The Darwin Exception

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

  • Recent Posts

  • Stuff I Blog About

  • Visitors

    • 971,429 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.

CA vs. Spector – Further Instructions

Posted by thedarwinexception on September 20, 2007

So if the jurors weren’t confused before they certainly had to have been as they came back to court this morning  – it’s been two days since they told the judge they were at an “impasse” and since then, they’ve been told nothing except to wait while the judge gets with the attorneys to formulate answers to their questions.

Which only opened up a shit storm of deleting instructions, expanding instructions, formulating new scenarios of the case, considering adding new charges and talking about arguing closing arguments all over again.

At this point, probably the least confused people are the jurors.

The judge actually acknowledged that today in court when he said from the bench “I think we have managed to make it so dense that the general public doesn’t know what we are doing here.” Well, ya think?

The judge and attorneys met in chambers this morning to try and draft new instructions and new language to compensate for the void left with the withdrawal of Special instruction 3.

Special instruction 3 severely limited the scenario that the state had to prove to be true to find Spector guilty of murder. While it was a true and correct statement of the prosecution’s case, it wasn’t a true and accurate statement of the law. The way the defense wrote the instruction, it implied that if the jury didn’t find *this particular scenario* to be true, then they had to acquit. Which is wrong. The law doesn’t require the state prove any *particular* scenario – they can argue one, but the jury is free to interpret the evidence any way they wish. While the prosecution in this case argued that Spector put the gun in her mouth and pulled the trigger, anything could have happened – she could have slapped his hand, he could have had some of his Parkinsonian shaking, or, as Jackson has said so many times – there could have been a strong breeze or an earthquake.

But now the judge is in a quandary. With the withdrawal of Special Instruction 3, it leaves open the possibility that the jury could start drawing their own conclusions from the evidence – and some of those conclusions could be charged not as Murder in the Second Degree, but Manslaughter. And the judge is not allowed, at this point, to tell them the difference between the two charges.

And the defense is eating this shit up. They are happier than pigs in shit at this point, because every time the judge tries to cure the situation, all they have to do is pop up from their chairs, renew their motion for a mistrial to preserve the record, and object to whatever the judge does suggest, thus preserving the record further.

The judge wants to modify the jury instruction 520 – Murder and Implied malice murder. The defense objects. Of course.

Then, for the third day in a row, we get the annoying, loud, obnoxious voice of Riordan on the speakerphone. And where the hell is he and why isn’t he here? Is he in such a remote location that they have no fucking planes? He couldn’t take one sometime in the last three days? Or is Spector so broke that he can’t afford to get him here?

But Riordan’s voice comes booming out of the phone on the judge’s bench and he tells the judge that the defense is renewing it’s objections to the withdrawal of special instruction 3 and says that they object to any instruction on implied malice murder. Riordan says that the defense would suggest taking the instruction on murder already given and modify the portion that says “committed the act that caused the death” to include “committed the act with a deadly weapon and directly caused the death of Lana Clarkson”.

Riordan says that this would satisfy the judge’s requirements that there be no “brandishing” confusion – that the jury would not be able to find that Spector simply waved the gun around and caused the death of Lana, which may or may not rise to the level of Murder 2. And since the prosecution had not presented any theories that would include “proximate cause” liability, this instruction would be appropriate.

Alan Jackson for the prosecution says that he has no problem with the amended 520 instruction the defense has proposed, except for the word “directly”. Jackson argues that this ends up posing the same problem as Special Instruction 3 – it holds the prosecution to burdens that it legally doesn’t hold. They don’t have to prove that the killing happened in any one way. Jackson would propose “the defendant committed an act with a firearm. Period.” Jackson then postulates – what happens if he was assaulting her and a struggle ensued, or she slapped his hand, or she grabbed the gun? These scenarios are still murder 2.

Riordan – from the speakerphone – interjects that although he agrees with Jackson that the word “firearm:” is more appropriate than “deadly weapon”, he still believes there are two kinds of causation, direct and proximate, and since the jury has not been instructed on proximate cause, that the defense will stand by the word “direct”.

Brunon also adds that the three scenarios that Jackson says would be negated by the word direct would not be.

Jackson says yes, that the word direct absolutely does eliminate his scenarios – if she slapped the gun, then the slap was the direct cause of the death, not Spector, and this may all be semantics, but he proffers that the jurors are obviously very big on semantics.

The judge says that he is going to have to give all of this some thought – but he does ask Riordan why he feels the need for the word “directly”, when that word is already elsewhere in the instruction, and Riordan offers that this has always been a direct causation case, and that the jury will assume by the withdrawal of special instruction 3 that this means something – and it does – but this word directly ensures that they won’t speculate about theories and the cause of death such as Spector saying derogatory things to her and she therefore shooting herself.

Brunon adds that the word directly goes to mental state, and that therefore that goes to the act that caused the death.

The judge looks through the law and the pile of papers on his desk and asks Mt Brunon to look at instruction 520 in its original state – it doesn’t say that that the defendant committed an act directly, but that his concern is that the jury realizes it has to be an act with malice, not just waving a gun around and it going off.

