Phil Spector Murder Case: Jury Starts Deliberations in Another High-Profile Los Angeles Trial - Can the Prosecution win this one?Posted on: September 10, 2007 at 9:46 a.m.Jury deliberations began today after a four months trial. The Los Angeles County District Attorney's Office has thus far lost its famous celebrity cases, OJ and Robert Blake. It now it appears it may finaly win one. Prosecutors presented great prior violence evidence against Spector, received numerous favorable judicial rulings throughout, and were faced with a fractured defense team (Blake kept changing his lead lawyers). Prosecutors argued that Spector had a long history of gun threats against women and put a loaded snub-nosed revolver in Clarkson's face when she tried to leave. Whether he meant to kill her is irrelevant, they argued that his knowing disregard for life would constitute murder under California law -- even if the gun was discharged by accident, so long as Spector brought the gun up to the deceased's face, his actions were highly capable of killing and thus he should be responsible for murder (known as implied malice). Alan Jackson, the lead prosecutor, presented a compelling closing argument, while the lead defense attorney Linda Baden read her entire argument from a 1"-thick stack of papers in a binder. The defense case's focus was the objective science proves Spector not guilty. Of course, science may be objective, but the scientists intepreting the results may not be especially when they are paid tens of thousands of dollars. The prosecutors referred to this phenomenon as the "checkbook defense." Spector's criminal defense lawyers called numerous crime scene experts, pathologists, and other scientists to establish that the blood spatter, DNA, and gushot residue on Spector and his clothing was too minimal. They argued if he was so close as to pull the trigger, he would have brain matter, and blood all over him as a result of an intra-oral gunshot wound the deceases Lana Clarkson suffered. In the end, the jury was left with a case where no testifying witness observed the shooting. The limo driver was outside, and only saw and heard Spector after the shooting. Even though Spector made an incriminating statement "I think I just killed someone," the defense argued that the limo driver's English was poor, he was tired from driving Spector around the entire night, and probably heard "I think someone is killed." Also, because the gun was fully in the deceased's mouth, the question of how someone can force a gun into an unwilling person's mouth was not fully answered. Also, the prosecutor's experts argued homicide, while the defense witnesses opined suicide. While this is an interesting circumstantial evidence case, there is no direct evidence (witnesses or admissions) of guilt. The case has reasonable doubt and the Law Blog feels it would be difficult for a jury to reach a unanimous verdict. Tagged as: counterfeit goods pc 350 Kestenbaum Eisner & Gorin LLP has been recognized as one of the best U.S. law firms, based on the experience, professionalism, and ethics of its criminal defense lawyers and attorneys. We aggressively defend clients in all Southern California courtrooms on state and federal charges, including DUI, DMV, misdemeanor, felony, juvenile cases, in the following communities and courthouses. |





























