECTOR WAS RESTRAINED IS AN OUTRAGE.
Then Page looked up and saw the body of Lana slumped in a chair.
AMAZING. PERHAPS PAGE THOUGHT HE WAS AT A FOOTBALL GAME INITIALLY. WHY DIDN'T PAGE BRING A MEDIC IN WITH HIM?
"She had what appeared to be a single entry gunshot wound to the mouth," the police report would state. Broken teeth - her teeth - were scattered about the foyer and an adjacent stairway. Lying on the floor under her left leg was a Colt.38-calibre six-shot revolver. A check of the weapon serial number was negative. There was blood splattered on the weapon.
MY GOD. WHAT PHIL SPECTOR WITNESSED IS OUTRAGEOUS. THE WEAPON, ACCORDING TO BRUCE CUTLER, WAS NOT PHIL SPECTOR'S. WHEN PEOPLE SHOOT THEMSELVES THERE IS USUALLY BLOOD SPATTER ON THE WEAP0N.
One of the attending officers, Beatrice Rodriguez, said she heard Spector say: "What's wrong with you guys? What are you doing? I didn't mean to shoot her. It was an accident. I have an explanation."
SHE'S A LIAR AND HER BUDDIES DIDN'T HEAR THIS EXCHANGE.
That statement was not captured on tape. But immediately afterwards Officer Page activated his cassette recorder, and captured the subsequent exchanges between Spector and police.
WHY DID PAGE DECIDE TO ACTIVATE THE CASSETTE RECORDER NOW RATHER THAN WHEN THEY FIRST APPROACHED PHILLIP? WHY DID PAGE HAVE SOMEONE THROW SOMETHING OVER
THE VIDEO CAMERA? PAGE THINKS LIKE THIS: WE COULD HAVE LEGAL LIABILITY. THIS IS A CELEBRITY. LET'S COVER UP ANY EVIDENCE OF WRONG DOING IN CASE WE SCREW UP.
Spector continued: "If you're gonna arrest me, just tell me what happened... Jesus. You know you're acting stupid. Get the f*** off of me! This is stupid. I'm sorry there's a dead woman here. But I'm sorry but this happened. I can explain it but if you'd just give me a chance... You don't have to handcuff me. I can tell you what happened. What's wrong with you people? Jack Maple worked for me. Jesus Christ, the chief of police worked for me...
REALLY. IF YOU'RE GOING TO ARREST SOMEONE TELL THEM WHAT HAPPENED - SINCE YOU WEREN'T THERE. WHO WOULDN'T BE SORRY THERE WAS A DEAD WOMAN IN THEIR HOUSE
AND WHO WOULDN'T RUSH TO THEIR AID? LAPD DID WORK FOR PHIL SPECTOR - SEE JAY ROMAINE/LAPD ROBBERY HOMICIDE. I THINK HE WAS PROBABLY ARMED. MAYBE HE WAS ONE OF THE ARMED MEN LEONARD COHEN ALWAYS TALKED ABOUT. ARMED TO THE TEETH EVIDENTLY.
'I'm sorry this happened. I don't know how it happened, but it happened and I'm sorry this happened. But, excuse me... The gun went off accidentally. She works at the House of Blues. It was a mistake. I don't understand what the f***, you people, is wrong with you? Jack Maple worked for me. He worked for the chief of police. Oh, God. I'm just gonna go to sleep. Would you like me to go to sleep"
POOR PHILLIP.
The coroner's report would later note that the weapon found under Lana's leg was "apparently taken" from a holster, which the police found, also stained with blood, in a drawer in the hall.
WHY WAS IT APPARENTLY TAKEN FROM A HOLSTER? SO THE GUN WAS PLACED BACK IN THE HOLSTER AND THAT'S WHY THERE WAS BLOOD ON IT? SOUNDS INSANE.
Although Lana's blood remained in the engraving and in other recessed areas of the weapon, the gun had been wiped after the shooting. In a powder room off the hall, police found a cloth soaked in both water and Lana's blood lying on the floor.
PHILLIP RUSHED TO HER AID.
In an upstairs dressing room, thrown on the floor, police found the white jacket that Spector had been wearing that evening; the left sleeve and front of the jacket were covered in a mist-like spray of Lana's blood. A search of the house uncovered 13 other guns and ammunition of the same type as that in the Colt.38.
HAVE YOU EVER BEEN AROUND BLOOD THAT'S ALL OVER? IT SMELLS TERRIBLY. IT IS THICK AND STICKY. I KNOW. LORCA COHEN'S DOG IMPALED HIMSELF ATTEMPTING TO GET OUT OF HER APARTMENT AND THE ENTIRE FLAT WAS COVERED IN BLOOD. I HAD TO CHANGE MY CLOTHES AND WASH UP AFTER CLEANING UP.
Two cocktail glasses, one containing trace amounts of alcohol, were found. Toxicology showed Lana's blood contained "therapeutic levels" of Vicodin, an opiate-based painkiller.
WHAT IS A THERAPEUTIC LEVEL OF VICODIN? IT'S A POWERFUL OPIATE-BASED PAINKILLER THAT SHOULD NOT BE MIXED WITH ALCOHOL AND GUNS.
Paramedics waited for almost an hour before being allowed in. At 6.24am, five hours after her first meeting with Phil Spector, Lana Clarkson was pronounced dead.
COPS ARRIVED AT 5 AM. THEREFORE, IT TOOK ONE AND A HALF HOURS FOR THE POLICE TO BRING IN MEDICS. PHIL SPECTOR FOUND THIS UNCONSCIONABLE - AS DO I.
Tearing Down the Wall of Sound by Mick Brown (Bloomsbury) can be ordered for £14.99 plus £1.25 p&p from Telegraph Books (0870 428 4112)
BROWN WILL NOW PROFIT OFF OF PHIL SPECTOR'S SUFFERING AND ALIGN HIMSELF WITH BLAINE, SPROCKET, THE DARWIN EXCEPTION, AND OTHER SHADY CHARACTERS.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/features/3631681/I-think-I-killed-somebody.html
Showing posts with label Judge Larry Fidler. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Judge Larry Fidler. Show all posts
Saturday, February 25, 2012
Tuesday, February 21, 2012
Cyber-terrorists - Kelly Green & Sprocket - Descend Online With Their Vile Rhetoric - The Mouth Pieces For LA Confidential
Blogger kellygreen said...
Apparently today is judgement day for Spector. Yep, Tuesday, February 21, 2012 is the day the Supremes will decide wether or not they will hear Spector's case. So, what do your guys think: will the Supremes hear his case or will they tell Spector that he's going to die alone in a dank prison cell?
February 21, 2012 1:40 AM
http://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=4410281564721246856&postID=2880935757215465539
kellygreen said...
Honestly, does anyone care about the trial bridezilla? The second she realizes he's only going to leave prison in a body bag, she'll be gone as will ALL his money! They deserve one another.
February 21, 2012 1:48 AM
Sprocket said...
What was "really gone" was that music career she pursued. Maybe she really thought she was the next Whitney Houston....
February 21, 2012 4:53 AM
http://sprocket-trials.blogspot.com/2012/02/phil-spectors-us-supreme-court-appeal.html
Apparently today is judgement day for Spector. Yep, Tuesday, February 21, 2012 is the day the Supremes will decide wether or not they will hear Spector's case. So, what do your guys think: will the Supremes hear his case or will they tell Spector that he's going to die alone in a dank prison cell?
February 21, 2012 1:40 AM
http://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=4410281564721246856&postID=2880935757215465539
kellygreen said...
Honestly, does anyone care about the trial bridezilla? The second she realizes he's only going to leave prison in a body bag, she'll be gone as will ALL his money! They deserve one another.
February 21, 2012 1:48 AM
Sprocket said...
What was "really gone" was that music career she pursued. Maybe she really thought she was the next Whitney Houston....
February 21, 2012 4:53 AM
http://sprocket-trials.blogspot.com/2012/02/phil-spectors-us-supreme-court-appeal.html
Thursday, July 21, 2011
Helen Mirren set to play Baden in Spector fli
Helen Mirren set to play Baden in Spector flick
From ANINew York, July 21: Oscar-winner Helen Mirren has reportedly joined the cast of the unnamed Phil Spector biopic.