Riordan interjects – something about the Knoller case (the dog mauling case in San Francisco, which he was the appellate lawyer on and successfully won an appeal on), and how that would apply here, and when the judge tries to cut him off by telling him that he is familiar with the Knoller case, Riordan doesn’t hear him and goes on and on and on until the judge and the entire courtroom starts laughing. And Riordan still continues on and on and on and on.

Everyone takes a break (after Riordan shuts up – but I think they all should have just left while he was still rambling on), and when they come back the judge says that Knoller actually was instructive to him, that he doesn’t believe he can instruct the jury with the language from Assault with a Deadly weapon, but that the instruction offered by the defense doesn’t address his concerns.

He says that this case was presented with a very simple theory – that Spector placed a gun in Lana Clarkson’s mouth and pulled the trigger and that caused her death. The People are correct in pointing out that although this is their theory, if the jurors draw a different theory from the facts, the jury can still find their theory to be consistent with Murder in the Second. The problem is that since he is unable to instruct the jury on the charge of manslaughter, there is no way to know that they are correctly matching their theory with the charge of Murder 2 – it could very well be that their theory could also be charged as manslaughter. The judge says that he needs to make sure that the jury knows that the mere act of waving the gun around is not an element of implied malice. Otherwise, this case can not go forward with the way the instructions are now written. He says that the attorneys need to get together and come up with language that the jury can consider.

Alan Jackson then says that the judge is worried needlessly, that if he is worried that the jury may find brandishing, that’s ok, because it’s only when heightened by malice that it’s murder, and the jury has been instructed on malice. Jackson suggests that the judge just re-instruct on implied and expressed malice, and if the jury finds brandishing, but not malice, there is a built in safety net – a not guilty verdict.

The judge tells Jackson that he is talking out of both sides of his mouth – but not in a derogatory way. But he says Jackson can not have it both ways – he can’t say “there’s nothing here to support brandishing, there’s no way they can conclude that, the evidence doesn’t support it, but if the jury *does* find brandishing, that’s ok”. You can’t do that. The judge wants to make sure that there is no way the jury can conclude that the gun was brandished, and that this is the basis for their verdict.

So they take another break (there was a lot of breaks today).

When they come back, the judge has an instruction that he has written. He shows it to both the parties for review. It is basically a modification of the 520 jury instruction that deals with Murder and implied and expressed malice with what the judge calls acts and specific scenarios incorporated. that can be reasonably shown by the evidence. He lasso incorporated the specific language of brandishing, so that he is sure the jury understands and does not consider that.

The judge’s instruction:

The defendant is charged with murder in violation of penal code section 187. To prove that the defendant is guilty of this crime, the people must prove that

1. The defendant committed an act with a deadly weapon (or firearm, or gun, whatever the case may be), that caused the death of Lana Clarkson such as: Placing the gun in her mouth at which time it discharged, or, by pointing the gun at or against her head and it entered her mouth and discharged, or, by pointing the gun at her to prevent her from leaving his house causing a struggle which ended with the gun entering her mouth and discharging, or forcing her to place the gun in her mouth and it discharged.

If you find  Mr. Spector used the gun against Lana Clarkson he must have done more than just drawn or exhibited the gun in the immediate presence of Lana Clarkson in a rude, angry or threatening manner.

Then the regular 520 instruction would continue.

The judge then invites comments from both sides, and the disembodied voice of Riordan speaks up.

Riordan opines that if the judge starts to propose scenarios to the jury then he runs the risk of conveying to the jury that these are rational, reasonable possibilities from the evidence, and that his is improper and error.

Riordan also says that Spector forcing Lana to put the gun in her mouth is not supported by the evidence, the state’s theory is and has always been that Spector put the gun in her mouth.

Alan Jackson, of course, says that he is just fine and dandy with the court’s proposal. Jackson’s position is that the 4 scenarios given are surely reasonable and proper. Jackson says that the struggle is perfectly reasonable, given the bruises, and since one doesn’t normally put a gun in their own mouth, that there is certainly inferences to be drawn from that. These 4 scenarios cover it and they have no objections.

The judge asks for any other scenarios that he wants included and Jackson says he can’t think of any. Although the judge says that he is going to take one suggestions from Mr. Riordan, and he is going to include language that these are merely suggestions and that the jury should not be bound by them, and that they are free to reject all of them.

Riordan then says that he would like to point out that these 4 scenarios were not argued in prosecutions closing arguments, and Brunon adds that adding “to prevent her from leaving” is improper, because it ascribes a motive that the jury could conclude the judge and the court has found passes the threshold of credibility – and he would also like to add the defense’s theories in there, that she put the gun ion her mouth because she was depressed and wanted to kill herself.

The Judge says that such theories don’t belong there- that this is the instruction defining murder. You chose to not re-argue the case, I gave you the opportunity.

Brunon says that this is wagging the dog by the tail – you can’t re-argue the case a week after it has gone to deliberation – the problem we have here is that we are trying to artificially create a way to cure missteps. The only solution here is to mis try the case and do it correctly the next time. Mr. Spector can’t fairly have this jury consider a revision or a re scrambling the eggs at this point – we can’t jury rig a solution that will come to his detriment.

The judge says that if he thought manslaughter was an appropriate charge here, he would have already stopped the proceedings and the motion would have been granted. The judge does not feel that it applies here.

