Phil Spector Appellate Co-Counsel Charles Sevilla

Charles Sevilla
After receiving his law degree from the University of Santa Clara, Chuck earned a masters degree (LL.M) from the Urban Law Institute at George Washington University Law School. He spent two years as an attorney in Washington, D.C., for VISTA, Volunteers in Service to America, before moving to San Diego to serve as a Federal Public Defender. Chuck rose to the position of Chief Trial Attorney in the San Diego Federal Public Defender office. In 1976, he was recruited to establish and head the Los Angeles office of the California State Public Defender office. Later he became the Chief Deputy State Public Defender for the State of California. In 1983, he and long time friend and colleague, John Cleary, established the law firm of Cleary and Sevilla. In 2004, John Cleary retired from the practice to teach at Moscow State University in Russia under the auspices of the Fulbright Program, the U.S. government's flagship program in international educational exchange. Chuck continues his full-time criminal defense practice.

Chuck has argued cases at all appellate levels, including several times before the U.S. Supreme Court. He is a frequent speaker and presenter at legal conferences. Chuck has published books on legal humor and two novels about a fictional New York City defense lawyer, John Wilkes. He has authored numerous law review articles and is the co-author of a legal text, California Criminal Defense Practice, used by lawyers and in law schools throughout the country.

Chuck's complete resume (PDF 23K) including Bar activities and selected published opinions is available here.

http://www.charlessevilla.com/publications.htm

“Under California law, a prosecutor commits reversible misconduct if he or she makes use of ‘deceptive or reprehensible methods' when attempting to persuade either the trial court or the jury, and it is reasonably probable that without such misconduct, an outcome more favorable to the defendant would have resulted.”

“A “reasonable probability” means “ ‘merely a reasonable chance, more than an abstract possibility.’ [Citation.]” ( People v. Racy (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 1327, 1335, 56 Cal.Rptr.3d 455.)”

“A prosecutor commits misconduct if he or she attacks the integrity of defense counsel, or casts aspersions on defense counsel.” ( Hill, supra, 17 Cal.4th at p. 832, 72 Cal.Rptr.2d 656, 952 P.2d 673.) “If there is a reasonable likelihood that the jury would understand the prosecutor's statements as an assertion that defense counsel sought to deceive the jury, misconduct would be established.” ( People v. Cummings (1993) 4 Cal.4th 1233, 1302, 18 Cal.Rptr.2d 796, 850 P.2d 1.”

“Further, accusations that counsel fabricated a defense or misstated facts in order to deceive the jury are forbidden. (E.g., People v. Friend, supra, 47 Cal.4th at pp. 30–31, 97 Cal.Rptr.3d 1, 211 P.3d 520.) The prosecutor's statement in closing argument that Dr. Kalish “got paid seven grand to meet for two hours with the defendant and come up with an excuse,” was not an argument based on the evidence. Rather, it was an unfair suggestion to the jurors that they should disregard Dr. Kalish's testimony because his testimony had been bought and paid for by defense counsel.”

People v. Higgins (2011) 191 Cal.App.4th 1075

http://www.leagle.com/xmlResult.aspx?xmldoc=In%20CACO%2020110113039.xml& docbase=CSLWAR3-2007-CURR

An Unwitting Phil Spector Witnessed Clarkson Shoot Herself - No Doubt For Maximum Impact

Unwitting audience clap and cheer as teenager stabs himself to death on stage at open mic night

By Daniel Bates
Last updated at 12:59 AM on 18th April 2011

• Comments (48)
• Add to My Stories

A troubled 19-year-old stabbed himself to death on stage at an open mic night after playing a song called Sorry For All the Mess.

Kipp Rusty Walker repeatedly plunged the six-inch blade into his chest as the audience clapped and cheered in the mistaken belief it was piece of performance art.

But when he collapsed in a pool of his own blood they started screaming in horror and rushed to help him, but his wounds were too severe and he died soon after.