Mirren has been assigned to play attorney Linda Kenney Baden opposite Al Pacino’s Spector, reports the New York Post.
Earlier, Bette Midler was supposed to play the role but she was forced to vacate last week after suffering a herniated disc.
Baden was one of record producer Spector’s defense attorneys when he was charged with murder of actress/nightclub hostess Lana Clarkson in 2003.
The TV movie is said to focus on the professional relationship between Spector and Baden during the time of his first trial in 2007.
Copyright Asian News International/DailyIndia.com
Wednesday, June 8, 2011
Obsessed Phil Spector Blogger - Jihad Gianelli's "Disclaimer" May Serve No Purpose
I believe Jihad Gianelli is concealing the true purpose of his Blog. His last "article" posted on or around May 2, 2011 is a list of 9/11 victims. Prior to that he has a "Happy Easter" notice with no comments; an "article" about a woman who injured herself clapping with no comments; and - of course - an article on Phil Spector with 180 comments:
http://blogonaut-blogonaut.blogspot.com/2011/04/spector-oral-arguments-today-justice.html
http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2011/06/nj_supreme_court_rules_blogger_1.html
SPECTOR ORAL ARGUMENTS TODAY: JUSTICE ALDRICH APPEARS HOSTILE TO SPECTOR APPEAL, KLINE SYMPATHETIC, KITCHING AN ENIGMA
180 comments:
Excerpted comments:-
Honestly I don't think this appellate court wanted to take away from the DA's office their first celebrity murder conviction.
I do believe that the California Supreme court will overturn it. - May 30, 2011 7:01 PM
- Aloha said...
-
What overwhelming evidence of guilt? Where? There isn't any. That was the response the AG representative gave, I believe it was to Justice Klein, in response to a question about the 5 women who testified.
- May 30, 2011 10:05 PM
- Anonymous said...
-
According to the Linda Deutche report who has been pretty fair to Spector, Riordan will ask the Supreme Court to review on June 13. Unfortunately the sharks are circling as the civil case is coming to head in January 2012 and I would expect a 10 million plus judgement. Even if the Supreme Court were to review the case it will take years to wind its way through. The thing about the 2nd districts ruling that was so telling was how swift the opinion was rendered and how many times Riordan opposed giving the AG more time to answer. Not very smart. Hopefully they learn and be very humbled if the Supreme court agrees to hear the case.
http://blogonaut-blogonaut.blogspot.com/2011/04/spector-oral-arguments-today-justice.html
N.J. Supreme Court says blogger not protected from revealing her sources
Published: Wednesday, June 08, 2011, 9:00 AM Updated: Wednesday, June 08, 2011, 6:12 PM
TRENTON —New Jersey’s legal protections allowing journalists to keep their sources secret do not apply to those who post to online message boards, the state Supreme Court ruled Tuesday.
The court, clarifying an area of law that has not kept up with advances on the internet, said bloggers must have some connection to "news media" to invoke New Jersey’s shield law protecting journalists from revealing their confidential sources.
"To ensure that the privilege does not apply to every self-appointed newsperson, the legislature requires that other means of disseminating news be ‘similar’ to traditional news sources to qualify for the law’s coverage," Chief Justice Stuart Rabner wrote for the 5-0 court. "We do not find that online message boards are similar to the types of news entities listed in the statute ..."
The long-awaited decision, which included arguments from media groups and the state ACLU, overturned part of an appellate court ruling that would have established stricter criteria for journalists to qualify for the protection.
"This is just a beginning to this conversation," said Bruce Rosen, a Florham Park attorney representing the New Jersey Press Association. "This conversation is going to go on for years, but it’s a good place to start."
Courts have already ruled people can be sued for comments they post on message boards, but this case addressed what protections "nontraditional" media have in an era when newspapers, magazines, television and radio are no longer the only sources of news.
The ruling was made in the case of a blogger from Washington State who posted alleged defamatory statements about a Marlboro-based software company.
In comments she posted to a message board about an online security breach, Shellee Hale claimed Too Much Media LLC’s owners had threatened her sources and failed to report the breach because they profited from the stolen email addresses. TMM, which helps online adult entertainment companies track sales, sued for defamation and Hale sought protection of shield law.
A former Microsoft employee and a private investigator, Hale argued she was preparing an article for her website, Pornafia.com, about the infiltration of pornography on the internet when she posted her comments about TMM in 2008.
TMM argued Hale is not a journalist and fabricated the purpose of her website to seek the protection.
A Superior Court judge in Monmouth County ruled in 2009 that the protection did not apply to Hale. An appellate panel later that year upheld that decision but also set very specific criteria for journalists to qualify for the protection.
But the Supreme Court — to the delight of a group of media outlets invited into the arguments — shot down the appeals court’s criteria. It said the test is whether there is a connection to news media, if the purpose of the report is to gather or disseminate news and if the information was obtained during professional newsgathering activities.
In her case, Hale insisted Pornafia was a legitimate medium. But the court noted she never launched the news magazine portion of the website. The court also noted her alleged defamatory statements appeared exclusively on the message board, which the court said was one step removed from the electronic equivalent of a letter to the editor in a newspaper.
TMM attorney Joel Kreizman of Ocean Township welcomed the decision because he said the lawsuit can finally proceed.
"We’ve been stuck on this issue for over two years. This case normally would have gone to trial by now. We’re almost basically starting from scratch," he said.
Hale’s attorney, Jeffrey Pollock of Princeton, said he will ask the Supreme Court to reconsider its ruling that the decision applies retroactively to his client.
He said the decision narrows the scope of people who qualify for the protection to keep sources confidential, a sentiment echoed by the Heartland Institute, a Chicago-based policy research group.
"Putting aside the wisdom of shield laws, they should not exist to protect only certain classes of Americans a court defines as ‘journalists.’ Freedom of the press is not truly free if the definition of ‘press’ is left up to the whim of a judge," said Jim Lakely, co-director of the institute’s Center on the Digital Economy.http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2011/06/nj_supreme_court_rules_blogger_1.html
Tuesday, May 24, 2011
David Mamet Convinced Of Phil Spector's Innocence
The writer/director explains why he decided to make a movie for HBO about the disgraced music producer, who is now in prison on second-degree murder charges for the 2003 killing of Lana Clarkson:
Mr. Mamet says he didn't care about the trial as it was happening, but when his agent urged him to see a 2009 documentary on Mr. Spector, he became intrigued. He went from considering Mr. Spector a killer to questioning his guilt in the 2003 murder of Lana Clarkson. Watching the film, he says he found himself thinking: "There's no way he killed that girl. He got convicted of 'I don't like you."
Al Pacino will star in the HBO movie.
http://nymag.com/daily/intel/2010/10/david_mamet_convinced_of_phil_1.html
Monday, May 23, 2011
Perhaps Judge Fidler Wanted To Ensure That LA District Attorney Was Not Embarrassed Yet Again
The Los Angeles police department and district attorney’s office, embarrassed far too often in recent years, face some of the country’s highest-priced legal talent in the upcoming O.J. Simpson case. The defense team will use the most sophisticated methodology available to learn how to obtain the best jury possible and to present their most persuasive case. If the prosecution does not level the playing field, it may well find itself embarrassed again.
http://www.varinsky.com/publications6.htm
http://www.varinsky.com/publications6.htm
Email To Los Angeles District Attorney's Expert Adviser
From: Kelley Lynch
Date: Mon, May 23, 2011 at 1:23 PM
Subject: Phil Spector Murder Trials
To: howardv@varinsky.com
Hello Howard,
I am writing a book on Phil Spector, his trials, and other related issues. I have known Phil Spector for over 25 years and worked for him, on and off, from 1988 until approximately 2002. I've been studying the social media aspect of this case - including blogs. It appears to me that certain blogs are affiliated with (if not the mouthpiece for) the Los Angeles District Attorney and the Clarkson family. That would include Sprocket's trial & Tribulations; The Darwin Exception; Michelle Blaine's various blogs; Stephen Gianelli's Blogonaut Law Blog; and others. Individuals affiliated with these Blogs also appear to descend on message boards and comment relentlessly on articles all over the internet. It seems as though this is a highly organize campaign. It also appears, from what I have studied, that Juror #9 from the 1st Spector trial may have been affiliated with Alan Jackson or Sprocket and her blog prior to the verdict. It was brought to my attention, by an investigator, that Sprocket is the mouthpiece for Donna Clarkson (the decedent's mother).