Riordan comes back on the speakerphone to kiss the judge’s ass and tell him what a great job he’s doing.

And the judge takes another break, this time to redraft the instruction, charge the jury again, and let them deliberate, again

Riordan comes back first, though, to lob a specific complaint about the clause that says that Spector could have forced her to put the gun in her mouth – he says this MUST be deleted. Riordan says there is not a single witness – prosecution or defense – who would have been called to testify about the things they did if the prosecution had ever suggested that Spector was guilty if Lana Clarkson was holding the gun in her own mouth. Riordan says that the defense surely would not have called expert after expert to say that 99% of all intra oral wounds were self inflicted if we had known that her holding the gun would be argued to the jury as evidence of guilt not innocence.

Riordan goes on to tell the court that the judge specifically excluded evidence that Lana Clarkson played with guns and put them in her mouth, saying that this evidence was irrelevant. If the judge is now going to argue to the jury that she was holding the gun in her own mouth and that this is a sign of guilt, then that evidence should not have been excluded. This scenario could have been refuted by the evidence that the court excluded.

The judge responds that he is convinced that this is a reasonable inference from the evidence, and the motion is overruled.

The judge finally brings the jury in and answers questions and reads new instructions.

He explains to the jury that the question they had about weight of the evidence – he re-reads from CALCRIM 200 “pay careful attention to all of these instructions and consider them together”.

Question 5: Can you view the clothes on a mannequin? No, the clothing is not in evidence and they are not in the same state as they were on the night in question.

He then re-reads the reasonable doubt instruction to answer one of their questions concerning that.

The judge also tells them that it is not unreasonable for one juror to look at the evidence and come to a different conclusion – that does not make the juror unreasonable. That is for each juror to decide for themselves.

He then tells them that Special Instruction 3 has been withdrawn. He tells them they can no longer consider it, and they are to treat it as if they never heard it.

The judge then reads them his special instruction and then the Moore instruction and sends them out to deliberate. Which they do for a whole 40 minutes. But tomorrow is Friday, and we know what that means, between the Moore instruction, taking away the special instruction, and it being Friday, maybe we’ll get a verdict – any verdict, at this point.

Advertisements

44 Responses to “CA vs. Spector – Further Instructions”

  1. LOL said

    FIDDLER’S JURY TAMPERING

    JUDGE FIDDLER IS ADDING NEW SCENARIOS AND HYPOTHETICALS TO MAKE IT EASIER FOR THE JURY CONVICT PHIL SPECTOR AFTER THE JURY WAS HUNG 7 TO 5

    BY REFIDDLING POSSIBLE SCENARIOS THE JUDGE IS GOING TOO FAR TO ASSIST THE PROSECUTION

    AND REGARDLESS OF DISCLAIMERS – THE HYPOTHETICAL SCENARIOS ARE A STRONG INCENTIVE FROM THE JUDGE TO THE JURY TO ENABLE THEM TO CONVICT SPECTOR

    In addition THE JUDGE is refusing to add the defense scenarios to the jury instructions – such as that Lana may have been playing with the gun (she was gun savvy) and the gun went off accidentally when she was fooling around etc. Or she was accident prone when drunk and depressed.

    So only the Prosection’s side of events are going into the jury instructions after the original hung jury 7/5.

    In addition Judge Fiddler deleted certain jury instructions and added additional and biased jury instructions such as promoting certain scenarios.

    And to the level of professionalism? –

    I would think that the Judge should get the jury instructions right the first time and shit or get off the pot.

    The Jury have had enough after 5 months.

    They are not getting paid for this
    However the lawyers and the judge are!

    But it seems the Judge won’t let the Jurors go home until they convict Spector.

    Lets hope the jury are strong enough to retain their independent thought.

  2. Sprocket said

    Hi Kim! Great synopsis as always. I put up the entire new instructions read to the jury on my blog.

  3. Lajet said

    Hmmm. Now I’m concerned. There are two main reasons I think he is guilty – 1. ADS – what he heard, and what he saw (the gun in PS’s hand)
    2. the consciousness of guilt behavior.
    Neither of these suggest anything about how the gun got in her mouth, and I don’t really care to determine it. So would I have to figure out how the gun got in her mouth? Or can I just take it on faith that somehow the gun got in her mouth and that Phil was responsible for the pulling of the trigger one way or another. All I can really say is none of the evidence demonstrates that PS didn’t get the gun in the mouth, and his subsequent behavior suggests that he is guilty BARD.

  4. Lajet said

    Well, that and the ever-morphing defense explanation, and defense witness who make no sense, and an incredible number of witnesses who lack credibility, which seems is difficult for the jury to consider, but sure speaks loudly to me.

  5. noor b said

    Well now sprocket, YOU put up the entire new instructions to the jury on YOUR blog.
    How special.
    Is that not a little bit out of your league.
    I thought Chelle was YOUR expertise.

    Thanks Kim, you’re the best!

    I think the jurors have made up their minds, they’re done, and are pissing mad that they had to wait 2 more days to tell the judge AGAIN, we are hung.
    Tomorrow is friday!
    Judgement day.

  6. Marie said

    Thanks for the update. I have two questions, supposing a guilty verdict comes back, and PS is remanded into custody of the State, does he stay in jail till sentencing (if not immediate)?
    Also, I assume an appeal would be filed immediately, would he stay in the pokey until the appelate decision? Just curious.

  7. Marie said

    quote: The judge and jury met in chambers this morning

    BTW, I think you meant the judge and attorneys. If not, that might explain a few things in California Courts… 😉

  8. Mike said

    The judge and jury met in chambers this morning…

    Did you mean the judge and the lawyers? If he did meet with the jury in chambers, do we know what they talked about?

    — Mike —

  9. brdsnbs said

    Watching today gave me hope that the little sleeze-bag, murderer will finally be put behind bars, where he belongs. You’re starting to scare me a little, Kim. Your insight is remarkable!
    Squiggy

  10. Arm's Length said

    The big laugh in the morning, aside from the fairly entertaining Voice-of-God contributions of Brother Riordan, stranded 350 miles north of LA, was over the Judge’s mime of pulling the plug on his remote “discourse.”

    Team Spector was nervous, ultra edgy. Looked like Linda has taken over the leadership position, and that she may be stepping up to bring her special New Jersey-New York approach to persuasion of the jury kind. In fact, jurors on entry were forced to navigate the narrow passage between Linda, who adroitly put herself on one side of the walk-thru area behind the defense table, and Phil, on the other, these two book-ending about 18 inches to either side of our jurors. Passing through this horrid maze, jurors tended to look straight ahead or downward, and then were lead to their secret chambers as the instruction hearings began. Usually the jury enters an empty well, and brother, today it was NOT empty.

    It was obvious, with the jury now safely tucked away, that the Defense did not get their way on something. Later the judge says there was aconference call last night with Fidler, Jackson, Rosen and Dixon, before he was cut off, so the defense came in with an idea of what was going wrong for them, and it was the Instruction 3 that some people think the defense slid by.
    But once burned, twice shy and Fidler grokked another level of dirty tricks.

    Since Kim did her usual outstanding job of covering content, I will add the detail that Roger has apparently complained of a toothache recently, so he is armed with a fat new prescription to hydrocordone (sp?) and ibuprofen, enthusiastically displayed to the gallery during one of those “breaks”…this, kids, would be your vicodin. So, the mystery of Rosen’s high-amp presence this morning can be partly explained. This was our second day in a row with a poor taste, indiscrete drug references from the TeamS. Yesterday when the Judge joked about taking the hot tub away from the jurors, Brunon begged that the BONG remain.

    The defense, under the guidance of Linda Baden, huddled up closely more than once, with Linda making sure her body shielded the Team from being heard or lip-read by the spectators. Later they all (the entire entourage –Spector, Rosen, Baden, Brunon, Plourd, and Jennifer the techie–so all those guys plus two guards plus Mrs. Spector) went up to the 12th floor snack bar, where the guards secured the doors and customers needed to just wait while they met.

    Phil was very animated today and appeared to dish out a number of advisory lectures to his attorneys, again, under the protective blockage provided by Ms Baden.

    When the jurors returned to the box, like 2:45 or so, Linda and Roger and usually Phil totally stared with these loving looks like those skunks who flirt do in whatever Disney cartoon they are cast in supporting roles;maybe Bambi. Phil broke his gaze to give dirty looks to the Judge. Mostly they fixed their adoration on the center area of the jury box, which would include jurors #5 and #6. Juror #5 virtually sat sideways in her seat, focused intently on the Judge as she made notes, which even #10 did not do. He looked wiped out. Although she must have felt the stares from the likes of Roger, Phil and Linda (call it a feeling), #5 hung steady and did not seem to engage, or behave as though she may be in the cat-bird seat. I do hope that someone has a tail on Tawny Tindall for the past 24 and the next 18 hours, at minimum. Tawny knows where everyone lives.

    There did seem to be a vague wave of relief with regard to considering the evidence in totality rather than each little ingredient: The totality of the evidence taken together. That was a special concern to #2 who brought that point up yesterday, and this single instruction could unplug the process, perhaps revealing any staunch non-guiltism. Hoping that #2 can step up and lead this discussion.

    Our prosecutors appeared fit and sharp and up to it all. They were calm, cool and collected: the full hand has not yet been dealt.

    We do hope that Ric Ocampo runs the new jury instructions past Meghan Ocampo, the 10-year old that knew to a) not touch a gun and get your parent if one is in the drawer, and b) demonstrated to Counselor Jackson that she understood the non-medical term “conflict of interest.”

    There is a newish HILARIOUS reporter in there from a cable news outfit, regaling the neighborhood watch with memories of the Heidi Fleiss jury, “the jury who could not deliberate straight.”

    Everyone agrees that this is a most unusual trial.
    Oh, and Britney is still alive, those updates get phoned in.

    Take care, all. We still have murderers and their minions on the streets tonight.

  11. brdsnbs said

    This is the latest by Paul Huebl of ‘Team Spector’s website:
    September 20, 2007 – Thursday

    Judge Fidler’s “:Wall Of Injustice”.

    The jury in the Phil Spector murder trial deliberated for a week and they were deadlocked. The jury sent out the note and Judge Fidler polled them on the question of whether further instruction would help. Three jurors volunteered that it might help. But help change whose mind was my question? I suspect that those jurors wanted the other side of their battlefield instructed instead of their own.

