The Darwin Exception

because it's not always survival of the fittest – sometimes the idiots get through

  • Recent Posts

  • Stuff I Blog About

  • Visitors

    • 975,430 People Stopped By
  • Awards & Honors

    Yesh, Right! I don't HAVE any "Awards & Honors" - so nominate me for something - I want one of those badge things to put here. I don't care what it is - make up your own award and give it to me. I'm not picky.
  • Advertisements

CA vs. Spector – The Exhibits are Moved into Evidence

Posted by thedarwinexception on August 28, 2007

So today was taken up with the exhibits being moved into evidence – and I agree with a comment Judge Fidler made to Alan Jackson – that none of these exhibits are so critical that they are going to make a difference to the jury one way or another. There is no exhibit that one could point to and say “This is Earth shattering.” The judge tempered that comment by saying that if the “Lana Clarkson life story” exhibit were to be admitted, that this could be “crucial”, but since that issue was revisited today and the judge still said that this was not admissible, there isn’t any one exhibit that is going to definitively change the jurors minds.

But this is an important, if boring, part of the case, and it’s something that must be done, although, thankfully, not every case will have exhibits that go up to “G to the Twelfth”.

Of course, I guess Linda Kenney Baden and Phil Spector could not be enticed to come to court today – Baden is probably working on her portion of the closing arguments, and Phil? Well, Phil is just enjoying one of his final days of freedom in his sweats and sandals, kicking back at the castle.

The defense table isn’t too much emptier for the loss of Cutler and Linda Kenney Baden and Phil Spector – one seat is taken up by a new face – Dennis Reardon, who the defense introduces to the court as “an appellate attorney here to help with Jury Instructions”. And it looks like Spector paid his daily fee today for nothing, as we never actually get to jury instructions.

And then we go through the interminable task of sorting through each and every one of the prosecution exhibits, with the judge ruling on each one the defense objects to , mostly on grounds of relevancy, hearsay or no foundation.

The Prosecution exhibits ruled admissible are:

156 – Note to Dr. Kudrow

157 – 165  – Series of headshots of Lana Clarkson taken shortly before her death

166 – 167 -Photos of lungs

170 – 171 – base hospital form tape and transcript – transcript is not evidence and there will be a jury instruction covering all transcripts

172 – DMV Photo used to identify Tawni Tyndall – will be redacted as to her personal information

174 – 175  – photos of Lana Clarkson at her last commercial audition

177- “Carlos” email and response

178 – 180 – Three photos of Lana Clarkson

181 – Pie’s Christmas letter – Rosen says he would like to find an objection, but he just can’t think of one.

182 – Christmas card sent with letter.

183 – Photo of Lana Clarkson and Michael Bay

184 – Castle sign at time of shooting – This was stipulated to

185 – Lana’s lease to the cottage  –  This was stipulated to

186 – Receipt for shoes that Lana’s mother bought her

187-188-189 – Mannequin pictures with the defense team taken by sheriff’s dept

190 – Email from Lana Clarkson

191- Response to Lana Clarkson from that email

192 – 193 – Additional photos of defense team utilizing mannequins

194 – Letter of employment of Devra Roitaille

196 – Alan Jackson’s rendition of spinal cord

In addition, the prosecution moves into evidence 7 emails and the phone records between Lana Clarkson and Jennifer Hayes.

The Prosecution exhibits ruled inadmissible are:

155 – The database chart showing causes of deaths in suicides testified to by Dr. Dimaio

Those needing more research, or which the judge has ruled must be tied to evidence before ruling definitively.

173 – Lana Clarkson’s resume shown to Terzian – people need to tie to evidence that Terzian laid foundation saying that this document was an accurate representation.

The Defense exhibits ruled admissible are:

The first 7 exhibits are contacts that Spector made with the “prior bad acts” witnesses – the prosecution objects on the grounds that the witnesses did not contact Spector – he contacted them, and they didn’t say they replied – Jackson says that “guys in prison contact their victims, too” and that this does not prove state of mind. The judge says that people also throw away things that they don’t want or have bad memories, and that these things were kept.

