Spector Hung Jury: Why did the judge have to declare a mistrial?

Posted on: September 26, 2007 at 10:38 p.m.

Today the twelve jurors deliberating on Spector's fate were deadlocked after close to two weeks of deliberations. The split was 10-2 for guilty. While the split seems very uneven, and some may suggest that he might as well be found guilty, the beauty of our criminal justice system is that it requires unanimity. In this way, more social acceptance exists of a decision which may be highly unpopular (like the OJ Simpson trial -- imagine if that jury was deadlocked 10-2 not guilty, and the court decided he might as well be found not guilty because of the large majority, what kind of social outrage would be shown).

Because the jury was deadlocked in Spector, the judge was forced to declare a mistrial under the provisions of the California Penal Code. The prosecution will retry Spector for murder, and may choose to include the lesser charge of manslaugter to improve its chances for a guilty verdict, and to avoid another retrial. The defense may have the edge in the retrial, because it can rethink its strategy knowing all the prosecution attacks, and shortcomings.

Three jurors provided interviews to media after the mistrial was declared. Initially, four jurors voted guilty, 5 were not sure, and three were voting not guilty. As the deliberations proceeded, the vote became 7-5 for guilty. The jurors said that their deliberations were often emotional, with panelists debating how to interpret the many pieces of evidence presented at trial. They said they clashed over whether Spector's chauffeur understood English well enough to be sure that his boss said after the shooting, "I think I killed somebody." "Most of us believed he said what he thought he heard," the foreman said. Jurors repeatedly watched a video interview in which the defense said the chauffeur had hesitated about what he heard. "Some gave it a lot of weight. Some didn't," the foreman said. Jurors also said there was emotional disagreement over the portrayal of Clarkson, 40. Spector's defense painted her as driven to deep depression by her difficulties as an aging actress in Hollywood. Prosecutors complained that the defense had "murdered" Clarkson again in court. According to one juror, one of his colleagues criticized Clarkson for going home with Spector, saying, "A man will go only as far as a woman will let him." "I found that so insulting," the juror, the facilities manager, said. "Was she a whore? Does she deserve to die for that?"

Asked if he felt the court's time was wasted, the foreman said no. "When there's a doubt and the jury cannot find a unanimous decision, does that mean they wasted their time?" he asked. Answering his own question, he continued, "No. Those are the principles this country is founded on."

In the end, while we do not have closure, how many of us feel that the trial was not fair, or that the deliberations were corrupt (as they are in many other parts of the world -- where a trial verdict may be predetermined by the government, or rich private citizens capable of bribing officials). In Spector, twelve strangers came together to discuss the conduct of a rock-and-roll celebrity. While the final result was not satisfying, the system worked the right way: there was no unanimity and thus a mistrial was declared. It is expected the retrial will start in 2008.

To see other criminal law issues addressed by Southern California criminal defense lawyers, visit http://www.kelawyers.com/FAQ.aspx

Tagged as: counterfeit goods pc 350

Comments:

Tania Bakar on November 14, 2009 at 5:37 p.m. wrote:

As this blog post declares, the beauty of our trial system is that is does indeed require unanimity. This is important because it takes all jurors to agree to someone's guilt. This requirement is important because it can protect someone's innocence. All jurors have to believe, without a reasonable doubt, that the defendant is guilty of the charges brought against him. I cannot imagine what injustice would have ensures if we were to have a majority rules process, as they do in other countries. In other countries all it takes is a majority of votes to indict a person. Our jury system, although some argue is not the best, actually works to protect the innocent. There has been numerous evidence which shows that jurors take their jobs seriously and make the decisions they think are the best. They examine evidence, and listen to both sides. Furthermore, the jurors are selected, by experts. This ensures, as it best as possibly could, that there will be no biases or prejudices. The jury system in America is fair and just, and it is important to acknowledge that.

Steven (Matt) Gibson on December 12, 2007 at 9:47 p.m. wrote:

In my opinion, this jury foreman was the man. I'm not sure how they are selected, but this is exactly the kind out attitude we should have of our jury system. This article also shows exactly why close verdicts like 11-1 or 10-2 are misleading. These verdicts are the result or verbal and emotional tug of war between the two sides, not the initial independent opinion of all the jurors after hearing all of the evidence. Unreasonable jurors who are just ridiculous and unreachable can be replaced by alternates, but this was probably not the case. From that initial 7-5 vote, who's to say whether those who switched to guilty saw the light or were just tired and made concessions and compromises to land on the guilty verdict. The uproar and lack of validity of a non-unanimous ruling would also cause an uproar, especially in a controversial case with race or gender involved. most of those cases would probably get appealed, leading to only the illusion of justice and closure. About half of these 11-1 cases fail to convict on the re-trial, so obviously they are too close to call and the jury has not been convinced of guilt.