    Judge Fidler took the unusual step to remove an approved jury instruction that was somehow preventing the conviction of Phil Spector and replaced that with two new and convoluted instructions that beg the jury for anything but an acquittal.

    To date, Judge Fiddler spent many months scheming to find ways to get a jury to convict Phil Spector. Judge Larry Paul Fiddler has been biased, abusive and feeding his own agendas. The ever-growing laundry list of judicial rulings against fairness and any attempt for a neutral inquiry into the death of Lana Clarkson was eliminated long ago. Judge Fidler is more like a Mike Nifong in judicial robes

  12. Janel said

    What a mess, I blame the jury, they are supposed to be looking at the evidence not dissecting the jury instructions.

    This is an easy case, and for this jury to give up after four votes is mind blowing.

  13. Jim said

    Great work. I appreciate your good work. I can’t get this in-depth coverage any where else. I think the world of you.

    May I add, as a life-time Los Angeles resident, that any fine-tuning the Judge is doing to the California Judicial System which leads to rich, famous men being convicted of crimes they clearly committed is A-OKAY with me!

    We in LA need this. We are starved for justice.

  14. Did you mean the judge and the lawyers? If he did meet with the jury in chambers, do we know what they talked about?

    Yes, LOL< I meant judge nd attorneys – I’ll change it.

    I blame it on Jeffs – I was watching Jeffs while writing this. I guess I can’t multitask.

    Kim

  15. Tony from London, England said

    I think it’s highly likely that Spector is guilty (of manslaughter at least), but I think the state’s case has fallen short of proving his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

    I’ve had misgivings throughout about the judge’s impartiality. He has across to me, since early-on in the trial, as being biased against Spector. But this manipulation of the jury instructions transparently displays bias. You may (understandably) rejoice in that bias if you want to see Spector convicted, but this is not the way to run a fair and impartial trial.

    Judge Fidler has made a dog’s breakfast of this and it’s beyond remedy other than via an acquittal or mistrial.

    As for the prosecution, why on earth did they consent to the defective jury instruction 3 in the first place!?

  16. In addition THE JUDGE is refusing to add the defense scenarios to the jury instructions – such as that Lana may have been playing with the gun (she was gun savvy) and the gun went off accidentally when she was fooling around etc. Or she was accident prone when drunk and depressed.

    While I do agree with you that Fidler is treading on dangerous grounds with his “scenarios”, especially the one about “he forced her to put the gun in her mouth” – the judge could not include the defense’s scenarios in this particular instruction. The original instruction that he was modifying is 520 – Murder and what the jury has to consider and why it has to consider it. This particular instruction wouldn’t be the appropriate place for the defense to put forth their scenarios, it would make no sense in the context of the instruction.

    In fact,t here really is NO place for the defense to put forth their scenarios – that’s why Riordan originally wrote Special Instruction 3 – which is also called a “Sears Instruction”. This is where the defense SHOULD have put in the language of “If you believe, from the evidence, that Lana Clarkson was depressed and that she had the means, motive and opportunity to find the gun in the dresser drawer and that she put the gun in her mouth and pulled the trigger OR that she was playing with the gun and that she put the gun in her mouth and it discharged, then you must vote not guilty.”

    Why the defense chose the Sears instruction to lay out the prsecution’s theories instead of their own is beyond me, and probably shouldn’t have been allowed in the first place, since that isn’t what a Sears instruction is supposed to do.

    Kim

  17. So would I have to figure out how the gun got in her mouth? Or can I just take it on faith that somehow the gun got in her mouth and that Phil was responsible for the pulling of the trigger one way or another.

    That is what the removal of SI3 and the modification of the 520 instruction is supposed to address.

    SI3 was very, very narrow, it said “this is what happened – and if they didn’t prove THIS EXACT SCENARIO beyond a reasonable doubt – then you have to acquit.” By withdrawing that instruction and opening up all kinds of possiblities with the modification of 520, the judge is basically telling the jury “It doesn’t matter HOW you get there – as long as you get there.”

    There are some problems inherent with the judge leading them this way, even though they shouldn’t have been led down the first path in the first place. The judge is basically putting them back where they should have been all along. The state deosn’t have the burden of proving an EXACT scenario, the way the defense seemed to imply. The judge is just curing that with his new “scenarios”.

    Kim

  18. I have two questions, supposing a guilty verdict comes back, and PS is remanded into custody of the State, does he stay in jail till sentencing (if not immediate)?
    Also, I assume an appeal would be filed immediately, would he stay in the pokey until the appelate decision? Just curious.

    Yes. and Yes.

    He goes straight into custody to await sentencing. And he doesn’t get out while his appeal is pending, once he is found guilty he is raised from “alleged murderer” or “accused murderer” to convicted murderer, and he loses his rights to bail.

    I suspect if he is found guilty he will be held in the medical ward of the jail until sentencing and the Sherriff decides which facility is going to house him. Most max jails have a medical unit, and he will probably be held there. I doubt he will be in general population.

    Kim

  19. You’re starting to scare me a little, Kim. Your insight is remarkable!

    Not insight, really, I just know the way these things go. And that fucking Circumstantial evidence law. Gets em every time, it does.