H – Answering tape message Spector left for one of the “prior bad acts” witnesses

J – Contract

L – Judgment in Melissa Grosvenor’s felony case

N – Documents related to Melissa Grosvenor’s felony case

O – Employment application of  Melissa Grosvenor’s

V – Portion of a tape of Adrian DeSouza doing walkthrough of the crime scene

W – Deferred action summary documents from immigration department referencing DeSouza

X & Y – 2 letters by Mr. Sortino from INS to US immigration on behalf of Mr. DeSouza

F2 &  G2- Photos from Spitz’ book of weapon firing.

H2 & I 2 – Coroner’s data sheet filled out by Dr. Pena

Q2 – Spitz diagram of gun firing

V2 – Cover Document  out of sexual assault kit done on Spector saying he voided before testing.

H3 – Medical History of Lana Clarkson – admissible with redactions

J3 – Coroner’s inventory dealing with medications

K3 – Coroner’s inventory –  needs to be redacted to only admissible medicines

N3 – Letter to coroner’s officer from Mr. Sorentino regarding submission of box of evidence that was never investigated.

O3 – Another letter to coroner’s office regarding box

P3 – Printout of SAG insurance records authorizing psychiatric treatment for Lana Clarkson in early 90’s

W3 – List of Lana’s medications – admitted subject to redactions

Y3 – Lana’s datebook – subject to being redacted to pertinent pages that were testified to 

A4 – Letter to Hugo Quackenbush – admissible subject to redaction of final paragraph that judge calls “totally irrelevant” and Jackson calls “salacious”

K5 – Photo of gun

B8 – Sarah Caplan drawing of “little white thing”

I8 – J8 – Photos of jacket

A9 – Extreme close up of jacket with red arrow

G9 – CV of Stuart James

E11 – Lana’s medical history from Cedar Sinai 

The Defense exhibits ruled inadmissible are:

K – Melissa Grosvenor’s charging papers in her felony case

M – Plea agreement in Melissa Grosvenor’s felony case

I3 – Lana’s “Life Story”

L3 – Note from Dr. Pena from conversation with Donna Clarkson concerning Lana’s psychiatric history

W9, X9 Z9 A10 – G10  – Photo of different portions of jacket – contains comments

I10 – Henry Lee’s post it notes

J 10 – Contents of Henry Lee’s post it notes – fibers

S10  – Gun pictures

G12 – compilation of chart

Those needing more research, or which the judge has ruled must be tied to evidence before ruling definitively.

N2 – Police Log of people’s comings and goings at crime scene

Z3 – Hospital records saying Lana was taking Paxil – needs to be tied to testimony

L7 – Photo of Lana with her leg on table – Judge wants defense to show that Punkin Pie identified this photo – but he also tells Alan Jackson “Is is not overly salacious, it’s only slightly salacious – you have your good photos and they have their bad ones, but the jury is going to understand this, don’t underestimate them – this is not as bad as you think, Mr. Jackson.”

E8 – F8 – Pictures of plaster and blood on carpet – needs to be tied to testimony

R8 – LASD biology manual – needs to be tied to testimony

Y11 – Chart of bullet diameters – needs to be tied to testimony

There was a witness today, in between all the marking of exhibits, he was Victor Bictorpietrantoni, one of the detective homicides the Special Master sent to interview Gregory Diamond to see if he really had anything to add to this case. He testified that he went and interviewed Diamond, under the direction of his captain, and that he wasn’t really given any direction by the Captain or by the Special master, just told to go and see if the Diamond had any information.

That’s basically all he said, and when he was excused the Defense halfheartedly tries to use this as the basis for their “Outrageous Government Conduct” motion, saying “See? The guy wasn’t given directions”. Their hearts weren’t in the motion, though, and even they had to admit that they had nothing, and tried to explain themselves after the judge denied their motion for lack of evidence.

The most interesting little tidbit came at the end of the day when the new guy – Reardon – asked the prosecution if they had a position on lesser and included offenses. The Prosecution said they would let the defense know first thing in the morning.

I can’t wait.


19 Responses to “CA vs. Spector – The Exhibits are Moved into Evidence”

  1. brdsnbs said

    Hi Kim,

    I just discovered your blog today and have become a fast fan. This new guy, Reardon, seems to be the only one on the defense side asking the important question(s).

    I can’t wait either!

