Spector Judge Not Giving Up On Verdict

Jury Given New Instructions To Help Break Deadlock In Murder Trial Of Music Legend

(CBS/AP) 
3The new instructions came two days after the panel reported a 7-5 impasse on the implied-malice, second-degree murder charge against Spector and several jurors told the judge they were having trouble with one so-called pinpoint instruction concerning the prosecution's theory of how the shooting occurred.

That instruction said that in order to convict Spector of second-degree murder the jury had to find that "the defendant must have committed an act that caused the death of Lana Clarkson." It went on to specify the act was pointing a gun at her, which resulted in the gun entering her mouth while in Spector's hand.

After the impasse was reported, the judge decided to retract the instruction on grounds that it misstated the law.

"It's being taken out because the language that was employed unduly limited the possibilities that the jury could consider, because the language that was used was this particular act, which was placing the gun in the mouth of Lana Clarkson in the hand of Mr. Spector," the judge said during discussions with lawyers.

When the jury was summoned, the judge told them to no longer use that instruction and he issued a new one.

Fidler told the panel that to prove Spector guilty, "the people must prove that ... the defendant committed an act with a firearm that caused the death of Lana Clarkson, such as placing a gun in her mouth or forcing her to place the gun in her mouth at which time it discharged, pointing the gun at or against her head at which time it entered her mouth and discharged, pointing the gun at her to prevent her from leaving the house, causing a struggle which resulted the gun entering her mouth and discharging."

Fidler then added a caution.

"By using these examples I am not suggesting that any of these acts took place. These are inferences you may draw from the evidences but are not required to do so. You may reject them. These are only possibilities that you may consider," the judge said.

The judge also told jurors that to convict, the act by the defendant must be more than "drawing or exhibiting a firearm in the presence of Lana Clarkson in a rude, angry or threatening manner" and that he had to have had a state of mind called "malice aforethought," which does not require hatred or ill-will toward the victim or deliberation.

Defense attorney Bradley Brunon objected during the legal debate, saying the judge was drafting an instruction that offered the jury numerous hypotheticals on how Spector might have caused Clarkson's death but did not include any of the defense arguments on how Clarkson might have caused her own death.

"Why don't we give them equivalent scenarios" for the defense point of view, Brunon said.

The exasperated judge said that if the defense wanted to reargue the case "that opportunity exists."

"You can't retry the case after a week of deliberations ... there really is no viable alternative other than to mistry it and do it right the next time. There's no way out of it," Brunon said.

The judge refused to declare a mistrial.

"The judge gave the prosecution everything they wanted and some things they didn't even ask for," said Stan Goldman, a Loyola University Law School professor who was observing in the courtroom. "He has in some respect turned the defense team's case potentially against them. All of the defense experts said she fired the gun."

[ringading3]

Heck, let''s call it a day and let Specter off. Let''s catch him next time, e.g. OJ.

[myidoncbs]

I don''t know if Specter is actually guilty or innocent, but from what I''ve read about the trial it appears that there is a very good case for "reasonable doubt".

It''s obvious, however, that the judge wants a conviction. I suspect he wants to be able to brag about "getting a celebrity convicted". (As if Phil Specter is really still any kind of celebrity!)

Being the gun owner, having time to clean up afterwards, failing to call the cops, and a claim by a non-english speaking chauffeur that Specter said "I think I killed someone" is NOT sufficient evidence for a conviction. There are reasonable explanations for all of these facts. Plus, the forensic evidence simply does not prove that Specter did it. In fact, it seems to support the hypothesis that she killed herself.

I hope the jury received better information than the news media has reported to us, but given that the jury is hung, it doesn''t appear that they have. So, there''s no surprise that they are hung. The only surprise is that the judge is willing to introduce new, highly biased, instructions after the deliberations have already started. That will surely be grounds for an appeal if he is convicted.

[previn2]

Man, if that jury doesn''t convict that idiot, than I''ve seen it ALL! It''s a wonder Spector hasn''t killed someone a long time ago. If he gets out of this, you watch and see--it WILL happen. I ''aint kidding you, this supposed "judicial" system needs to be turned upside down and shook-out like dumping a trash can. Then sanatized, before we see a revolution of all the citizens, fed-up with all of this ***!

[grumpas]

I don''t really understand what this jury is having problems with? It was Phil Spector''s gun, it was his home, he is the one who introduced the gun into the scene, he had more than enough time to arrange the scene like he wanted before the cops arrived. He isn''t even the one who called the cops, the chauffeur did after Spector came out door and said ''I think I killed someone''! If this jury can not reach the right verdict. Then the law might as well give celebrities a free pass to the city to do whatever they feel like including murder. The only problem with Judge Fidler. He wouldn''t let Spector orchestrate the trial and turn it into a three ring circus like he tried to many times. He is one of the better judges California has to offer.

[bombadil4]

I don''t suppose we''ll ever really know what kind of dysfunctional craziness was going on in that house. But it seems odd that with no eye witnesses and the forensics a wash or slightly in Spector''s favor, the judge would eliminate or minimize the prosecution''s "scenario" when that--plus alleged prior bad acts--was really about all they had. Asking the jury to come up with their own possible scenarios seems like a thin way to get a guilty verdict.

[lawandorder7]

Some peopl need to stay off this site. If this Dumb A-- judge gets a verdict, hr is the one who should sever it. NOT PHIL SPECTOR, this guy should be off the bench. He has made it clear he stands for the prosecution which is 1005 wrong for any judge to do.

[brianbwb-2009]

Finally, an article on this subject without the "wall of sound" reference. Thank you, it was starting to look like the W.O.S was put forth as some kind of justification for special treatment.