    I tried to get you all thinking, and prepared, I really did…

    Kim

  20. Roger has apparently complained of a toothache recently, so he is armed with a fat new prescription to hydrocordone (sp?) and ibuprofen, enthusiastically displayed to the gallery during one of those “breaks”…this, kids, would be your vicodin.

    So he was hopped up on Vicodin? Now see, if I was Jackson, I would have stood up and said to the judge “Your honor, we would request that all the sharp objects on the defense table be taken away – Mr. Rosen is on Vicodin and we fear he may be suicidal.”

    Kim

  21. Kim (Canada) said

    Another informative and well done summary, Miss Kim…

    With all this commotion going on, and all the flip-flopping that has occurred, regardless of the outcome now with the Jury, is this not in some way a mis-trial?
    Especially now, if the jury comes back with a verdict of “Guilty”, are the defense not going to have a shit fit and request a mis-trial? Or will their only option at that point be an appeal?
    And if they return again “hung”, this will definately have to be re-tried, no?
    With all due respect, and whether I find PS to be guilty or not aside from it all, I keep putting myself in the Defendant’s position here(by that I mean ANY defendant’s position in a similar situation) and I’d be having serious issues with the way this has all been handled since the initial jury “impasse”….This seems, in many ways, to have been improperly resolved and appears to have been mis-handled? It seems to me that where the judge so does NOT want to influence the jury into coming back with a “Guilty” verdict, in effect he still has done exactly that…
    Where I was completely confident in Judge Fiddler’s position throughout the trial, it seems to me that at this point, it’s all become so wishy-washy, leaving me to agree with Tony from London’s statement regarding Fiddler’s lack of impartiality and his manipulation of various areas regarding the jury and their instructions….
    Don’t mean to stir up that pot, but seriously, if you were on trial for 2nd degree murder and this was happening before you, wouldn’t you be having concerns and issues with how this has now been handled and now so-called “corrected”? G
    Guilty or not, one is still entitled to a “fair” trial – At this point this seems anything but…

    Fonzie!
    (LOL)

  22. This is the latest by Paul Huebl of ‘Team Spector’s website:
    September 20, 2007 – Thursday

    Thanks for these updates, Squiggy. I love them. Great insight into Team Spector’s mind.

    And at least they got a mouthpiece who can use punctuation. Chelle’s was sorely lacking, despite her self proclaimed “intelligence”.

    Kim

  23. You may (understandably) rejoice in that bias if you want to see Spector convicted, but this is not the way to run a fair and impartial trial.

    Actually, these are my thoughts exactly. I want to see Spector convicted, if 12 people find him guilty, but I also don’t want there to be any reversible error and fodder for conspiracy theorists. Any rejoicing in a conviction shall be short lived, I fear. Any appellate lawyer with a vague grasp of the law will make mincement of this conviction.

    I think on the evidence presented by the prosecution and on the basis of the defense’s case, it was a challenging case that could have gone either way, given the circumstantial evidence laws in California, and I would have rather seen a “clean” verdict of not guilty than a tainted verdict of “guilty” with questions of inclusion or exclusion of “lesser related charges” and “scenarios that could be inferred from the evidence”. It is NEVER a good idea for the court to expound to the jury on what can “reasonably be inferred” from the evidence, regardless of whether or not it can be “reasonably be inferred”. When the lawyers do that in closing or opening statements there is a reason why the judge tells the jury “This is not evidence”.

    And what does the judge do now with the “one juror who finds it unreasonable and another juror who finds it reasonable – is that juror unreasonable?” question that the jury had – when the judge has basically told the jury *I* think these are scenarios that can be inferred from the evidence? What if one juror finds them unreasonable or not inferred or implied from the evidence? NOW is that juror “unreasonable”?

    I certainly wouldn’t want to be that juror now. The “other side” has the judge agreeing with them.

    Kim

  24. Kim (Canada) said

    ~I certainly wouldn’t want to be that juror now. The “other side” has the judge agreeing with them.~

    And so does that, right there, not make it wrong and unjust on Judge Fiddler’s part?

    Fonzie

  25. And so does that, right there, not make it wrong and unjust on Judge Fiddler’s part?

    That’s going to depend on the quality of the appellate lawyer and the arguments he can make.

    The judge is allowed to do certain things when a jury is at an impasse. He can re-read the instructions, he can clarify instructions (dangerous depending on the words he chooses), he can have the lawyers re-argue portions of the case (rare, but legal), he can even even modify, amend or add new charges, but it’s the WORDING that matters. He has to be VERY careful in the wording.

    According to Rodriquez vs. Marshall, a California appelate case, the judge can comment on the evidence, this is not enough to rise to the level of mistrial, but a good appelate lawyer could certainly argue that, while not misconduct in and of itself, taken with the totailty of the error in the case, that Spector should get a new trial.

    It’s just really, really thin ice for a judge to inject his own interpretation of the facts into the instructions.

    Really thin ice.

    Kim

  26. Kim (Canada) said

    With regards to your above response to my question….

    Is this “pond” gonna be ok to skate on, or are they all going swimming?

    Fonzie –
    (Tee-hee-hee!!)Still feels wierd signing off like that…LOL

  27. Holy Toledo said

    I marvel at you. And I’m intrigued by your dedication to truth, justice, knowledge, purveyance of clarity and on and on. I just can’t figure out why you do it. I’ll just leave it at “I’m glad you do”. You are remarkable. Your website/blog has been extremely entertaining and helpful.

    I must admit I am gettting pretty fogged with all the latest Spector developments. It’s a real enlightenment to think about how hard the task is for jurors. I’ve never been on a jury, called but not selected.
    I lost a lot of faith in our justice system with “OJ/Old Jock”, Blake, Jackson and I suppose others if I would have paid closer attention. Now there’s this “Spectacle” trial that may put another chink in the armor. Once someone said to me during a hard time in my life, justice is something we strive for. I’m saddened to think those with deep pockets can manipulate it.

    HT

  28. Arm's Length said

    So he was hopped up on Vicodin? Now see, if I was Jackson, I would have stood up and said to the judge “Your honor, we would request that all the sharp objects on the defense table be taken away – Mr. Rosen is on Vicodin and we fear he may be suicidal.”

    Kim

    ……………………………..

    Yes, Kim.

    Those among us who have a heart are quite worried about Roger. Nevermind that he often appears apopolexic (!) and that this may be the worst year of his life. After all, the judge doesn’t like him, the others on the defense team avoid him, people make fun of him, he’s not getting any younger, is not on the attorney A-list, and he may have issues with gender. Perhaps Cutler even stuck him.

    And how about that FIGHT in the hallway when Roger went ballistic upon learning that Jennifer Hayes said she couldn’t testify to Lana doing cocaine within a year of her death: WELL THAT’S IT THEN, punctuated by the hair pulling of Jennifer?

    No. This is not a good year for Roger, perhaps the worst year of his life, and every effort should be made to intervene with counseling, a 12-step program, and perhaps some outside financial support while he recovers.

    AL

  29. No. This is not a good year for Roger, perhaps the worst year of his life, and every effort should be made to intervene with counseling, a 12-step program, and perhaps some outside financial support while he recovers.

    Well, we could just give Phil back his colt cobra, have him invite Rog over for drinks and see what happens.

    Kim

  30. Katprint said

    The irony of the current jury instruction disaster, is that it was initally caused by Judge Fidler’s overzealous accommodation of the defense. (Of course, Judge Fidler was once a defense attorney himself.) Judge Fidler withdraws a plainly erroneous instruction specially crafted by the defense, which had been accepted over the vigorous objections of the prosecution, and that makes him biased in favor of the prosecution? I think not.

    P.S. “Judgement [sic] Day” is spelled “Judgment Day” in the USA.

  31. LOL said

    Regarding Consciousness of Guilt and the Bullying Syndrome

    Consider this as a possible scenario.

    If someone shot themselves in your house and died. Wouldn’t you feel guilty? Even if you did not pull the trigger and were not the cause of their accidental death?

    Also if someone told the police that you said you shot someone when you said no such thing when there was a dead lady in your house – wouldn’t you feel intimidated by this lethal weapon and betrayal and wouldn’t this occurence translate into the consciousness of guilt when in fact it is the consciousness of being betrayed and bullied.

  32. A.D.A. said

    Oh, just SHUT THE FUCK UP, LOL. I hjust hope they revoke your bail when/if the time comes.

    Kim, I am sending you another $5 to adirondackian@verizon.net . It ain’t much, yet if everyone who watched you proceed “onward through the fog” did it, you’d have your heart’s desire – and you deserve that, whatever it is.

    I’ve decided:
    1) Alan Jackson is a superstar – “Hook ’em, Horns!”
    2) Judge Fidler is one of the best judges I’ve observed.
    3) California is full of crazy sh*ts, not even deserving to be jurors!
    4) I will never get so involved in observing a trial again.
    5) Kim rules! I bow to your clarity and genius, and wish you were holding some major power in this country.
    6) Poor Lana.

    Adios. Vaya con Dios.

  33. Lajet said

    Kim –
    So what is you take if there is a new trial? Can Spector afford another trial? Will the attorneys be willing to do it again? the expert witnesses? other witnesses? Will the prosecution be able to more vigorously investigate the witnesses?
    Or will a mistrial favor the defense because they won’t have a morphing defense? Will the defense witnesses be better prepared for AJ (assuming it is AJ if there is a next time.)

  34. Cathy said

    Arms’s Length and Kim-you guys crack me up! I love the comments as much as the blog!!!

    Cathy

  35. Holy Toledo said

    “If someone shot themself in my house and died, would I feel guilty?”

    No, I would not unless I provided the gun or provoked them or had some “hand” in it. I’m not responsible for someone else’s behavior.

    I would not like it but I don’t think I’d feel guilty. I’d be shocked and maybe outraged and sad but not guilty.

    What I would do is call 911 immediately. What I wouldn’t do is take the gun and go outside to anyone who happened to be standing in my driveway and say “I think I just killed someone”. I wouldnt’ do any of the things Spector did. I wouldn’t have to be tasered. I wouldnt’ complain about my home being searched and on and on and on. That’s the difference between consciousness of guilt and consciousness of innocence.