    Thank you for your precise (and salty…gotta love that salt) commentary,
    Another “Kim”

  2. Lajet said

    Another great recap. : )

  3. RJ said

    Hi Kim,

    Been reading your blog for some time now, and decided I owe you a thank you. With dialup, I’ve been limited to the crappy coverage CTV has provided on this trial. I see just enough to get a sense of what’s happening. I come to you for an entertaining and informative update. Great job!!! Thanks again. RJ

  4. groo said

    So, Kim, what’s next on the docket? After the closing arguments and final rulings on outstanding motions, what are you going to report on? We need more than the Formerly Dead Lady Next Door. Is there another high-profile case coming up?

  5. sawgratefuldead10x said

    Kim — U r GREAT !! At Paul’s woodchipper trial, I will testify that you were hilarious, meticulous and free of ADD. Wow, i am impressed !! Nothing next on the docket Groo, give a gal a break,,, unless Martha lops off head of minion. Go my friend Kim!!

  6. Kim said

    “Ditto” to the short note “another Kim” wrote…Salt Rocks! As does your blog – Keep up the fantastic commentaries and summaries….

    Kim (from Canada)

  7. Jim said

    I admit ignorance on the exhibit: “Lana Clarkson life story”. Can you fill me in on what this was? I appreciate your diligent reporting as well as your humor. Best, Jim

  8. Carolina said

    Hi Kim,

    I had to let you know how reading your blog has become a brightspot in my day. Circumstances find me housebound, caring for my very elderly and ill mother. My old life was exciting, I traveled a lot for my work and not just in the USA

  9. Healer said

    Thanks, Kim!

  10. Sprocket said

    Thank you so much for the recap Kim. I was researching an entry all day today and didn’t get to watch CTV or even the online streaming. Your continued dedication to this case is much appreciated.

  11. Catherine said

    I feel like a veteran fan at this point Kim! Everyday you nail it for us. I savor every page and am always totally amused and disappointed when I finish your recap.

    This is probably the wrong form/place to ask … but does anyone wonder why the defense or prosecution didn’t have Pie’s friend on their witness list? Both times Pie was on the stand she insisted that her friend stepped in front of her and the detective insisting that she obtain a lawyer. This is the “reason” she withheld information originally from the detectives. I can’t imagine why we didn’t see the friend on the stand and why the detective didn’t testify about it. I would love to hear what the truth is about it because I don’t believe a word that comes out of her mouth!

    So many things that the defense tried in this case don’t make sense. This is just one more I guess.

    Thanks for all your great and entertaining work Kim!

  12. rogerr said

    On KTLA today one of the commentators stated that outside of the courtroom the defense lawyers were all nice people as if that negates the mean ugly way they are trying to portray Lana Clarkson. This is like saying a man who volunteered to work for the Nazis and then asked if he can work rounding up people for the gas chambers was a nice guy outside of work. No one held a gun to the defense lawyers’ heads to make them work for Phil Spector. No one forced them to attempt to portray Lana Clarkson as they have attempted to do. Yes, even Phil Spector has the right to be defended fairly, but as happens so often in our court system the defense is stooping to the “loose woman” attack. Today, they tried unsuccessfully to get into evidence part of a letter or email that they seemed to think included some indication that Lana Clarkson was having sex with a man who was lending her money. How many people haven’t at some point borrowed money from someone they are having sex with whether it be a husband, wife, boyfriend, or girlfriend. As with the BabyDoll crap, they want to go beyond the issue of depression to try and make her into a whore. I do not understand how the defense team can sleep at night. They are creating some really bad karma for themselves. I wonder what the defense teams’ friends and family think of them. I know what the vast majority of people watching the trial think of them: as people without morals or ethics who will do anything for money. Thankfully for Lana Clarkson’s surviving relatives, everyone sees through the defense picture. Most of us would have really enjoyed and benefitted from having a friend like Lana. Remember in one of the only believable parts of Punkin Pie’s testimony, she related how much effort Lana put into helping Punkin with Punkin’s depression issues. The Lana Clarkson that actually comes through in this trial was a smart, kind, fun person. Acting is easily amoung the most difficult and stressfull professions. Even for the most successful, jobs are rare and hard to come by. Even when working actors and actresses are scrambling to find their next job. I once worked as a technician at a regional theater in the South. On their day off cast members would fly to New York City for auditions in hopes of getting future work. That is typical of how much effort goes into being an actress. There are thousands and thousands of actresses across this country who would love to have had the career Lana had. I just hope that the Clarkson family knows how many new fans Lana has won.

  13. E. Stroop said

    On Court TV, the “Extended Testimony, Part I” enabled me to watch along with your summary… the LOL moment comes at the very end of the section, when they break for lunch and Judge Fidler announces “I will admonish myself…” before he declares the recess.

  14. So, Kim, what’s next on the docket? After the closing arguments and final rulings on outstanding motions, what are you going to report on?

    I’m thinking that after the trial is over, well, I may get in touch with the vaccuum cleaner again and try cleaning up around here. I don’t think I’ve vaccuumed twice since the trial started. And I may clean the bathroom. But I’m not totally decided on that.

    There’s always interesting trials to watch – the one I am most looking forward to is one from right around here – a guy in Vermont who shot his girlfriend and her mother last year – notable and interesting because so *Few* murder trials come out of Vermont.

    But there’s always the crazy fucking diaper wearing astronaut, and really, *any* trial has it’s share of interesting characters and law.

    But I’m done for a while. As much as I’ve enjoyed old Philly and Alan Jackson and Fidler and Rosen, and as much as I love wtaching and reporting on it, it can be time consuming and exhausting.

    I need a break.


  15. “Lana Clarkson life story”. Can you fill me in on what this was?

    A sort of autobigraphical “journal” was found on Lana’s computer. Seems she was sort of keeping track of her life and things that she had been through. In it was included a lot of references to alcohol drinking and tequila and some of the sort of things the defense really wanted to get in front of the jury.

    The judge ruled the “story” was inadmissible because it was “too remote” – we don’t know when it was written, and since the narration ended in the early 80’s, the judge deemed it too remote.

    The judge also said yesterday that we had no way of knowing if it was “true to life” – it could very well have been enhanced or embellished, and since that couldn’t be determined, he still wouldn’t let it in.


  16. does anyone wonder why the defense or prosecution didn’t have Pie’s friend on their witness list? Both times Pie was on the stand she insisted that her friend stepped in front of her and the detective insisting that she obtain a lawyer.

    I wondered this as well. It seems that the defense would have wanted to put her on to say “Look, I advised Pie NOT to say a word until she got a lawyer, and I told her to NOT say that Lana was depressed or suicidal.” I thought that the defense would certainly want to bolster Pie’s testimony that way, and maybe it is a little odd that they haven’t – the jury has got to be wondering where she is, too, if what Pie said was true.

    Why the prosecution didn’t put her on to refute Pie’s statement, if it wasn’t true, is another question.


  17. Today, they tried unsuccessfully to get into evidence part of a letter or email that they seemed to think included some indication that Lana Clarkson was having sex with a man who was lending her money.

    I didn’t like that much eaither, and neither did the judge, by his reposnse of “*WHAT* could be the relevency in THIS?” And Brunon was so smug and self satisfied with his comments of “Well, lots of women get money from men and this was an older gentleman and he lived in San Diego and this is what happened…”

    What an ass. Like Hugo Quackenbush couldn’t have just LIKED Lana and believed in her talent?

    Brunon even stood there and said “Well, this is the man she was sneding the forged letters to…” Well, then Brunon, I guess he wasn’t just paying her for the sex then, was he? I mean, if she was just giving him blow jobs for money, why would she NEED to send him forged letters? Why would he give a shit how her career was going if she was just a whore he gave money to once in a while?


  18. rogerr said

    After watching her testimony, I realizes why Jennifer Hayes came to hate Lana Clarkson. After Lana was as Pie said “violently taken from us” by Phil Spector, Hayes kids showed that they loved Lana more than they love their own mom. She says they cry over Lana still. Really it is hard to imagine her children loving Jennifer Hayes especially after she makes light of their drug problems on TV. Hard to imagine anyone loving Jennifer Hayes.

  19. Great work, and again, my thanks for allowing me to quote from your thorough and comprehensive blog today!

    You are far better than any other trial source I have found!

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: