SPECTOR JUDGE FIDLER ADMITS ‘FRUSTRATION’ WITH CONSTITUTION

“California Code of Civil Procedure Section 170.1: “(a) A judge shall be disqualified if any one or more of the following is true: …(6) (A) (iii)… A person aware of the facts might reasonably entertain a doubt that the judge would be able to be impartial.”

Now, this is outrageous.

The Los Angeles Superior Court judge who is presiding over retrial of the People of the State of California vs. Phillip Spector—previously admitted that he disagrees with THE REQUIREMENT THAT ANY CRIMINAL JURY UNANIMOUSLY find the defendant guilty before imposing punishment!

Why is this startling news?

Because the California Constitution REQUIRES that no criminal defendant be punished unless a jury of 12 UNANIMOUSLY votes that guilt has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

Because Judge Fidler TOOK AN OATH to “…support and defend the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the State of California…” (Cal. Const. Art. 20, Sec. 3.)

If Judge Fidler is “frustrated” in general by the CONSTITUTIONAL requirement of a conviction by a unanimous jury—despite SWEARING UNDER GOD to uphold the constitution—imagine how “frustrated” Judge Fidler was by the 10-2 hung jury in the first Phil Spector jury trial.

How can a trial judge who has not only disagreed with a fundamental constitutional provision, but is on record as saying that he is “frustrated” by it, be considered “unbiased” in a case directly implicating the very constitutional provision that is the source of his “frustration”—a FIVE MONTH retrial caused by the failure of a prior jury to unanimously agree on e verdict?

In our opinion, a reasonable person aware of the facts could entertain a doubt that Fidler could impartially preside over the Phil Spector retrial, and under the applicable law, Judge Fidler should have disqualified himself.


SOURCES:


http://www.law.com/regionals/ca/judges/sup_la/fidler.htm

(“Behind the Bench, Brief Profiles of California Judges, Larry Fidler.”)

(Constitution of the State of California…” (Cal. Const. Art. 20, Sec. 3.)

CCP Section 170.1: “(a) A judge shall be disqualified if any one or more of the
following is true: …(6) (A) (iii)… A person aware of the facts might reasonably entertain a doubt that the judge would be able to be impartial.”