Monday, March 16, 2009

Phil Spector Retrial: Day Fifty-eight, The Prosecution Rests Their Rebuttal Case!

UPDATE March 17th, 2009: NO SUR-REBUTTAL CASE BY THE DEFENSE!

The next time counsel will be before the jury, will be for closing arguments. Closing arguments are expected to start on Monday, March 23rd at 9:30 am, and could take as long as three-and-a-half days.

Calling only two more witnesses, Nick Terzian and Alhambra Police Officer Ester Rodriguez (aka Corporal Pineda) the prosecution rested it's rebuttal case. As court ended, the defense still had not decided whether or not to put on a sur-rebuttal case. Spector could not talk to Weinberg at this time about it. He had a doctor's appointment. I overheard Weinberg say in the well that he might know by 4 or 5 pm, which would be too late for the court.

Jurors were let go this afternoon around 2:40 pm without knowing for certain if they would return tomorrow for more testimony or return next Monday for the start of closing arguments. They were told that Wendy would call them in the morning and let them know if they would need to return tomorrow afternoon and to let their employer's know that this would still be considered a jury day.

There are several issues that counsel stated they will go over outside of the court's time. That includes deciding on which evidentiary items will be sent in with the jurors (Jackson indicated to the court that there are hundreds of items of evidence that need to be decided upon) as well as finalizing the detailed wording for some jury instructions. Jackson indicated that they would do their best to get as much of this decided outside of the court's time. All the court will be involved with will be the final decision on the involuntary manslaughter charge and the special instruction that the defense wants added. I'm guessing that those issues would be finalized on most likely, Thursday. If I am able to get notice on that, I'll go downtown and cover it.

There was a disagreement between the two parties as to when to start closing arguments. Weinberg wanted them started this Thursday, then the weekend break and then he would deliver his closing on Monday. This would give plenty of time for Ms. Do's rebuttal closing. The prosecution was opposed to that. They wanted to start on Monday and go straight through. Fidler tended to agree with that. Weinberg has an appellate issue that he got transferred down to Los Angeles County on March 25th, in the afternoon. That's why Weinberg wanted to start closings early, to not come up tight against that time where he would be arguing in this case, and also have to argue another case in the afternoon.

Fidler asked Weinberg if he could call the Judge on that case and see if they would agree to a postponement. So, it appears that Fidler is going to call another Judge to see if Weinberg's appellate issue can be moved to another day and time.

It's estimated that closing arguments could take anywhere from two-and-a-half to three-and-a-half days. Fidler does have a seminar that he is attending on Friday the 27th in a building across the street. He stated that he could be called and be in the courtroom in ten minutes if the jury needs anything, so the jury will be able to deliberate on that date. Monday, March 30th and Tuesday March 31st are dark days, but I don't know the reason.

Linda Kenny Baden and her brother-in-law, Robert Baden were in the courtroom today, sitting in the gallery on the defense side. I have no idea why they were here. Also in the courtroom sitting in the back row where Harriet Ryan would normally sit was the defense's jury consultant, Richard Gabriel, who took quite a few notes while he was watching the jury.

More to come....

67 comments:

Anonymous said...

GREAT JOB Sprocket!!! Thanks SO much for reporting on this case! If you know - do you think they will show the closing arguments on TV?? Probably not, eh?? If they are - please let all of us know - so we can watch too!!

Niner

Anonymous said...

A treat - same day coverage!!! Can't wait to read your report on closing arguments.
Thanks much for all your time and effort.
Bill

Anonymous said...

Several things stuck out in my mind: Weinberg had an appellate issue moved to LA without knowing the termination of the existing case? And how does the client get to dictate---without benefit of law training---whether a sur-rebuttal case is to be presented? If the client makes that call, can he not claim "inadequate defense" afterwards, if the results don't go his way?

And he makes a doctor's appt with no consideration of his mandated court appearance, just assumes everyone in #106 will work around it?

Anonymous said...

Wow. This case is ending suddenly. