Opinion, by Blogonaut
In Spector I (which ended in a hung jury), trial judge Larry Paul Fidler excluded a statement allegedly made by Phillip Spector more that a decade ago to a former NYC cop (turned $10.00/hour security guard) Vincent Tannazzo—who sought to inject himself into the limelight of a televised celebrity murder trial by contacting police (after waiting more than 13 years to come forward)— months after Lana Clarkson died and claiming that Phillip Spector, after being ejected from a party hosted by Joan Rivers said: “They all (women) deserve to die,” …“They all deserve a bullet in their fucking head.”
That jury trial—apparently to the surprise of Judge Fidler—hung, initially with a minority of four votes for conviction, and eight votes expressing doubt about Spector’s guilt in the gunshot death of failed actress Lana Clarkson—who unequivocally threatened to end her own life less than 60 days before her death.
In Spector I (which ended in a hung jury), trial judge Larry Paul Fidler excluded a statement allegedly made by Phillip Spector more that a decade ago to a former NYC cop (turned $10.00/hour security guard) Vincent Tannazzo—who sought to inject himself into the limelight of a televised celebrity murder trial by contacting police (after waiting more than 13 years to come forward)— months after Lana Clarkson died and claiming that Phillip Spector, after being ejected from a party hosted by Joan Rivers said: “They all (women) deserve to die,” …“They all deserve a bullet in their fucking head.”
That jury trial—apparently to the surprise of Judge Fidler—hung, initially with a minority of four votes for conviction, and eight votes expressing doubt about Spector’s guilt in the gunshot death of failed actress Lana Clarkson—who unequivocally threatened to end her own life less than 60 days before her death.
.
Notably, when the fact the jury in Spector I was at an impasse was brought to Judge Fidler’s attention, he sought to implement various transparent strategies to influence the hold-out jurors into changing their vote to “guilty”—including telling the jury that his prior instruction on the definition of murder was wrong, and reinstructing them on a much broader definition more likely to result in a conviction. Judge Fidler thereby made his intentions known.
On retrial, a cash strapped Phillip Spector (who was arguably fleeced to the tune of some $8 million first go around—including one million dollars paid to Robert Shapiro for 3 week’s work)—hired a much paired down defense team consisting of one trial lawyer (Doron Weinberg) and one appellate specialist (Dennis Reardon).
Weinberg and Reardon wasted no time in filing a motion to object to Judge Fidler presiding over Spector II (the retrial) based on the applicable legal standard, that a reasonable person could entertain a doubt that Judge Fidler was biased in favor of the prosecution. In a highly unusual move, Judge Fidler denied the motion to disqualify himself, instead of following the statutory procedure of having the Judicial Counsel appoint an impartial judge to decide the issue of Judge Fidler’s alleged bias.
Fast forward to Spector II—wherein Doron Weinberg has avoided making any of the stupid mistakes committed by the half dozen, disorganized lawyers representing Phillip Spector first go around and has done a much more effective job—apparently persuading a (in our opinion) conviction predisposed Judge Fidler to literally put a heavy thumb on the scales of justice.
How did Judge Fidler place his paw on our justice lady’s scale?
Initially, by reversing his ruling in Spector I that Vincent Tannazzo’s testimony was inadmissible.
Second, by, yesterday, allowing the prosecution in Spector II to introduce the hearsay tape recorded interview of Vincent Tannazzo during the defense case, contrary to all arguable legal precedent and authority.
In summary, Judge Fidler initially excluded this decade old “evidence” by a former cop turned security guard seeking the limelight in Spector I, but on retrial changed course and allowed the prosecution to call security guard Vincent Tannazzo as a witness.
Now, that the defense case has gone much better in Spector II, Judge Fidler—who a reasonable person could believe in his heart wants a conviction as much as he seeks the limelight himself (see here) has put a heavy hand on the scale of justice.
As a society, can we afford to stand for this kind of judicial bias and agenda--even in the case of a criminal defendant that we may find loathsome and despicable?
Then how can we object to Guantanamo, water boarding, Dickie Scruggs, or other forms of alleged judicial corruption?
If we believe in fair trials, we cannot be in the business of deciding which defendant deserves a fair trial.
And the more unpopular the defendant, the more vigilant as a people we need to be.
Remember this: If Phillip Spector (or Roman Polanski) cannot get a fair hearing in front of Judge Larry Paul Fidler—then we have no hope if our sons, daughters, nephews, or friends are falsely accused.
A trial judge who previously ruled that evidence was inadmissible, and only changed his mind when the defendant escaped conviction, then allows the prosecution to again bend the rules of evidence when the defense case is doing well is cause for all of us to pay careful attention to our liberties—no matter how we feel about the defendant. Because judicial bias that happens to him, can happen to you and yours.
On retrial, a cash strapped Phillip Spector (who was arguably fleeced to the tune of some $8 million first go around—including one million dollars paid to Robert Shapiro for 3 week’s work)—hired a much paired down defense team consisting of one trial lawyer (Doron Weinberg) and one appellate specialist (Dennis Reardon).
Weinberg and Reardon wasted no time in filing a motion to object to Judge Fidler presiding over Spector II (the retrial) based on the applicable legal standard, that a reasonable person could entertain a doubt that Judge Fidler was biased in favor of the prosecution. In a highly unusual move, Judge Fidler denied the motion to disqualify himself, instead of following the statutory procedure of having the Judicial Counsel appoint an impartial judge to decide the issue of Judge Fidler’s alleged bias.
Fast forward to Spector II—wherein Doron Weinberg has avoided making any of the stupid mistakes committed by the half dozen, disorganized lawyers representing Phillip Spector first go around and has done a much more effective job—apparently persuading a (in our opinion) conviction predisposed Judge Fidler to literally put a heavy thumb on the scales of justice.
How did Judge Fidler place his paw on our justice lady’s scale?
Initially, by reversing his ruling in Spector I that Vincent Tannazzo’s testimony was inadmissible.
Second, by, yesterday, allowing the prosecution in Spector II to introduce the hearsay tape recorded interview of Vincent Tannazzo during the defense case, contrary to all arguable legal precedent and authority.
In summary, Judge Fidler initially excluded this decade old “evidence” by a former cop turned security guard seeking the limelight in Spector I, but on retrial changed course and allowed the prosecution to call security guard Vincent Tannazzo as a witness.
Now, that the defense case has gone much better in Spector II, Judge Fidler—who a reasonable person could believe in his heart wants a conviction as much as he seeks the limelight himself (see here) has put a heavy hand on the scale of justice.
As a society, can we afford to stand for this kind of judicial bias and agenda--even in the case of a criminal defendant that we may find loathsome and despicable?
Then how can we object to Guantanamo, water boarding, Dickie Scruggs, or other forms of alleged judicial corruption?
If we believe in fair trials, we cannot be in the business of deciding which defendant deserves a fair trial.
And the more unpopular the defendant, the more vigilant as a people we need to be.
Remember this: If Phillip Spector (or Roman Polanski) cannot get a fair hearing in front of Judge Larry Paul Fidler—then we have no hope if our sons, daughters, nephews, or friends are falsely accused.
A trial judge who previously ruled that evidence was inadmissible, and only changed his mind when the defendant escaped conviction, then allows the prosecution to again bend the rules of evidence when the defense case is doing well is cause for all of us to pay careful attention to our liberties—no matter how we feel about the defendant. Because judicial bias that happens to him, can happen to you and yours.
No comments:
Post a Comment