PHIL SPECTOR MAKES FINAL PLEA FOR NEW TRIAL ON MURDER CHARGE

Philip Spector confers with his appellate lawyer Dennis P. Riordan

***BREAKING***

Legendary music producer Phil Spector’s appeal from a Los Angeles murder conviction rendered in what many—including this blog—believe was a prejudicial trial atmosphere flowing from a parade of irrelevant prior paramours (who sold their sensational stories to the tabloids before testifying) and related prosecutorial misconduct—is still winding itself through the California Court of Appeal.

But Spector advanced another step closer to freedom yesterday with his filing of the final reply brief in the music great’s appeal.

We will have more on this later—we just obtained Phil Spector’s final plea minutes ago—but offer the brief up for you edification and comment.

--Blogonaut

UPDATE: 12-14-2010 at 1:52: pm:

We have now read through Spector's final reply and we are reminded of the Joe Lewis vs. Max Schmeling fight #2--it's one sided, and it's a complete route.

As initially reported here, and as the AG later conceded in a hastily filed "errata" filed days after our initial post concerning the AG brief pointing out some "rookie mistakes", the AG apparently delegated this appeal to an inexperienced lawyer, whose faulty analysis infected the People's brief from start to finish.

The People's Evidence Code analysis of the admission of Judge Fidler's testimony from trial #1 in trial #2 was particularly flawed, and we predict that it will result in a reversal of this wrongful conviction.

But that is not all. The People, through their fact-intensive "harmless error" analysis of the evidence (essentially, the argument that all the evidence favors a conviction, so Spector would have been convicted with or without the error complained of) apply the wrong standard of review.

While in many an appeal context the courts are required to accept the prosecution's interpretation of the trial facts (giving "deference" the the implied findings by the jury)--in analyzing whether or not alleged error by the trial court is "prejudicial", the deferential standard does not apply.

Rather, an appellate court is required in cases such as this to consider all of the evidence (including that favoring an acquittal) in assessing whether or not justice miscarried. This the AG failed to do.

Another costly, blunder!

Not only a brief that pays due deference to the written expression at its finest, this is a brief that not only sings--it takes full advantage of an AG brief riddled with legal and tactical errors.

This case is going to be reversed, we feel it.

Dennis Riordan and Charles Sevilla once again demonstrate that they are among the best of the best when it comes to appellate advocacy!

Holly crap--the brief is that good, the mistakes of the attorney general that breathtaking.

Wow! (Game, set, match Spector.)

Read Spector's Final Reply Brief filed yesterday in the Court of Appeal