Sandra Doumit on November 30, 2007 at 2:26 p.m. wrote:

This situation is another difficulty in our system, sometimes we have mistrials and there are no ways of getting around that. It is good to see that our government upheld the law and did not allow for a guilty charge to be called because of a 10/2 vote. The unfortunate aspect is the time and expense it takes for each trial, and in the end to call a mistrial is somewhat disappointing of the system. The other disturbing part of this article is in the beginning when it is mentioned that a celebrity case may finally be found guilty. It is evident that celebrities can hire the best attorneys, and sometimes several at a time. The fact that celebrities can often get off because their lawyers can put up a good defense is unfair. Especially since recently we are tryig to show that when it comes to the law, celebrities are not treated differently in any way.

Amanda Hester on November 25, 2007 at 8:05 p.m. wrote:

I have not heard enough about this case to determine whether or not Phil Spector committed murder or not. Clearly public sentiment is that he did. But can you imagine if the jury was 10-2 guilty (as was the case in the Spector trial) but he didn't commit the crime. If we were to accept a 10-2 verdict and put a man behind bars for a very long time or even give him the death penalty (a sentence I personally believe to be cruel and unusual)when he trully did not commit the crime would be outrageous. This is clearly the rationale behind having a unanimity rule in criminal cases and was the reason the judge had to declare a mistrial. Could teh judge have asked the jurors to stay in the room a little longer hoping for a change of heart? Yes. Would there have been a change of heart? Maybe. But we were not in that room. Clearly the judge felt there would be no change of heart. And I prefer a retrial to the old days where this jury would have been dragged throught the streets or starved until they found an acceptable verdict.

Kelsey Kernstine on November 13, 2007 at 2:14 a.m. wrote:

I think that so many people question the seriousness and thoroughness that the jury takes within a trial. I think juries are misconstrued to seem unintelligent and uncaring of the issue at hand. This specific example shows that a jury does, in fact, care. In the beginning of the Spector trial, there were four jurors who voted guilty, five were not sure, and three voted not guilty. It says the jury deliberated further and the vote became 7-5 for guilty. It also says the jurors deliberation was often

Kristin Bryan on November 7, 2007 at 4:45 p.m. wrote:

Despite the frustration that often arises from hung juries and mistrials they are the result of the freedoms and justice that our country was built on. Demanding a unanimous jury in order to reach a verdict may seem extreme to some, but it is a safe-hold in our country to prevent innocent people suffering from guilty labels and consequences. Forcing a unanimous verdict encourages the jury to discuss and debate with intense passion and influence. Each member is crucial to the final conclusion and must be listened to. A unanimous verdict forces everyone to speak his/her opinion and not be ignored, it eliminates ideas, thoughts, doubts, etc. from falling through. There have likely been many occasions when if a unanimous verdict wasn

DaisyS on October 25, 2007 at 1:45 a.m. wrote:

I believe that although declaring a mistrail may be tedious and not wanted at times, it is important for the judge to declare one in cases such as this. I believe that in order to be sure to charge Spector with the correct prosecutions, the jury needs to be confident in their decision. The 10-2 guilty jury split portrays that at some point the jury felt strong about their decision. As more trials were held, the jurors began to swing back and fourth between guilty/not guilty ( 'four jurors voted guilty, 5 were not sure, and three were voting not guilty.') Although the jury split soon became 7-5 I feel that this is still an unstable agreement of how the case should end. Since it is evident that even twelve jurors may have a tough time making decisions, I feel that it is beneficial to have twelve people thinking together rather than just one (the judge).

Andy Blair on October 23, 2007 at 10:55 p.m. wrote:

I think that it is good that we must have unanimity. We as people require that the government provide enough evidence that 12 fellow citizens believe that the defendant is guilty of the crime being charged. Beyond a reasonable doubt is probably the most important thing in law, at least what I have learned of the law thus far. It has kept many innocent out as prison, though it does keep a few truly guilty out of prison. If we had a system where unanimity was not necessary, the government would not need to try as hard to convict, and the jury would not need to pay enough attention if they have to try to convince a fellow juror that a person is guilty or innocent. Also many would lose more faith in the system if a person believes the defendant is not guilty, but the juror convicts

Steffany Strain on October 23, 2007 at 5:41 p.m. wrote:

The judge in the Spector Trial had to declare mistrial due to a hung jury. I believe this was fair decision even based on the final outcome of 10-2 for guilty. The prosecutors simply failed to present strong enough evidence. As stated above, 'Initially, four jurors voted guilty, 5 were not sure, and three were voting not guilty. As the deliberations proceeded, the vote became 7-5 for guilty. The jurors said that their deliberations were often emotional, with panelists debating how to interpret the many pieces of evidence presented at trial.' Thus, when the jury first deliberated it was no where close to being unanimous. However, in the end, the jury voted 10-2 guilty. One thing I always find suspicious is that no one outside the jury ever knows how the deliberation sought out. Therefore, means of influence or manipulation from one juror to another would while deliberating would remain unknown. It only takes one person with a strong opinion and the urge to force their views and interpretations of evidence on other jurors, which may ultimately influence their decision. Additionally, it was said that their deliberations were often emotional, which may indicate some means of bias, and sympathy. Although the foreman is suppose to try to prevent this and keep the deliberation as fair as possible, bias, emotion, and influence still occur. Moreover, the defendant/prosecutor has no control over way the evidence is interpreted/misinterpreted by jurors during deliberation.