  36. LOL said

    In Regards to “What I would do is call 911 immediately. What I wouldn’t do is take the gun and go outside to anyone who happened to be standing in my driveway and say “I think I just killed someone”. I wouldnt’ do any of the things Spector did. I wouldn’t have to be tasered. I wouldnt’ complain about my home being searched and on and on and on. That’s the difference between consciousness of guilt and consciousness of innocence.” That is wonderful and in relates to you but we are not all Holy Toledos.

    The above scenario was put forth by Adriano DeSouza who has no working papers to work in US yet he did so. What makes his testimony credible? Only Belief. Personally I don’t believe Adriano. I think he wanted to get out of any murder rap himself and later wanted to earn his working papers by being the State’s puppet and going against his former boss Phil Spector.

    Also a man’s home is his castle. It should not be invaded by a bunch of police who have murder on their minds which idea was put in their minds by an illegal alien Adriano Desouza who did not want to be at the butt of a murder rap nor did he want to be deported.

    How do you know that Phil Spector was not under the impression that Adriano was calling the police on his behalf? Why are you putting so much faith in Adriano? He couldn’t speak English properly and may not have been able to understand English properly. Even the person he spoke to on the night he reported the incident to the police thought he was saying “Seal Inspector”

  37. Lajet said

    PRIOR POST:
    Consider this as a possible scenario.

    If someone shot themselves in your house and died. Wouldn’t you feel guilty? Even if you did not pull the trigger and were not the cause of their accidental death?

    RESPONSE: I wouldn’t feel guilty. I’d feel badly. I might be in shock. But I wouldn’t feel guilty.

    PRIOR POST: Also if someone told the police that you said you shot someone when you said no such thing when there was a dead lady in your house – wouldn’t you feel intimidated by this lethal weapon and betrayal and wouldn’t this occurence translate into the consciousness of guilt when in fact it is the consciousness of being betrayed and bullied.

    UH NO.
    Besides, it’s not clear PS knew someone told police that he shot someone. He can’t know that until thep police talk to them, and that took over 40 minutes.

    But assuming I knew, I might be in shock and fail to call 911 immediately – although 911 is set up the way it is for just that reason, and seems to work pretty well.
    But if I did feel intimidated, I don’t think it would lead me to wiping down the gun, and keeping the police at out for 40 minutes. That’s not intimidation That’s guts (stupid, but gutsy)

    How can his behavior be explained by police be bullying when most of the consciousness of guilt behavior occurs before he has direct contact with the police? ARe you suggesting police bullying would lead an innocent person, in shock and feeling guilty, to wipe guns, clean faces, and play hide-and-seek with his hands when facing the police? Sounds more like drunk behavior.

  38. LOL said

    I think A.D.A. has an anger management problem and is rude! Get help or you may commit murder yourself!

  39. LOL said

    I am not sure how “it’s not clear PS knew someone told police that he shot someone. He can’t know that until thep police talk to them, and that took over 40 minutes.”
    relates to what I was saying and was only talking of a time after Spector found out about DeSouza’s betrayal.

    So if DeSouza falsely told the police that Spector said to DeSouza he shot Lana who lay dead in Spector’s house – wouldn’t you be highly intimidated by the betrayal as it now involved the police bullying you – and wouldn’t this betrayal and police bullying and excessive force translate into a consciousness of guilt – even if you weren’t guilty. I am only talking in regards to a time after Phil Spector found out what Adriano had told the police.

  40. Holy Toledo said

    All I can say to LOL is it appears he or she has some issue with DeSouza/illegals in the US and this is the looking glass through which the whole Spector trial is viewed. That is all I’m going to say out of respect for Kim’s blog. Adios, amigo

  41. A.D.A. said

    LOL – thanks for the laugh!

  42. LOL said

    It appears Holy Toledo has great belief in DeSouza/illegals in the US and that he would not tell one single lie and this is the looking glass through which the whole Spector trial is viewed.

    The problem is we weren’t there and we don’t know what happened we only have De Souza’s word and Desouza had a motive to lie for his green card and he really does have a problem with his understanding of English and speaking English. Perhaps another person would have had less motive to lie, another Person would have understood English. But everyone is entitled to believe him or not believe him. I am more concerned that he has a bias to gain something from somebody elses misfortune, and Desouza had a couple of things to gain. In addition if he does not have respect for working in US would he have respect for Spector’s plight – if indeed it was Spector’s plight – or would DeSouza only be only concerned with number 1 – his own interests like most people would be in that situation – and to the point of even lying to distance himself from being a suspect for murder.

  43. kennytal said

    I really don’t see what Desouza would gain from giving false testimony. I really don’t see the need to distance himself
    from being a murder suspect. Sorry, LOL, your pro-spector attempts to assasinate Desouza’s character really fall flat
    and is not going to stick, no matter how many times you repeat it. Find a new script.

  44. Carolina said

    Kim,

    Another hilarious and insightful post.

    IMO- One of the many real heros is Adriano. He WAS here illegally, and knew by calling 911 he was exposing his position and ultimatly buying a return trip to Rio. So what if the government helps him obtain a visa? He works, he pays taxes, he lives an otherwise law abiding life. Without his call (the only call to 911) one can only imagine the extraordinary lengths PS would have gone to “sanitize” the scene, and further muddy the evidence. We can only imagine if he had had an extra 8-9-10 hours to clean up before someone arrived on the scene.

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com 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 )

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s

 
%d bloggers like this: