Popular Post

Tuesday, February 24, 2009

LA COUNTY SHERIFF BACA BLATANTLY TRIES TO INFLUENCE PHIL SPECTOR JURY

Opinion, by Blogonaut

Los Angeles County Sheriff Lee Baca, who is up for re-election next year and plans to run, has issued statements that could blatantly effect murder defendant and renowned music producer Phillip Spector's right to receive a fair trial.

In the context of an interview ostensibly sought by Baca on the subject of jail overcrowding, Baca told the press that “wealthy people in general” should not be afforded bail pending trial (BEFORE THEY ARE FOUND GUILTY OR INNOCENT) on murder charges. Then, SINGLING OUT Phillip Spector, Baca said:

“The violent offenders, they should all stay in jail on a pretrial status And not be given the ability to roam around because they've got money," Baca said, singling out record producer Phil Spector who is free on $1 million bail while his murder retrial takes place. "He's one of the most dangerous guys that had never been caught fooling around with guns. ... Phil Spector should have no bail."

This is an outrageous attempt by Sheriff Baca to interfere with the Spector jury and certainly puts the trial judge’s prior gag order—directed SOLELY at Phillip Spector’s wife—into perspective as the clear and convincing evidence of bias that the order plainly appeared to be.

The fact that the same trial judge has not similarly enjoined public officials aligned with law enforcement from speaking out in a manner calculated to prejudice the Spector jury speaks volumes about the lack of fairness in this case.


See: LA sheriff may free 4,000 inmates due to budget

UPDATE:

According to blogger Sprocket, Sheriff Baca’s prejudicial press statements about Phillip Spector were brought to the attention of the trial court during yesterday’s session and Judge Fidler refused to impose a gag order on the Sheriff, stating: "I don't have any authority over Sheriff Baca. [...] (He's a separate entity.) I have no authority over (the) sheriff." Interesting response, since Judge Fidler imposed a gag order on Phillip Spector’s wife Rachel Spector for talking to the press during the first trial. I guess the Court feels that a man’s wife is not a “separate entity”.

PHIL SPECTOR TRIAL JUDGE PUTS HEAVY HAND ON SCALE OF JUSTICE


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.
.
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.

Monday, February 23, 2009

SITTING SPECTOR JUROR EXCUSED DUE TO “HARDSHIP”


A juror in the Phillip Spector murder retrial has been excused at his request for reasons of financial hardship after the juror told the court that he is now paying “out of pocket” for his salary during the 5 month old murder retrial. “Juror #5”—a Caucasian man was replaced today (February 23) with an Asian female.

There are now six men and six women on the jury charged with determining whether Spector shot down-on-her-luck actress Lana Clarkson in the mansion’s foyer in the early morning hours of February 3, 2003 or whether a depressed and intoxicated Clarkson took her own life as the defense contends.

The prosecution experts have testified that the medical-forensic evidence fails to explain whether the famed music producer took Clarkson’s life, or whether Clarkson took her own life.

The first trial ended in a hung jury, after an initial jurors’ vote of 4 for guilty and 8 jurors stating that they were either voting not guilty or were at that point unconvinced of Spector’s guilt.

When it became known that the jury was deadlocked, the trial judge engaged in the unprecedented act of changing the jury instruction on the elements of murder—going so far as to tell the jurors that the evidence supported Phil Spector ordering Clarkson to put the gun in her own mouth and to pull the trigger.

Even then, two jurors, including one woman, failed to convict—thereby resulting in the hung jury.

The trial judge gained additional notoriety after the hung jury when an HBO documentary on the Roman Polanski case concluded by asserting (with credible supporting witnesses) that the same trial judge as in the Spector case tried to make a secret deal with the exiled French movie director that he would be granted probation, but only if he agreed to appear at a televised sentencing hearing.

In a further unorthodox move, the same trial judge refused to allow an independent judge to rule on some 40 grounds of bias that Spector’s attorneys claim required his disqualification. Instead, the judge passed on the motion himself.

Friday, February 20, 2009

PHIL SPECTOR JURY VISITS LANA CLARKSON DEATH SCENE

AP Photo/Richard Hartog, Pool, File

Blogonaut Via Associated Press and other sources.

A very curious jury of twelve and six alternate jurors swarmed over the foyer of Phil Spector’s 30 room mansion yesterday, also touring an adjacent powder room, the living room, and a courtyard and fountain located in the back of the residence.

The jury of seven men and five women—which includes a UCLA research scientist and social worker—are charged with determining whether Spector shot down-on-her-luck actress Lana Clarkson in the mansion’s foyer in the early morning hours of February 3, 2003 or whether a depressed and intoxicated Clarkson took her own life as the defense contends.

According to Linda Deutsch of the Associated Press:

“The 12 jurors, plus six alternates, arrived at the home to find a courtyard fountain splashing just like it was when Spector brought Clarkson home with him in a chauffeured limousine. A duplicate limo was parked outside.”

Prosecutor Alan Jackson had sought to have the fountain turned off for the visit, claiming that the fountain level had been manipulated by Spector’s prior defense team when the jury from the first Spector murder trial (which resulted in a hung jury) visited the residence. However, the defense was able to prove that the fountain pump has only one speed and could not be manipulated.

In a victory for the defense, the trial judge found there was no evidence that the fountain had been tampered with during the prior jury visit, and ruled that the fountain would be on.

This was crucial for Spector’s defense because it claims that Spector’s driver that night—who was waiting in Spector’s Mercedes near the fountain with the windows rolled up and the radio and heater on—could not have heard Spector clearly that morning over the noisy water feature when, as claimed by the driver, Spector emerged near the back of the residence and allegedly said “I think I just killed somebody”. The driver later told police investigators that due to his poor English, he was not sure what Spector said, but at trial stood by the alleged confession.

As with the last jury visit during the first trial, the jurors asked the trial judge for permission to sit in the Mercedes while someone stood at the door of the residence and talked conversationally, and again the jury was told “no”.

However, this time “several jurors stood outside by the car and had another juror talk on the steps of the home. They also measured the distance from the car to the door” the AP reported.

In addition, the jury has also asked the trial judge to specify the wattages of the interior wall sconces in the foyer and in the outdoor lighting fixtures, according to Linda Deutsch’s story.

In other Spector jury news, a blogger covering the retrial under the pseudonym Sprocket is reporting that in yesterdays afternoon session immediately following the Thursday morning site visit a unnamed male juror requested that the trial court release him from jury duty in the four month old trial, allegedly claiming that he is broke and is now caring for his elderly father. Sprocket reports that the Court will take up the juror’s request to bail from the murder trial on Monday, February 23, 2009. The juror's occupation was not immediately known, but he was identified as "Juror #5".

The defense case is expected to wrap up sometime in March, 2009.

While it is hard to know what any jury is thinking, the experiment performed at the scene yesterday morning combined with some of the questions posed by some jurors is hard to reconcile with a jury that has been altogether persuaded by the prosecution’s case on retrial—which ended in December of 2008.



Thursday, February 12, 2009

JUROR NO. 9 RICARDO ENRIQUEZ TO GIVE ANTI- SPECTOR INTERVIEW

Forensic expert James Pex joins a growing list of national experts prosecutor Allan Jackson has accused of misdconduct
Phillip Spector Trial I "guilty" juror Ricardo Enriquez is now attending trial II-and speaking against Spector

UPDATED 1-13-09
.
Phillip Spector hate site Trials and Tribulations is reporting that blog author Sprocket—who visits , and cries over, Lana Clarkson’s ashes and makes no apologies for her admitted pro- prosecution bias—will be appearing as a radio guest tonight with so called Juror #9, Ricardo Enriquez—who told the LA Times right after the first Spector jury deadlocked that “[the] Spector defense “bought” scientific experts."
“I thought it was a forgone conclusion that he was guilty and I was really surprised after the first ballot we were split.,” Enriquez told CBS News shortly after the Spector jury deadlocked. Juror No. 9 also revealed to CBS that his fellow jurors were less sure, with an initial ballot of only 4 jurors leaning toward guilt, 5 favoring acquittal, and three
undecided.”

The radio interview expected to attack the 70’s music legend’s murder defense team follows recent posts by Trials and Tribulations accusing respected defense lawyer Doron Weinberg of “lying” to the court, and (reportedly) stating that lead Spector prosecutor Allan Jackson told the Court yesterday that respected blood spatter expert, and former police lieutenant James Pex “committed perjury” in his testimony to the jury yesterday (February 11) and also “fabricated an experiment” presented to the jury. (See here, including following comments by blog author Sprocket and others; To listen to the January 13 interview with Juror #9 and blogger Sprocket, click here.)
.
Suspiciously, prosecutor Allan Jackson has serially accused nationally respected criminalist and blood spatter expert Dr. Henry Lee of intentionally removing and suppressing evidence from the crime scene, has accused nationally respected pathologist Dr. Michael Baden of fabricating his trial testimony in Spector I, and now accuses (according to Trials and Tribulations) former police officer and instructor, and nationally respected blood splatter expert James Pex of "perjury."