I was wondering if you would care to comment on this activity from your perspective as an expert and adviser to the Los Angeles District Attorney.
Thank you.
Kelley Lynch
Date: Mon, May 23, 2011 at 1:23 PM
Subject: Phil Spector Murder Trials
To: howardv@varinsky.com
Hello Howard,
I am writing a book on Phil Spector, his trials, and other related issues. I have known Phil Spector for over 25 years and worked for him, on and off, from 1988 until approximately 2002. I've been studying the social media aspect of this case - including blogs. It appears to me that certain blogs are affiliated with (if not the mouthpiece for) the Los Angeles District Attorney and the Clarkson family. That would include Sprocket's trial & Tribulations; The Darwin Exception; Michelle Blaine's various blogs; Stephen Gianelli's Blogonaut Law Blog; and others. Individuals affiliated with these Blogs also appear to descend on message boards and comment relentlessly on articles all over the internet. It seems as though this is a highly organize campaign. It also appears, from what I have studied, that Juror #9 from the 1st Spector trial may have been affiliated with Alan Jackson or Sprocket and her blog prior to the verdict. It was brought to my attention, by an investigator, that Sprocket is the mouthpiece for Donna Clarkson (the decedent's mother).
I was wondering if you would care to comment on this activity from your perspective as an expert and adviser to the Los Angeles District Attorney.
Thank you.
Kelley Lynch
The People of the State of California v. Phil Spector
Hall of Fame music producer convicted of second-degree murder for the killing of actress Lana Clarkson.
--for the prosecution
State of Nevada vs OJ Simpson
The infamous hotel room robbery. Simpson convicted on all charges.
--for the prosecution
http://www.varinsky.com
The Los Angeles District Attorney's Lame Response To My Freedom Of Information Request
Excerpt:
"4. Finally, I would like all documentation, electronic and otherwise, that relates to my major fraud complaint against Leonard Cohen for his participation in theft with respect to me, tax fraud, etc."
Response:
"Finally as to your request number 4, we were unable to locate any materials responsive to your request."
Excerpt:
"2. Specifically, I would like to obtain copies of all electronic and paper documents between Alan Jackson, Stephen Gianelli, Michelle Blaine, Kelly Green, Leonard Cohen, Robert Kory, Michelle Rice, Steven Clark Lindsey, and Betsy Ross."
Response:
"The Los Angeles District Attorney's Office, with over 50 offices, does not maintain a correspondence log of all incoming or outgoing mail. In addition, to locate any email that might be responsive would require a search of approximately 2,200 separate email addresses."
BALD FACED LIE: Alan Jackson is one Deputy DA and his office is downtown Los Angeles - as Deputy District Attorney Valerie Scott Cole (who wrote this shameless response) obviously knows.
"4. Finally, I would like all documentation, electronic and otherwise, that relates to my major fraud complaint against Leonard Cohen for his participation in theft with respect to me, tax fraud, etc."
Response:
"Finally as to your request number 4, we were unable to locate any materials responsive to your request."
Excerpt:
"2. Specifically, I would like to obtain copies of all electronic and paper documents between Alan Jackson, Stephen Gianelli, Michelle Blaine, Kelly Green, Leonard Cohen, Robert Kory, Michelle Rice, Steven Clark Lindsey, and Betsy Ross."
Response:
"The Los Angeles District Attorney's Office, with over 50 offices, does not maintain a correspondence log of all incoming or outgoing mail. In addition, to locate any email that might be responsive would require a search of approximately 2,200 separate email addresses."
BALD FACED LIE: Alan Jackson is one Deputy DA and his office is downtown Los Angeles - as Deputy District Attorney Valerie Scott Cole (who wrote this shameless response) obviously knows.
What Happens When Government Uses Bloggers As Their Mouthpieces & Vehicles For Their High Profile Celebrity Sport Trials
Full Court Coverage
What happens when defense counsel and ordinary citizens blog about high-profile trials?
Posted Jan 1, 2008 3:04 PM CDT
By Stephanie Francis Ward
Some say Los Angeles prosecutor Alan Jackson has movie-star looks. Others compare him to a game-show host. But the most unusual characterization of the man who prosecuted music producer Phil Spector on murder charges likened him to a bulldog named Chance in the 1993 Disney movie Homeward Bound. “Of course, AJ is much smarter and more cautious than Chance, but overall personalities seem to fit,” wrote Betsy Ross in Trials & Tribulations, her blog that focused on the Spector prosecution.
A semiretired massage therapist who lives in the Los Angeles suburb of Sherman Oaks, Betsy Ross (yes, that’s her real name) regularly attended Spector’s trial in the 2003 killing of B-movie actress Lana Clarkson. She was one of at least three nonjournalists who blogged about the trial regularly, but the only one to merit a mention in Dominick Dunne’s column in Vanity Fair.
“I was trying to bring my readers into the courtroom with me,” says Ross, who blogs under the handle “Sprocket.” Her observations took a decidedly pro-prosecution lean. And Ross’ writing style often includes details and descriptions that would probably not be included in mainstream press coverage.
The case ended in a mistrial on Sept. 26, but Ross continues to write about Spector on her blog, and she plans to cover his retrial.
The Spector trial—which ended in a hung jury—is Ross’ second. Her first was the murder trial of actor Robert Blake, who in 2005 was acquitted of murdering his wife, Bonnie Lee Bakley. Also a fan of true crime message boards, Ross posted her observations about Blake’s trial on the boards. Later, after copying and pasting significant blocks of text, she started Trials & Tribulations; she now posts links to her blog on various message boards.
(Los Angeles district attorney’s office spokeswoman Sandi Gibbons said the office would not comment on Trials & Tribulations because of the pending retrial.)
...
Read the entire article:
http://www.abajournal.com/magazine/article/full_court_coverage/
Thursday, May 19, 2011
Conversation With Detective Mark Lillenfeld - LA County Sheriff's Department
I advise ML that I know Phil Spector and intend to write a book, that will include information about an ex-partner of mine in LA (music industry); and that I intend to present the facts rather than argue my personal belief that Phillip is innocent. I inform him that I want to present a fair and well balanced overview and not the limited view permitted by the trial court.
Mark Lillenfeld:
I'm not the primary guy. There were 10 detectives helping the lead detective. The lead detective is Rich Tomlin. He was the top dog. I was in charge of the scene investigation and played a minor role. Rich Tomlin's number is 323-890-5630. He's a good guy.
KL: Why did the Sheriff's Department handle this investigation? [We discuss the fact that this can give the appearance of a conflict of interest …]
ML: Good question. The Sheriff's Department is the chief law enforcement agency in California under the Constitution. We are mandated to provide other smaller municipalities (with less financial resources) with assistance - such as investigations; bomb squads; SWAT. For almost 100 years, the Sheriff has provided homicide investigations for smaller police departments. We have a lot of expertise as well. We provide that service for many other municipalities - Alhambra, Menlo Park, Sierra Madre, etc.
KL: Are guns normally left at the scene of suicides for the investigators - and not left at the scene of homicides? This makes no sense to me. I explain that I've seen references to this repeatedly on the internet; possibly testimony at the trial; etc.
ML: In any type of death investigation - whether criminal (murder) or non-criminal death, the physical evidence would be reviewed; memorialized by photographs; etc.
KL: Was your mind made up, initially, as to whether this was a homicide vs. suicide?
ML: No. Not at all. When we roll up to a death scene - more often than not ... the information we got from the uniform cops at Alhambra ... is like the game of Telephone. Did you play that when you were young? [Gives me an example - Richard Nixon was a communist ... by the end of whisper down the lane it becomes ... Jane Fonda is a ballerina]. No pre-conceived idea that it was a murder.
We discuss the fact that I know Phillip; have a very good understanding of who he is; and was present for one incident presented at trial – the Carlyle - and know it was fabricated.