Public suicide: Kipp Rusty Walker, who killed himself after playing a number on the keyboards at an open mic event in Bend, Oregon.

The bizarre suicide has left the community of Bend in Oregon stunned and wondering why he would end his life in such a public way.

But questions will be asked of mental health authorities after it emerged that Walker had told friends of his plan and had threatened to kill himself before.

On that occasion he had been taken in for treatment but was released back into the community.

Walker took his own life at the Strictly Organic Coffee Company in front of around 15 people during its open mic night.

He got up on stage and performed the number on the keyboard before killing himself.

He was taken to hospital but died shortly after.

Strictly Organic's co-owner Rhonda Ealy told TV news station KTVZ of the confused reaction among the audience as the horror unfolded.

Scene of the suicide: The venue when the teenager repeatedly stabbed himself

She said: ‘It was really unclear at first what was even happening.’

‘You know it is an open mic and it's a performance, people at first thought it was some sort of theatre.

‘Most people never have to see anything like that in their entire lives, and never have before, so it is a life-changing experience’.

One of Walker’s friends claimed that he had been planning to kill himself in a public place for some time.

The friend said: ‘It was almost like he wanted to prove a point, like there's no point in being scared of death because it's going to happen to us anyway,’

He added that Walker told him he first wanted to kill himself on March 20, so he told his parents who took him to the psychiatric unit at St Charles Medical Centre in Bend.

Walker, described as a transient, was released a few days later.

The friend added that there was nothing he could do to help Walker.

'I actually told him, I was like, "Dude, this is going to mess a lot of people up",' the friend said.

A 'life changing experience': Rhonda Ealy, the co-owner of the Strictly Organic Coffee Company in Bend, Oregon, is horrified that some of her customers had to witness a public suicide

The suicide has split opinion in Bend. Some people are sympathetic to Walker’s plight, others are outraged over his actions.

On the website of newspaper The Oregonian, one reader going by the name of Quashi wrote: ‘As the aunt of a talented young artist who also took his life at the age of 19, I am so saddened that he was not able to reach out to his friends and family for help.

‘We will never know the level of pain he suffered from so deeply that he chose to take his own life. Nor will he ever know the pain felt by those he left behind. This lasts forever.’

Another reader, Judahlevi, commented: ‘It is always a tragic act for someone to take their own life since all life is precious.

‘Nonetheless, he did not have the right to do this in front of an audience. The horrific memories of someone stabbing himself to death on stage in front of them is not something for anyone to have to be subjected to, or have to live with.

‘It is psychologically damaging for everyone in the audience, whether they admit it or not.

‘I feel more sympathy for the audience than the "performer".'

Another commenter who said he was a doctor added that such a public suicide could be to ‘demonstrate to others who are "normal" that there are others suffering to the point of suicide.'

‘It's kind of an "in your face you lucky b****** kind of approach", be it jumping from a bridge/tower or shooting/stabbing yourself in public.’

Bend Police Lieutenant Chris Carney said Walker’s family live in Alaska and have been notified.

He added that the incident was unlike anything he’d ever seen.

‘You know, 19 years with the Police Department, I can't think of any event similar to this where somebody's done something in such a public forum and not said anything in the process. So at this point, we still don't know the reason why he chose to do this, why he chose this location or anything and we probably never will would be my guess,’ he said.

A spokesman for St Charles Health System said officials would be working with Bend Police Department and the Deschutes County Public Health Department, to ‘discuss resources that are available in the community for those struggling with depression or suicidal thoughts.’

No investigation has begun into any potential errors in his treatment.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1377847/Kipp-Rusty-Walker-stabs-death-stage-open-mic-event.html#ixzz1Juw9uSe0

This was totally premeditated for maximum impact. There has to be more behind this story than what is being revealed. Most who want to committ suicide do so privately and without telling others of their plans.

- Sparky, Canada, 18/4/2011 16:20

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1377847/Kipp-Rusty-Walker-stabs-death-stage-open-mic-event.html#ixzz1JuwVbtmG

Phil Spector murder conviction in appeals court

Apr. 12, 2011 5:40 PM ET


LINDA DEUTSCHLINDA DEUTSCH, AP Special Correspondent

LOS ANGELES (AP) — A panel of three appellate judges gave lawyers on both sides a hostile reception Tuesday as they argued for and against motions to overturn the second-degree murder conviction of legendary music producer Phil Spector.

With his family and that of slain actress Lana Clarkson in the courtroom, Spector's appellate attorney, Dennis Riordan, insisted that a judge erred when he allowed prosecutors to show jurors a videotape from a hearing held outside the presence of Spector and the jury.

On the tape, Superior Court Judge Larry Paul Fidler was seen interpreting the testimony of a key forensic witness about the position of blood spatter on Clarkson's body, Riordan argued.

Riordan said the judge had taken on the role of a witness.

Associate Justice Richard D. Aldrich and Presiding Justice Joan Dempsey Klein of the California 2nd District Court of Appeal seemed unimpressed with the argument.

Klein said when she was a trial judge, she sometimes interceded to clarify testimony for jurors. "Something that's a mere clarification of evidence — judges do it all the time," said Klein. "...I've done it. It doesn't mean we're testifying."

But Riordan noted that the prosecution used the videotape and a picture of Fidler in their closing argument to validate their position.

The panel, which also included Associate Justice Patti S. Kitching, questioned points made by the state attorney general's office about admissibility of evidence in the case. They quizzed Deputy Attorney General Lawrence Daniels about Fidler's decision to allow the testimony of five women who claimed to have been threatened by Spector in the past.

"If that evidence hadn't come in, do you think you would have gotten a guilty verdict?" asked Klein, who suggested the evidence could be viewed as "highly prejudicial."

Daniels argued it was admissible and not prejudicial, and that coupled with other testimony, it showed that Spector killed the "Barbaraian Queen" star.

The judges have 90 days to issue a written ruling.

Spector was convicted two years ago of shooting to the actress to death at his Alhambra mansion in 2003. He's serving 19 years to life and didn't attend the hearing.

If the appellate court grants Spector a new trial, it would be his third. Spector's first jury deadlocked in the case in 2007; a second jury convicted him in 2009.

Spector's lawyers in both trials contended he did not kill Clarkson and suggested that forensic evidence showed was depressed and shot herself in the mouth. The 71-year-old rock music producer known for his "Wall of Sound" recording technique never testified.

Clarkson's mother, Donna, and another daughter attended the hearing with their attorney. Also in the audience were Spector's wife, Rachelle, and his grown children, Louis and Nicole.

Outside court, Riordan said it was impossible to predict what the court might do and noted that "the tenor of questions shifted" depending on the issues being addressed.

Rachelle Spector said she visits her husband in prison every weekend and that he has been waiting anxiously for the result of his appeal.

"I sincerely hope they take into consideration the evidence and do the right thing," she said.

The justices received some 360 pages of legal briefs and 10,000 pages of transcripts over the past year. They said they had studied the facts of the case closely.

The Dainty Criminals Do Not Like Curse Words - They Think They Are At Tea Parties Or Golfing With Their Cronies

Dear My2Cents:

Very thoughtful post. I have three questions:

It seems to me that the holding of Hassoldt is that where identity of the actor is in dispute, 1101 “bad acts” evidence may not be used to show intent, lack of accident or mistake, or motive unless the Ewoldt signature test is met. Therefore, whether the possible actors are 20 or are narrowed down to 2, the underlying principle of Hassoldt would seem to apply.

Regarding your reasoning that:

“The evidence that Phil committed 7 prior assaults with a gun against 5 women under very similar circumstances to Lana's situation - tend to show that it was NOT the result of an "accident or mistake" on Lana's part, and therefore, if that is the case - then Phil killed her.”