Sarah Welch on October 23, 2007 at 2:55 a.m. wrote:

It is important in a case such as this to declare a mistrial as in not doing so the values the trial by jury system stands for will be undermined . Convicting for criminal trials by a unanimous vote is a central aspect of the criminal justice system, in disregarding this component the fairness of the trial by jury system is brought into question . If the judge put pressure on the jury to come to a unanimous decision the two jurors in disagreement with the majority would feel enormous pressure to change their decisions based purely on ending the trial. The purpose of a trial is not simply to go through the procedure as quickly as possible but to establish justice beyond reasonable doubt. If a retrial is required in order to establish the truth beyond reasonable doubt then that is precisely what should be done. I think it is especially important in such a highprofile case to respect the rules of our criminal justice system to reinforce its stability to the public.

Monica Evans on October 22, 2007 at 4:52 p.m. wrote:

I am just wondering if the murder happen 4 years ago why was Phil Spector not put to trial at the time the murder happened? And how long to you have, to put someone through trial, before it is forgotten or can you put some through trial at anytime? I also think that it was unjust to say that someone should die for being a whore. I honestly think that it was irrelevant.

athar Mikhail on October 21, 2007 at 11:59 p.m. wrote:

Is 2 weeks the deadline for a jury deliberation? Because it was said that at the beginning of the jury deliberation, the verdict said 4 were guilty, 5 were unsure, and 3 were for not guilty. After further deliberations they said it came to be 7-5 for guilty. Ultimately it evolved to 10-2 for guilty. If they had some more time, do you think they would have had a unanimous verdict or was it vital that the judge call a mistrial because those 2 jurors were never going to change their minds. It seems to me that the verdict is constantly evolving and if given some more time they could have all agreed on a unanimous verdict.

Jade Machado on October 21, 2007 at 1:16 p.m. wrote:

I believe that it is important for a judge to declare a mistrial if the jury is unable to reach a unanimous desicion. In this case, two of the jurors believed that there was reasonable doubt as whether or not the defendant committed the murder. If the judge forced the jury to return a unanimous desicion or simply ruled in favor of the majority, the power to find jutice would lie in the hands of one judge not a jury of one's peers. This would undermine the purpose of the United States jury system, and may result in jail time or death penalties for innocent people

Mario Ortega on October 17, 2007 at 4 p.m. wrote:

The judge had to declare a mistrail in the interest of justice. Even thought the judge should try to make the jury reach a unanimous he should not do so at the expense of justice. What I mean by this is that in trying to have the jury reach a unanimous decision the judge should not put so much pressure on the jury that the jury reaches a unanimous decision not based on a revision of the evidence and deliberation, but instead based on the fact that the judge expects one from them and will not let them go until they come to one.

Kate Monson on October 14, 2007 at 12:55 p.m. wrote:

Just how long does a judge have to wait before she/he can declare a mistrial? Is there an unlimited amount of times one can be called in any given case? Finally, can both sides bring in new evidence with the new trial, or does everything have to stay the same?

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.

Los Angeles County, CA: Agoura, Altadena, Alhambra, Bellflower, Beverly Hills, Burbank, Calabasas, Century City, Chatsworth, Compton, Culver City, Diamond Bar, Downey, Downtown Criminal Court, El Segundo, East Los Angeles, Eastlake, Encino, El Monte, Glendale, Glendora, Hermosa Beach, Hidden Hills, Hollywood, Huntington Park, Inglewood, Los Angeles Lawyer, La Canada, LAX Court, Los Padrinos, Long Beach, Los Angeles Attorney, Malibu, Manhattan Beach, Marina Del Rey, Newhall, Norwalk, Palos Verdes, Pasadena, Pomona, Rancho Palos Verdes, Redondo Beach, Rolling Hills, San Dimas, San Fernando, San Marino, San Pedro, Santa Clarita, Sherman Oaks, Sierra Madre, Santa Monica, South Gate, South Pasadena, Sylmar, Torrance, Universal City, Valencia, Van Nuys, West Covina, West Hollywood, Walnut, Westchester, West Hollywood, Westlake Village, Whittier, Woodland Hills, California. Orange County, CA: Anaheim, Anaheim Hills, Buena Park, Costa Mesa, Fullerton, Garden Grove, Huntington Beach, Irvine Attorney, Laguna Beach, Laguna Hills, Laguna Niguel, La Habra, La Palma, Mission Viejo, Newport Beach, Orange, Orange County Lawyer, Rancho Santa Margarita, San Clemente, San Juan Capistrano, Santa Ana, Seal Beach, Tustin, Villa Park, Westminster, Yorba Linda, California. Ventura County, CA: Camarillo, Moorpark, Oxnard, San Buenaventura, Simi Valley, Thousand Oaks, Westlake Village. San Bernardino County, CA: Ontario, Rancho Cucamonga, Upland.

Prior Criminal Law Posts

Spector Hung Jury: Why did the judge have to declare a mistrial?

Comments:

Add your comment!

Firm Fan Page & News

Our Criminal Defense Partners

Criminal Defense Resources

Prior Criminal Law Posts