KL: I ask ML if the Sheriff's Department basically believes that all of PS's experts testified inaccurately, lied, etc.
ML: The rule of court governing expert witnesses - In California, everything is codified ... and then delineate what is or is not admissible. The Spector case became a battle of the experts. Clearly Mr. Spector's experts were cross-examined well and made [to appear] disingenuous. Since that time, it has been proven the case - [mentions Baden and Lee ... I suggest that we disregard these experts since there are myriad problems here from many many perspectives ... ML asks who I have in mind and I say Dr. Spitz] ... Dr. Spitz is a brilliant guy. He is well respected in his field. There is a minor criminal charge against him in the mid-West. He's well respected. [I note that accusing expert witnesses has become a problem and mention that Jules Zalon, a lawyer I know, raised this as a particularly discerning problem these days. I also note that this could happen to ML]. As far as his testimony in the Spector matter - it seemed kind of disingenuous. Our pathologist, Dr. Pena ...
At this point, I note that there is an Internal Memo at the DA's office (generated with respect to Killer King) essentially stating that Pena is willing to lie for his job/boss; possibly alter documents; and his credibility was seriously called into question. ML is "not familiar" with this memo.
ML: On a professional level, Dr. Pena ... he has been very ethical and bright. I have never had a problem with the guy.
KL: Dr. Pena stated, on the stand, that he could not conclude whether this was a suicide or homicide ... I ask ML for his personal opinion.
ML: I would say that this is a criminal homicide. In my own professional opinion, it is a criminal death. (mentions that this is his area of expertise - homicide).
KL: A lot of people believe Phillip was set up.
ML: [He is aware of this and states that] ... I'm from the mid-West. I'm open minded. I believe in the Constitution. [Notes that weird things happen in LA].
KL: Are Alan Jackson and Pat Dixon professional?
ML: [He believes they are professional ..., "I do"] ... They are human. AJ - I like him personally and professionally. If I was murdered I would want him handling the prosecution. I wouldn't want him dating my sister. [Believes he's ethical, bright, articulate.]
KL: Is Pat Dixon professional?
ML: He is a very bright guy. Seasoned. 35 years. He is professional. He has some quirks that not everyone loves. He's good at what he does ... [I believe ML said he was "beholden" to him but not sure I understand that].
ML and I discuss the Goodwin case for a moment. I note that after reading a bit about it, it is too complicated at first glance and will confuse issues I want to address in my book. I note that, somehow, the case seems dangerous - hit men and all. We discuss the fact that I worked in the music industry and understand artists, the amount of drugs, etc., in LA; my friend who died of drugs/alcohol; Eric's niece who shot herself in the head; etc. ML mentions the tv show "Entourage" and we do discuss excess in LA.
That's basically the end of the conversation. Mark Lillenfeld was professional; forthcoming; seemed entirely genuine; and believes Philip is guilty.
I left a message for Detective Tomlin (323-890-5630) and let him know that I would like to go back and review his testimony before speaking.
NOTE: At some point, ML asks if I was a witness in the PS matter. I explain that, while I was told I was probably a witness, I fought this because I have absolutely nothing to add to the mix … Phillip told me what happened (this is what the experts concluded) and there was no point in my taking the stand to say I liked Phillip. That’s my personal opinion and I cannot address personally what happened at Phillip’s house that night – apart from repeating what Phillip personally told me occurred. ML agreed – there was no point in my taking the stand. I advised him that I have spoken with Brian Bennett and Bill Frayeh – who I ultimately found to be entirely professional although for quite a while we were in adversarial positions.
Saturday, May 14, 2011
Preserving the Value of Unanimous Criminal Jury Verdicts in Anti-Deadlock Instructions by Emil J. Bove III
C. CALIFORNIA’S APPROACH: THE PHIL SPECTOR TRIAL
California rejected the Allen charge in 1977,201 and, perhaps relatedly, trials
in its state courts appear to end in deadlock-related mistrials more frequently
than the national average.202 Like Arizona’s court rules, California’s court rules
also permit flexible action by the trial court when the jury reaches an “impasse”:
(a) Determination
After a jury reports that it has reached an impasse in its deliberations, the
trial judge may, in the presence of counsel, advise the jury of its duty to
decide the case based on the evidence while keeping an open mind and
talking about the evidence with each other. The judge should ask the jury if it
has specific concerns which, if resolved, might assist the jury in reaching a
verdict.
(b) Possible further action
If the trial judge determines that further action might assist the jury in
reaching a verdict, the judge may:
(1) Give additional instructions;
(2) Clarify previous instructions;
(3) Permit attorneys to make additional closing arguments; or
(4) Employ any combination of these measures.203
The most notable distinction from Arizona’s rule is that California does not
suggest that the evidence may be reopened upon a question from the jury.
Music producer Phil Spector’s recent murder trial presents an example in
which the trial court risked stretching this rule so far that the proceedings would
damage the legitimacy of the jury process. Spector was accused of killing
actress Lana Clarkson in 2003.204 The much-publicized trial lasted four
months.205 After deliberating for seven days, the jury indicated that it was
deadlocked, noting that the split was seven votes to five but following the
judge’s instructions not to reveal which side had the majority.206 Three jurors
suggested that additional instructions would be helpful, including more guid-
The judge then “elicited a back-and-forth with several jurors as he sought to
pinpoint what issues they were stuck on.”208 The jurors indicated disagreement
about the meaning of “reasonable doubt” and that they were confused about
how to weigh the evidence and interpret an instruction regarding the elements
of second-degree murder.209 Following this exchange, the judge rejected the
option of additional instructions on lesser-included offenses, agreeing with the
defense that such instructions might coerce the jury into believing that a verdict
was necessary at all costs.210 In the end, the judge simply re-read most of the
instructions, removing language he said misstated the law and adding additional
instructions about “reasonable doubt.”211 After about another week of additional
deliberation, the judge declared a mistrial due to the deadlock.212 Upon being
discharged, jurors indicated that two “holdouts” in favor of Spector had prevented
the conviction.213
The biggest problem with the judge’s actions in this case is that there is a
great risk in conducting the type of back-and-forth that took place in this trial; it
injects too many unknowns into the process. Jurors are likely to put great
emphasis on everything that the judge says or asks. Even subtle facial expressions
from the judge risk the type of influence that the anti-coercion principle
seeks to avoid—the judge should not inappropriately affect the deliberations
taking place in the jury room while they are in progress. Juries frequently ask to
review evidence or to have testimony read to them, and some interaction with
the court during deliberations is probably unavoidable in many cases. Nonetheless,
these interactions should be circumscribed as much as possible. That is
why both the Arizona and California rules permit the judge to solicit indications
via notes from the jury about questions or other things that might help it reach a
verdict, but the rules suggest that conducting this inquiry through in-court
conversation is not appropriate. The judge in the Spector case seems to have run
afoul of the rule and risked tainting the process.
Second, the judge’s alterations to the jury instructions were probably a
mistake. He was correct not to instruct the jury on the lesser-included charge of
manslaughter after it had reached an impasse.214 Substituting a lesser-included
charge after deliberations had begun would suggest to the jury that the court
preferred some type of conviction in the case, even if on a different charge,
rather than a mistrial.
By removing part of the initial murder instruction, however, the judge
conveyed a “not-so-subtle message to the jury that there may be more ways to
find Spector guilty than they have been thinking of . . . .”215 The jury could infer
from the new instruction that, because the initial instruction was so incorrect
that it had to be removed, they should look more carefully at the charge in the
first place. If the latter instruction seemed more permissive, it would suggest to
the jury that it should look more carefully at convicting Spector. Essentially, by
making this change, the judge “alter[ed] the rules by which a jury makes a
decision.”216 Even if a curative measure was available for the erroneous instruction
in the first place, the judge impermissibly invaded the province of the jury.
The close, public scrutiny of his actions meant that, even if the jury had reached
a verdict, society would certainly not have accepted it as a legitimate stamp of
disapproval of Spector’s actions.
The interaction illustrates the fragility of the symbolism associated with the
jury system. The rules in both Arizona and California offer judges wide latitude
in dealing with and “assisting” split juries, but most trial courts are hesitant to
go beyond re-reading instructions before declaring a mistrial. Their actions
demonstrate appropriate regard for the sanctity of the jury’s deliberations and
the symbolic legitimacy that attaches to verdicts resulting from a process
requiring unanimous verdicts. Departing too far from contemporary antideadlock
instructions to “assist” the jury through the procedures available in
these states might reduce the incidence of mistrials, but these actions also risk
damaging the perceived legitimacy of the criminal process. Most judges do not
go too far with the more radical methods of dealing with divided juries. Nor
should they.
CONCLUSION
This Note articulated some instrumental principles to guide the debate regarding
anti-deadlock instructions. Properly defined, the primary concern in handling
a divided jury is that the judge may coerce jurors in a way that taints the
ultimate verdict, prevents it from being the product of the jury’s deliberations,
and limits the extent to which the community accepts the products of the
criminal justice system as legitimate. The sanctity of the deliberation room and
the concept that the verdict is solely the jury’s should be paramount concerns.
Although unanimity does not necessarily provide major benefits in terms of
instruction would look. . . . The defense will easily argue that if the jury then comes back with a guilty verdict on manslaughter, it was ‘a tainted compromise verdict . . . .’”) ...
http://www.georgetownlawjournal.org/issues/pdf/97-1/Bove.PDF
California rejected the Allen charge in 1977,201 and, perhaps relatedly, trials
in its state courts appear to end in deadlock-related mistrials more frequently
than the national average.202 Like Arizona’s court rules, California’s court rules
also permit flexible action by the trial court when the jury reaches an “impasse”:
(a) Determination
After a jury reports that it has reached an impasse in its deliberations, the
trial judge may, in the presence of counsel, advise the jury of its duty to
decide the case based on the evidence while keeping an open mind and
talking about the evidence with each other. The judge should ask the jury if it
has specific concerns which, if resolved, might assist the jury in reaching a
verdict.
(b) Possible further action
If the trial judge determines that further action might assist the jury in
reaching a verdict, the judge may:
(1) Give additional instructions;
(2) Clarify previous instructions;
(3) Permit attorneys to make additional closing arguments; or
(4) Employ any combination of these measures.203
The most notable distinction from Arizona’s rule is that California does not
suggest that the evidence may be reopened upon a question from the jury.
Music producer Phil Spector’s recent murder trial presents an example in
which the trial court risked stretching this rule so far that the proceedings would
damage the legitimacy of the jury process. Spector was accused of killing
actress Lana Clarkson in 2003.204 The much-publicized trial lasted four
months.205 After deliberating for seven days, the jury indicated that it was
deadlocked, noting that the split was seven votes to five but following the
judge’s instructions not to reveal which side had the majority.206 Three jurors
suggested that additional instructions would be helpful, including more guid-
The judge then “elicited a back-and-forth with several jurors as he sought to
pinpoint what issues they were stuck on.”208 The jurors indicated disagreement
about the meaning of “reasonable doubt” and that they were confused about
how to weigh the evidence and interpret an instruction regarding the elements
of second-degree murder.209 Following this exchange, the judge rejected the
option of additional instructions on lesser-included offenses, agreeing with the
defense that such instructions might coerce the jury into believing that a verdict
was necessary at all costs.210 In the end, the judge simply re-read most of the
instructions, removing language he said misstated the law and adding additional
instructions about “reasonable doubt.”211 After about another week of additional
deliberation, the judge declared a mistrial due to the deadlock.212 Upon being
discharged, jurors indicated that two “holdouts” in favor of Spector had prevented
the conviction.213
The biggest problem with the judge’s actions in this case is that there is a
great risk in conducting the type of back-and-forth that took place in this trial; it
injects too many unknowns into the process. Jurors are likely to put great
emphasis on everything that the judge says or asks. Even subtle facial expressions
from the judge risk the type of influence that the anti-coercion principle
seeks to avoid—the judge should not inappropriately affect the deliberations
taking place in the jury room while they are in progress. Juries frequently ask to
review evidence or to have testimony read to them, and some interaction with
the court during deliberations is probably unavoidable in many cases. Nonetheless,
these interactions should be circumscribed as much as possible. That is
why both the Arizona and California rules permit the judge to solicit indications
via notes from the jury about questions or other things that might help it reach a
verdict, but the rules suggest that conducting this inquiry through in-court
conversation is not appropriate. The judge in the Spector case seems to have run
afoul of the rule and risked tainting the process.
Second, the judge’s alterations to the jury instructions were probably a
mistake. He was correct not to instruct the jury on the lesser-included charge of
manslaughter after it had reached an impasse.214 Substituting a lesser-included
charge after deliberations had begun would suggest to the jury that the court
preferred some type of conviction in the case, even if on a different charge,
rather than a mistrial.
By removing part of the initial murder instruction, however, the judge
conveyed a “not-so-subtle message to the jury that there may be more ways to
find Spector guilty than they have been thinking of . . . .”215 The jury could infer
from the new instruction that, because the initial instruction was so incorrect
that it had to be removed, they should look more carefully at the charge in the
first place. If the latter instruction seemed more permissive, it would suggest to
the jury that it should look more carefully at convicting Spector. Essentially, by
making this change, the judge “alter[ed] the rules by which a jury makes a
decision.”216 Even if a curative measure was available for the erroneous instruction
in the first place, the judge impermissibly invaded the province of the jury.
The close, public scrutiny of his actions meant that, even if the jury had reached
a verdict, society would certainly not have accepted it as a legitimate stamp of
disapproval of Spector’s actions.
The interaction illustrates the fragility of the symbolism associated with the
jury system. The rules in both Arizona and California offer judges wide latitude
in dealing with and “assisting” split juries, but most trial courts are hesitant to
go beyond re-reading instructions before declaring a mistrial. Their actions
demonstrate appropriate regard for the sanctity of the jury’s deliberations and
the symbolic legitimacy that attaches to verdicts resulting from a process
requiring unanimous verdicts. Departing too far from contemporary antideadlock
instructions to “assist” the jury through the procedures available in
these states might reduce the incidence of mistrials, but these actions also risk
damaging the perceived legitimacy of the criminal process. Most judges do not
go too far with the more radical methods of dealing with divided juries. Nor
should they.
CONCLUSION
This Note articulated some instrumental principles to guide the debate regarding
anti-deadlock instructions. Properly defined, the primary concern in handling
a divided jury is that the judge may coerce jurors in a way that taints the
ultimate verdict, prevents it from being the product of the jury’s deliberations,
and limits the extent to which the community accepts the products of the
criminal justice system as legitimate. The sanctity of the deliberation room and
the concept that the verdict is solely the jury’s should be paramount concerns.
Although unanimity does not necessarily provide major benefits in terms of
instruction would look. . . . The defense will easily argue that if the jury then comes back with a guilty verdict on manslaughter, it was ‘a tainted compromise verdict . . . .’”) ...
http://www.georgetownlawjournal.org/issues/pdf/97-1/Bove.PDF
Tuesday, April 12, 2011
The Prosecution - When You Don't Have A Case Slander Everyone
As appellant stated in his opening brief, he has no quarrel with the proposition that
the prosecution may vigorously argue that compensation to witnesses may color their
credibility. (See AOB, pp. 142-143, citing People v. Parson (2008) 44 Cal.4th 332,
362-363), People v. McGreen (1980) 107 Cal.App.3d 504, 514-519.) The core subject of
the present argument is the prosecution’s claim that appellant’s trial counsel fabricated his defense by hiring expert witnesses to give false testimony.
There is a qualitative difference between arguing about the impact of
compensation on witness credibility and accusing the defense attorney of paying money to experts for “ridiculous” testimony “to hide the truth.” There is no requirement that the words “suborned perjury” must be used to cross the line of misconduct. (See RB 124.) It
is clear enough from the language used that the charge was that counsel was dishonest
and paid enormous sums to buy experts to say anything helpful to the defense, no matter
how ridiculous, all in a campaign to hide the truth from the jury. This is to be contrasted
with what the prosecutor told the jury of the prosecution role: "My job, Ms. Do's job, is
to give you the truth." (RT 9549.) On the other hand, the defense role was characterized
as a series of “parlor tricks”: “Mr. Weinberg doesn’t like the truth.” He just moves it.”
(RT 9550.)
Respondent states such comments are proper when supported by evidence: “The
prosecution also may argue that defense counsel intentionally clouded the facts as long as
there is evidence to support that claim.” (RB 125.) There is not the slightest evidence
Mr. Weinberg did anything to buy experts for shaped, preposterous scientific 26 testimony.
In fact, the most reputable, experienced experts were employed, each of whom had plenty
of scientific basis for their expert opinions. (People v. Bain (1971) 5 Cal.3d 839, 847
[“[t]here is no basis for the claim of fabrication by defense counsel, and the prosecutor's
comment to that effect must be deemed misconduct”].)
Mr. Weinberg did not “go out and buy” these experts as most were hired before
the first trial where they testified. This was long before Mr. Weinberg was on the case.
(See Dr. Di Maio [FT 6178 et seq.]; James Pex [FT 7727 et seq.]; Dr. James [FT 7936 et
seq.]; and Dr. Spitz [FT 8205 et seq].) The second trial was a reason for higher costs for
the experts.
http://boards.insessiontrials.com/showthread.php?377972-Phillip-spector-legal-thread-wrongful-death-case-pending-murder-appeal/page2&s=e19b38bd61f4e61a31feeb17a11861c3
the prosecution may vigorously argue that compensation to witnesses may color their
credibility. (See AOB, pp. 142-143, citing People v. Parson (2008) 44 Cal.4th 332,
362-363), People v. McGreen (1980) 107 Cal.App.3d 504, 514-519.) The core subject of
the present argument is the prosecution’s claim that appellant’s trial counsel fabricated his defense by hiring expert witnesses to give false testimony.
***
There is a qualitative difference between arguing about the impact of
compensation on witness credibility and accusing the defense attorney of paying money to experts for “ridiculous” testimony “to hide the truth.” There is no requirement that the words “suborned perjury” must be used to cross the line of misconduct. (See RB 124.) It
is clear enough from the language used that the charge was that counsel was dishonest
and paid enormous sums to buy experts to say anything helpful to the defense, no matter
how ridiculous, all in a campaign to hide the truth from the jury. This is to be contrasted
with what the prosecutor told the jury of the prosecution role: "My job, Ms. Do's job, is
to give you the truth." (RT 9549.) On the other hand, the defense role was characterized
as a series of “parlor tricks”: “Mr. Weinberg doesn’t like the truth.” He just moves it.”
(RT 9550.)
Respondent states such comments are proper when supported by evidence: “The
prosecution also may argue that defense counsel intentionally clouded the facts as long as
there is evidence to support that claim.” (RB 125.) There is not the slightest evidence
Mr. Weinberg did anything to buy experts for shaped, preposterous scientific 26 testimony.
In fact, the most reputable, experienced experts were employed, each of whom had plenty
of scientific basis for their expert opinions. (People v. Bain (1971) 5 Cal.3d 839, 847
[“[t]here is no basis for the claim of fabrication by defense counsel, and the prosecutor's
comment to that effect must be deemed misconduct”].)
Mr. Weinberg did not “go out and buy” these experts as most were hired before
the first trial where they testified. This was long before Mr. Weinberg was on the case.
(See Dr. Di Maio [FT 6178 et seq.]; James Pex [FT 7727 et seq.]; Dr. James [FT 7936 et
seq.]; and Dr. Spitz [FT 8205 et seq].) The second trial was a reason for higher costs for
the experts.
http://boards.insessiontrials.com/showthread.php?377972-Phillip-spector-legal-thread-wrongful-death-case-pending-murder-appeal/page2&s=e19b38bd61f4e61a31feeb17a11861c3
Prior Bad Acts Evidence & Larry Fidler's Unique Spin
These are all excellent questions that I will try to answer:
1. PRIOR BAD ACTS EVIDENCE. . Regarding the prior bad acts, it is our legal tradition going back to 17th century England that a man may only be tried and punished for what he is charged with doing, and not WHO HE IS as a person, i.e. not based on his character. It is especially not permitted to put on evidence of a person’s character and then argue that he had the PROPENSITY to commit the crime, such as the argument “we know he did it because this is what he does”.
Thus so called character-propensity evidence is disallowed and this prohibition is set forth in California Evidence Code Section 1101.
However, as long as the prior bad acts evidence is not being used for an improper purpose, it may admitted to show the identity or the perpetrator, his intent, lack of mistake or accident, or motive.
But to admit bad acts evidence for any of these purposes, certain judicial safeguards have been enacted that must be found by the trial judge first. The main safeguard is a very factual nexus between the prior bad acts and the crime charged; are they so similar as to suggest that if the defendant committed the prior bad acts he must have committed the charged crime?
The strongest such connection must be made to admit the bad acts to show identity.
In addition, if you want to admit the bad acts to show intent, or the lack of accident or mistake, the identity of the doer cannot be in dispute. Because when you are using bad acts to show some state of mind, you must start with the assumption that the defendant is the doer, and you are simply trying to determine what his mindset was when he did it (was it intentional or an accident).
In this case Judge Fidler found before he settled the jury instructions in Spector2 that the more stringent factual connection between the bad acts and the charged crime (called the “Ewoldt” test, from People vs. Ewoldt”) had NOT been satisfied by the evidence, and therefore the bad acts would not be considered by the jury in the issue of “identify” (who the shooter was).
Where Fidler went wrong is he struck out “identity” from the instruction and inserted words that mean the same thing. He tried to draft around the prohibition, but tripped over it anyway.
As to “intent” or “accident” or “mistake”, because if Spector put the gun in Lana’s mouth it was murder under an implied malice theory, IT DID NOT MATTER whether Spector pulled the trigger ACCIDENTALLY or INTENTIONALLY—it was still an inherently dangerous felonious act likely to result in death, and therefore malice (2nd degree) murder. Therefore, intent and accident were not issues in the case, and the bad acts could not be justified on that basis.
That leaves “motive”.
But the governing appellate case law (the precedent), including that decided by the very division of the court that will decide this appeal, holds that in order to admit the bad acts to show motive, the same stringent “Ewoldt” test required to admit the evidence to show identity must be met. And Judge Fidler HIMSELF found when jury instructions were being decided that the Ewoldt test was not met by the evidence. Therefore, the admission of the bad acts could not be justified to prove motive.
2. EVIDENCE THAT LANA CLARKSON WAS SUICIDAL. This evidence did not come in as “prior bad acts” or character evidence at all. It was admitted under the “state of mind” exception to the hearsay rule for the limited purpose of trying to prove what Lana Clarkson’s state of mind was when that gun went off, in aid of answering the ultimate question in the case: who put the gun in Lana’s mouth, did she or Spector?
3. EVIDENCE THAT SPECTOR SAID THAT ALL WOMEN ARE C-WORDS WHO DESERVE A BULLET IN THEIR HEADS. This is not bad acts or 1101 evidence at all, and right off the bat the court improperly lumped this evidence into the “bad acts” jury instruction, when it should have been instructed on (if admitted at all) with its own stand alone instruction.
But this evidenced was admitted as something called a “generic threat”—a general threat against a specific class of persons (police officers) under specified circumstances (If a police officer ever tries to arrest me, I will kill him instead of going back to prison.)
It is a form of state-of-mind evidence that was admitted to show Spector’s state of mind on the night the gun discharged, by trying to prove he intended to kill Clarkson because she was a woman.
The problem is that the evidence does not qualify as a THREAT at all. To as that all women “disserve” a bullet is not the same thing as saying (for example) if a women ever did X I would put a bullet in her head.
Second, the statement was 10 years ago, in passing, as Spector was being escorted out of a Joan River’s Christmas party. It was too old and too remote in time to shed light on Spector’s tate of mind in 2003.
3. WHY PRIOR CASES MATTER. First, we are not talking about prior TRIAL COURT decisions—those are not precedent. We are talking only about PUBLISHED decision of the courts of appeal (or in the case of Ewoldt, a published decision of the California Supreme Court). Unlike a civil law system (like France, and one state in the United States, Louisiana) where everything legal is governed by codes and statutes, we follow the English common law tradition. We start with some basic common law rules that were created by judges in published appellate opinions, and those rules are refined and develop over time. The legislature can override those common law rules with a statute (as long as the resulting statute does not offend the constitution) or it can incorporate those common law rules into a statute—as it did with California Evidence Code Section 1101.
The published appellate case law in our system is important to give factual context and texture to the bare bones rules to give the law more predictability and to give judges more flexibility.
That is why some people have difficulty in law school.
Unlike many college classes where the professor gives you a body of knowledge to memorize for an exam, law school consists of reading landmark published cases that illustrate some broad principle of the law, and the student must glean the principle that the holding of the cases stands for and then apply that principle to a completely different fact situation than that presented in the published opinion.
So, what do prior decided cases have to do with it? It is within those published opinions that our laws reside.
http://boards.insessiontrials.com/showthread.php?377972-Phillip-spector-legal-thread-wrongful-death-case-pending-murder-appeal
1. PRIOR BAD ACTS EVIDENCE. . Regarding the prior bad acts, it is our legal tradition going back to 17th century England that a man may only be tried and punished for what he is charged with doing, and not WHO HE IS as a person, i.e. not based on his character. It is especially not permitted to put on evidence of a person’s character and then argue that he had the PROPENSITY to commit the crime, such as the argument “we know he did it because this is what he does”.
Thus so called character-propensity evidence is disallowed and this prohibition is set forth in California Evidence Code Section 1101.
However, as long as the prior bad acts evidence is not being used for an improper purpose, it may admitted to show the identity or the perpetrator, his intent, lack of mistake or accident, or motive.
But to admit bad acts evidence for any of these purposes, certain judicial safeguards have been enacted that must be found by the trial judge first. The main safeguard is a very factual nexus between the prior bad acts and the crime charged; are they so similar as to suggest that if the defendant committed the prior bad acts he must have committed the charged crime?
The strongest such connection must be made to admit the bad acts to show identity.
In addition, if you want to admit the bad acts to show intent, or the lack of accident or mistake, the identity of the doer cannot be in dispute. Because when you are using bad acts to show some state of mind, you must start with the assumption that the defendant is the doer, and you are simply trying to determine what his mindset was when he did it (was it intentional or an accident).
In this case Judge Fidler found before he settled the jury instructions in Spector2 that the more stringent factual connection between the bad acts and the charged crime (called the “Ewoldt” test, from People vs. Ewoldt”) had NOT been satisfied by the evidence, and therefore the bad acts would not be considered by the jury in the issue of “identify” (who the shooter was).
Where Fidler went wrong is he struck out “identity” from the instruction and inserted words that mean the same thing. He tried to draft around the prohibition, but tripped over it anyway.
As to “intent” or “accident” or “mistake”, because if Spector put the gun in Lana’s mouth it was murder under an implied malice theory, IT DID NOT MATTER whether Spector pulled the trigger ACCIDENTALLY or INTENTIONALLY—it was still an inherently dangerous felonious act likely to result in death, and therefore malice (2nd degree) murder. Therefore, intent and accident were not issues in the case, and the bad acts could not be justified on that basis.
That leaves “motive”.
But the governing appellate case law (the precedent), including that decided by the very division of the court that will decide this appeal, holds that in order to admit the bad acts to show motive, the same stringent “Ewoldt” test required to admit the evidence to show identity must be met. And Judge Fidler HIMSELF found when jury instructions were being decided that the Ewoldt test was not met by the evidence. Therefore, the admission of the bad acts could not be justified to prove motive.
2. EVIDENCE THAT LANA CLARKSON WAS SUICIDAL. This evidence did not come in as “prior bad acts” or character evidence at all. It was admitted under the “state of mind” exception to the hearsay rule for the limited purpose of trying to prove what Lana Clarkson’s state of mind was when that gun went off, in aid of answering the ultimate question in the case: who put the gun in Lana’s mouth, did she or Spector?
3. EVIDENCE THAT SPECTOR SAID THAT ALL WOMEN ARE C-WORDS WHO DESERVE A BULLET IN THEIR HEADS. This is not bad acts or 1101 evidence at all, and right off the bat the court improperly lumped this evidence into the “bad acts” jury instruction, when it should have been instructed on (if admitted at all) with its own stand alone instruction.
But this evidenced was admitted as something called a “generic threat”—a general threat against a specific class of persons (police officers) under specified circumstances (If a police officer ever tries to arrest me, I will kill him instead of going back to prison.)
It is a form of state-of-mind evidence that was admitted to show Spector’s state of mind on the night the gun discharged, by trying to prove he intended to kill Clarkson because she was a woman.
The problem is that the evidence does not qualify as a THREAT at all. To as that all women “disserve” a bullet is not the same thing as saying (for example) if a women ever did X I would put a bullet in her head.
Second, the statement was 10 years ago, in passing, as Spector was being escorted out of a Joan River’s Christmas party. It was too old and too remote in time to shed light on Spector’s tate of mind in 2003.
3. WHY PRIOR CASES MATTER. First, we are not talking about prior TRIAL COURT decisions—those are not precedent. We are talking only about PUBLISHED decision of the courts of appeal (or in the case of Ewoldt, a published decision of the California Supreme Court). Unlike a civil law system (like France, and one state in the United States, Louisiana) where everything legal is governed by codes and statutes, we follow the English common law tradition. We start with some basic common law rules that were created by judges in published appellate opinions, and those rules are refined and develop over time. The legislature can override those common law rules with a statute (as long as the resulting statute does not offend the constitution) or it can incorporate those common law rules into a statute—as it did with California Evidence Code Section 1101.
The published appellate case law in our system is important to give factual context and texture to the bare bones rules to give the law more predictability and to give judges more flexibility.
That is why some people have difficulty in law school.
Unlike many college classes where the professor gives you a body of knowledge to memorize for an exam, law school consists of reading landmark published cases that illustrate some broad principle of the law, and the student must glean the principle that the holding of the cases stands for and then apply that principle to a completely different fact situation than that presented in the published opinion.
So, what do prior decided cases have to do with it? It is within those published opinions that our laws reside.
http://boards.insessiontrials.com/showthread.php?377972-Phillip-spector-legal-thread-wrongful-death-case-pending-murder-appeal
This is the California Supreme Court writing in People v. Karis (1968) 46 Cal.3d 612, 672:
“Evidence of a defendant's statement regarding possible future criminal conduct in a hypothetical situation has at least as great a potential for prejudice in suggesting a propensity to commit crime as evidence of other crimes. Therefore, the content of and circumstances in which such statements are made must be carefully examined both in determining whether the statements fall within the state-of-mind exception, as circumstantial evidence that defendant acted in accordance with his stated intent, and in assessing whether the probative value of the evidence outweighs that potential prejudicial effect.
Although once again the specific hearsay exception under which the evidence was admitted was not an issue in the case, People v. Rodriguez (1986) 42 Cal.3d 730, 757, 230 Cal.Rptr. 667, 726 P.2d 113, is instructive with regard to the admissibility of “generic” threats. We stated there: “A defendant's threat against the victim ... is relevant to prove intent in a *637 prosecution for murder. ( People v. Lew (1968) 68 Cal.2d 774, 778, 69 Cal.Rptr. 102, 441 P.2d 942.) The statements here in question did not specify a victim or victims but were aimed at any police officer who would attempt to arrest appellant. Such a generic threat is admissible to show the defendant's homicidal intent where other evidence brings the actual victim within the scope of the threat. [Citations.] Hence the statements were relevant and not excludable under Evidence Code section 1101.”
The same reasoning leads to a conclusion that statements of intent of this nature, reflecting intent to kill a particular category of victims in specific circumstances, fall within the state-of-mind exception to the hearsay rule. (Evid.Code, § 1250.) The evidence is therefore admissible unless the circumstances in which the statements were made, the lapse of time, or other evidence suggests that the state of mind was transitory and no longer existed at the time of the charged offense."
Several points:
1. The statement by Spector a decade before Lana Clarkson died was not a statement of intent to kill anyone.
2. It did not relate to a specific class of persons under specific circumstances.
3. But the "all women are C-words who deserve a bullet in their heads" comment was highly prejudicial.
Although once again the specific hearsay exception under which the evidence was admitted was not an issue in the case, People v. Rodriguez (1986) 42 Cal.3d 730, 757, 230 Cal.Rptr. 667, 726 P.2d 113, is instructive with regard to the admissibility of “generic” threats. We stated there: “A defendant's threat against the victim ... is relevant to prove intent in a *637 prosecution for murder. ( People v. Lew (1968) 68 Cal.2d 774, 778, 69 Cal.Rptr. 102, 441 P.2d 942.) The statements here in question did not specify a victim or victims but were aimed at any police officer who would attempt to arrest appellant. Such a generic threat is admissible to show the defendant's homicidal intent where other evidence brings the actual victim within the scope of the threat. [Citations.] Hence the statements were relevant and not excludable under Evidence Code section 1101.”
The same reasoning leads to a conclusion that statements of intent of this nature, reflecting intent to kill a particular category of victims in specific circumstances, fall within the state-of-mind exception to the hearsay rule. (Evid.Code, § 1250.) The evidence is therefore admissible unless the circumstances in which the statements were made, the lapse of time, or other evidence suggests that the state of mind was transitory and no longer existed at the time of the charged offense."
Several points:
1. The statement by Spector a decade before Lana Clarkson died was not a statement of intent to kill anyone.
2. It did not relate to a specific class of persons under specific circumstances.
3. But the "all women are C-words who deserve a bullet in their heads" comment was highly prejudicial.
Saturday, March 26, 2011
The Hunt For Dr. Henry Lee - Dr. Michael Baden & Bill Pavelic
THE HUNT FOR DR. HENRY LEE - DR. MICHAEL BADEN AND BILL PAVELIC
"....After years of grabbing negative headlines for losing the OJ Simpson double homicide case and other celebrity trials, involving the same three participants, it was inevitable and predictable that the Los Angeles criminal injustice system via Robbery Homicide Division would administer their personal vendettas against me, Dr. Henry Lee, and Dr. Michael Baden. That moment arrived in 2007 when music mogul Phil Spector was charged with the murder of Lana Clarkson. Revenge by the LAPD Robbery Homicide Division against three former members of the O.J.Simpson's "Dream Team" would be a "MF"and "MF" didn't stand for Mark Fuhrman...."
"....Exposing the truth is never in the interest of those who suppress it and eliminating three members of the O.J. Simpson's "Dream Team" would have to be executed with precision by the Los Angeles Police Robbery Homicide Division and their protectorate, the Los Angeles District Attorney's Office...."
"....The Los Angeles District Attorney's Office and the LAPD Robbery Homicide Division in the Phil Spector's (2007) murder trial embarked on a mission to intentionally frame me, Dr. Henry Lee, and Dr. Michael Baden, in a manufactured and bogus "obstruction of justice" crime. The architects of this conspiracy involved Deputy District Attorney Patrick Dixon and Robbery Homicide Detective Victor Pietrantoni...."
".... Deputy District Attorney Patrick Dixon, got the judge to creatively, albeit injudiciously, grant the LAPD Robbery Homicide Division authority to "investigate" the circumstances of the missing evidence and assigned this case to Robbery Homicide Division (RHD) investigator Victor Pietrantoni, a friend of Deputy District Attorney Patrick Dixon and Anthony Pellicano...."
"....What a "happy coincidence" that this case would end up in the lap of Detective Victor Pietrantoni a RHD STUD who was nicknamed "Casanova" because of his steamy relationship with a high ranking Los Angeles Deputy District Attorney. Detective Victor Pietrantoni is just one of many LAPD officers who are incestuously connected and or married to members of the Los Angeles District Attorney's Office, The City Attorney's Office and or to the jurists assigned to the Los Angeles and Orange County Superior Courts. Consequently, allowing Victor Pietrantoni to conduct an impartial obstruction of justice investigation was tantamount to allowing the fox to investigate who broke into the hen house...."
"....Instead of convening the Grand Jury to investigate the false allegations manufactured by the District Attorney prosecutors, which were revolting, contemptible and based on perjurious witnesses, the Judge relied on a page from the "Spanish Inquisition" and used his black robe, minus the hood, to lunch a personal, vicious, unethical, and unrelenting televised smear campaign against Dr. Henry Lee, Dr. Michael Baden, and Investigative Consultant Bill Pavelic. The judicial objective (payback) had one purpose in mind; to publicly humiliate and destroy the professional reputation of the "Dream Team" participants....knowing it could be accomplished with impunity while hiding behind judicial immunity...."
"....It should come as no shock to anyone in Los Angeles, especially the judiciary, that dishonesty was compulsory in much of Robbery Homicide Division (under Chief Daryl Gates) and that my old colleagues at the Los Angeles Police Department and Los Angeles District Attorneys Office have shown an affinity of using the grotesque Robbery Homicide Division to dispense their own form of perverted justice through patently rigged and self serving investigations...."
http://guiltyofincompetence.com/lapd-hunt-for-dr-henry-lee-dr-michael-baden-b-pavelic-t99.html
"....After years of grabbing negative headlines for losing the OJ Simpson double homicide case and other celebrity trials, involving the same three participants, it was inevitable and predictable that the Los Angeles criminal injustice system via Robbery Homicide Division would administer their personal vendettas against me, Dr. Henry Lee, and Dr. Michael Baden. That moment arrived in 2007 when music mogul Phil Spector was charged with the murder of Lana Clarkson. Revenge by the LAPD Robbery Homicide Division against three former members of the O.J.Simpson's "Dream Team" would be a "MF"and "MF" didn't stand for Mark Fuhrman...."
"....Exposing the truth is never in the interest of those who suppress it and eliminating three members of the O.J. Simpson's "Dream Team" would have to be executed with precision by the Los Angeles Police Robbery Homicide Division and their protectorate, the Los Angeles District Attorney's Office...."
"....The Los Angeles District Attorney's Office and the LAPD Robbery Homicide Division in the Phil Spector's (2007) murder trial embarked on a mission to intentionally frame me, Dr. Henry Lee, and Dr. Michael Baden, in a manufactured and bogus "obstruction of justice" crime. The architects of this conspiracy involved Deputy District Attorney Patrick Dixon and Robbery Homicide Detective Victor Pietrantoni...."
".... Deputy District Attorney Patrick Dixon, got the judge to creatively, albeit injudiciously, grant the LAPD Robbery Homicide Division authority to "investigate" the circumstances of the missing evidence and assigned this case to Robbery Homicide Division (RHD) investigator Victor Pietrantoni, a friend of Deputy District Attorney Patrick Dixon and Anthony Pellicano...."
"....What a "happy coincidence" that this case would end up in the lap of Detective Victor Pietrantoni a RHD STUD who was nicknamed "Casanova" because of his steamy relationship with a high ranking Los Angeles Deputy District Attorney. Detective Victor Pietrantoni is just one of many LAPD officers who are incestuously connected and or married to members of the Los Angeles District Attorney's Office, The City Attorney's Office and or to the jurists assigned to the Los Angeles and Orange County Superior Courts. Consequently, allowing Victor Pietrantoni to conduct an impartial obstruction of justice investigation was tantamount to allowing the fox to investigate who broke into the hen house...."
"....Instead of convening the Grand Jury to investigate the false allegations manufactured by the District Attorney prosecutors, which were revolting, contemptible and based on perjurious witnesses, the Judge relied on a page from the "Spanish Inquisition" and used his black robe, minus the hood, to lunch a personal, vicious, unethical, and unrelenting televised smear campaign against Dr. Henry Lee, Dr. Michael Baden, and Investigative Consultant Bill Pavelic. The judicial objective (payback) had one purpose in mind; to publicly humiliate and destroy the professional reputation of the "Dream Team" participants....knowing it could be accomplished with impunity while hiding behind judicial immunity...."
"....It should come as no shock to anyone in Los Angeles, especially the judiciary, that dishonesty was compulsory in much of Robbery Homicide Division (under Chief Daryl Gates) and that my old colleagues at the Los Angeles Police Department and Los Angeles District Attorneys Office have shown an affinity of using the grotesque Robbery Homicide Division to dispense their own form of perverted justice through patently rigged and self serving investigations...."
http://guiltyofincompetence.com/lapd-hunt-for-dr-henry-lee-dr-michael-baden-b-pavelic-t99.html
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)