It seems clear from the panoply of case authority cited by Spector in support of his position on this point that the showing of “similarity” of the crime charged with the prior 1101 incidents must be supplied INDEPENDENTLY and may not rely on inferences drawn from the 1101 evidence itself.

As such, unless you assume, based on the 1101 evidence, that Spector was the actor and that is motive was to prevent Clarkson from leaving, there is no evidence that Spector’s conduct on the night Lana was killed was similar in any way to any of the 1101 incidents.

Q#1: Therefore, on what “similarities” do you rely and what is the independent evidence (apart from inferences drawn from the bad acts themselves) that Spector engaged in that conduct on the night in question?

Second, I am intrigued that you believe Judge Fidler erred in allowing the jury to hear Vincent Tannazo’s testimony that while escorting Spector from a Christmas party at Joan River’s apartment a decade before Lana Clarkson died Spector said “All women are [C-words] who deserve a bullet in the head.”—and yet you do not believe that this error had any potential to affect the verdict.

I don’t recall the exact count, but my recollection is that there were eight women on the jury. The C-word is extremely inflammatory to most women. They hate the word, and they hate any man who uses it. And coupling that with a prior statement that all women deserve a bullet in the head, in a case where they had to primarily determine whether the man who uttered those words was the one who put a bullet in a woman’s head would seem to have the potential to very much tip the balance toward the prosecution.

Q#2: Why, then, do you not believe that the Tannazo testimony was prejudicial?

Third, it seems undeniable that—given prosecution criminalist Lynn Harold’s change in testimony after she testified in trial #1 that the physical evidence could not exclude suicide to (in trial #2) that the physical evidence excluded suicide as a possibility, as well as Harold’s EXCLUSIVE lynchpin for the flip-flop, her “discovery” that Jamie Lintermoot observed (never documented) blood splatter on the back of Clarkson’s wrists—having the trial judge on video tape explaining with words and actions to his own jury that this is PRECISELY where Lintermoot testified in 2007 that she saw blood splatter on Clarkson’s wrists, had huge potential to sway the jury on this CRUCIAL point concerning the ultimate issue in the case: Suicide vs. homicide.

In addition, it is clear that Judge Fidler’s verbal and nonverbal testimony consisted of "out of court" statements (meaning not made at the trial where they were admitted), that were admitted for the truth of the matter asserted, and that there is no applicable exception to the hearsay rule—since the exceptions proffered by the People only apply to the testimony of “parties” to the case. In other words, the Fidler video was improperly admitted over defense objection.

Moreover, once admitted, the prosecution not only played it to the jury in slow motion to bolster Lynn Harold on the main issue in dispute, it took the extraordinary step of displaying a picture of Judge Fidler on the overhead display to the jury when it was listing the prosecution witness AND when Doron Weinberg objected that the judge was neither a witness for the prosecution or the defense, Judge Fidler OVERRULED that objection in the presence of the jury.

Q#3: Therefore, why don’t you think that the admission of the Fidler video was improper or if you agree it was improper, why do you think that this error did not have the potential to affect the verdict?

I would be very interested to hear your take on these three points.

Once again, thank you for a very analytical post.

http://boards.insessiontrials.com/showthread.php?377972-Phillip-spector-legal-thread-wrongful-death-case-pending-murder-appeal/page2&s=e19b38bd61f4e61a31feeb17a11861c3

Reversal Is Required & Demanded

Conclusion from spector reply brief

CONCLUSION FROM SPECTOR REPLY BRIEF:

CONCLUSION

In this case, where the scientific evidence raised reasonable doubts as to
defendant’s guilt, other means were advanced to persuade the jury: the unprecedented
use of the trial judge as a witness for the prosecution on a central point in the case; the use of inflammatory evidence of uncharged conduct, much of it decades old, which was
improperly argued as pure propensity evidence; and the castigation of appellant’s counsel
for purportedly having bought expert witnesses to make up “ridiculous testimony” in
order to hide the truth.
R
“It is too much the habit of prosecuting officers to assume beforehand that a defendant is guilty, and then expect to have the established rules of evidence twisted, and all the features of a fair trial distorted, in order to secure a conviction. If a defendant cannot be fairly convicted, he should not be convicted at all; and to hold otherwise would be to provide ways and means for the conviction of the innocent.”
(People v. Wells (1893) 100 Cal. 459, 465.)

Appellant was not fairly convicted. Reversal is required.

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

Spector's prosecutorial misconduct argument: attacks on honest of defense counsel

There is an additional ground for reversal raised by Spector on appeal that has not yet been discussed: Prosecutorial misconduct based on prosecutor’s accusing Doron Weinberg of going out and hiring expert witnesses willing to lie for large sums of cash.

These excerpts are from Spector’s reply brief on that subject:

The prosecution’s attack on defense counsel for paying for false testimony was not
simply a criticism of “defense tactics and evidence,” as respondent argues. (RB 116.)
The rule is one of boundaries: evidence-based attacks on witness credibility are permitted, but not baseless accusations that defense counsel is dishonest in procuring witnesses in order to hide the truth from the jury. “Argument may not denigrate the integrity of opposing counsel, but harsh and colorful attacks on the credibility of opposing witnesses are permissible.” (People v. Arias (1996) 13 Cal.4th 92, 162; italics in original; accord People v. Sandoval (1992) 4 Cal. 4th 155, 183-185.) From the prosecutor’s opening final argument, the attack was initiated on defense counsel such that the latter had to address the issue in his own argument: “The prosecution, apparently, thinks that you find me untrustworthy. Apparently, that was the meaning of Ms. Do’s argument yesterday.” (48 RT 9344.)

Respondent argues the aspersions cast on defense counsel for his alleged “machinations of the truth” and similar comments were proper. The term “machination” is defined as “a scheming or crafty action or artful design intended to accomplish some usually evil end.” In context, the word conveyed that appellant’s counsel 24 was a schemer to achieve an evil end, i.e., the suppression of the truth. In fact, they explicitly argued he hired the experts in order to hide the truth from the jury.

Prosecutors may zealously argue their cases and strike hard blows in the process,
but not foul ones. (Berger v. United States (1935) 295 U.S. 78, 88.) Respondent goes
through each of the statements at issue to explain that they in some way responded to defense positions. (See RB 117 et seq.) But it is one thing to point to the evidence to
argue the defense position is unsupported or contradictory, and another to label the
process as counsel’s dishonest scheme to suppress the truth. It is this context that defines
the prosecution argument that counsel paid his experts to say whatever he wanted them to
say no matter how ridiculous in order to keep the truth from the jury.

***

Respondent defends the prosecution’s argument regarding defense counsel going
“through the machinations of the truth to avoid it, to change it, to move it from here to
here. I mean, this is almost like an inside joke with us because we’ve seen this moved to
here.” (47 RT 9276.) Respondent’s defense of this “inside joke” between the two
prosecutors is that it was not an attempt to smuggle into the case an inference that the
prosecutors had an “inside joke;” i.e., personal beliefs about defense counsel’s
machinations and not an argument based on factual information known only to the
prosecutor. (RB 121.) The rejoinder fails. The comment and the others like it were not mere “arguments that defense counsel called witnesses that gave implausible testimony.”
(RB 123.) They were attacks on counsel’s integrity that he put on 25 phony evidence to
“hide the truth” from the jury.

(EXCERPT CONTINUED IN NEXT COMMENT)

http://boards.insessiontrials.com/showthread.php?377972-Phillip-spector-legal-thread-wrongful-death-case-pending-murder-appeal/page2&s=e19b38bd61f4e61a31feeb17a11861c3phil