Oddly, rather than publish the specifics in which James Pex allegedly “fabricated” an experiment and lied to the jury in Sepctor II, Trials and Tribulations has simply published the accusation that Pex and defense counsel Doron Weinberg “lied”, followed by a pseudo scientific post under the pseudonym “Mort Snerd,” also implying that James Pex perjured himself, but failing to even identify any "false" statements by Pex—let alone proof that the respected former police officer “lied”; The Snerd post features a posed photo of the music producer circa 1976 pointing a gun at the camera. (See here and here.)

We are obviously troubled by this transparent attempt by blogger Sprocket and her blog Trials and Tribulations to prejudice public opinion against a respected San Francisco Bay Area attorney and a respected former police officer and blood spatter expert—who like Dr. Lee and Dr. Baden has also testified for the prosecution in unrelated cases.

Of even greater concern is Los Angeles prosecutor Allan Jackson’s apparent propensity to use serious accusations of criminal misconduct as a tactical weapon.

After all, how likely is it that not only one but three nationally respected forensic experts, with not a single prior ethical charge against any of them during their long and distinguished careers, all decided to flush their careers by committing perjury in the same criminal case, let alone that they were all “discovered” to by lying by Allan Jackson?

Sprocket advises that she and Juror #9 will be appearing tonight at 8:30 PM on “Talk Radio One."
.
UPDATE: It turns out that James Pex’s “falsified experiment” was a photo of his bloody finger next to a ruler that Pex told the jury was of his finger after he fired a snub-nosed Colt Cobra 38, when in fact it was a picture of his finger with blood on it after he fired a snub-nosed Smith and Wesson 38. (Pex performed both experiments, but he misidentified a photo of one as coming from the other.)

As it turns out, no experiment was “falsified,” rather a photo was misidentified. That is it. So so this issue ends not with a bang but with a whimper.

Tuesday, February 3, 2009

REASONABLE DOUBT IN THE PHILLIP SPECTOR MURDER CASE?


Opinion, by Blogonaut

We are trying to follow the Phillip Spector retrial, except that there is little to no coverage of the Los Angeles proceedings in the main stream media.

We did, however, review some key testimony from the 2007 Spector prosecution that left two jurors holding out for not guilty until a mistrial was declared.

On June 12, 2007, CourtTV News reported that a prosecution expert, Steve Renteria, testified that he found DNA on Spector's genitals that was consistent with the genetic profile of Lana Clarkson’s saliva. Perhaps more information than we wanted to know, but still important evidence of what occurred in Spector's mansion that night.

Moreover, on June 26, 2007, defense expert Dr. Vincent DiMaio, a physician with a specialty in forensic medicine, summed up the basis for his conclusion that Lana Clarkson died from her own hand:

“She's got blood on her hands, gunshot residue on her hands, an intra-oral wound. Ninety-nine percent, it's suicide," DiMaio said.”


Now, we are not advocating for Phillip Spector’s innocence, but follow me for a minute.

Ms. Clarkson was reportedly very discouraged about her career prospects as an actress; she had not done a movie in years. She was described as despondent. Unwilling to acknowledge that her dream of stardom had faded, she went so far as to forge notes of encouragement from famous producers (“Congratulations Kid, you made it!”) and place them in her scrap book.

Out of money and (in her words) on the verge of losing everything, she took a job as a cocktail waitress while preparing for an unpaid infomercial. On the night of her death, she served Phillip Spector, who had already consumed at least 6 shots of rum earlier at Trader Vic’s, and who then switched to 151 rum straight up.

Perhaps thinking Spector might be able to jump start her career, Clarkson agreed to accompany Spector to his Alhambra estate.

We admittedly lack a woman’s perspective, but a dissipated Phil Spector, drunk on 151 rum could be fairly described as repulsive.

Yet the evidence suggests that not only did Lana Clarkson go home with him, something more occurred. If Ms. Clarkson had become as desperate as the evidence suggests, who can say for sure that she did not take her own life that night, particularly with gunshot residue and blood on her hand, and neither on Spector's hands?

But what about Spector’s driver, who Spector allegedly “confessed” to that night? The driver, Adriano DeSouza, initially told police in a taped interview, when asked to confirm if Spector confessed: “I think so. I think — I'm not sure. It's my English that — “.

DeSouza did not implicate Spector until after law enforcement promised to halt deportation proceedings then pending against the Brazilian born chauffeur.

One thing is for sure, during the first trial every thing that could go wrong for Spector’s defense, went wrong. Spector’s lead attorney walked away from the trial after giving a (some said) bizarre opening statement to tape a reality TV show. Another defense lawyer got sick. Famed blood splatter expert Dr. Henry Lee was scratched off the witness list after the trial judge found that he lost or destroyed evidence from the crime scene. And yet, two jurors held out for a not guilty verdict. Stay tuned…..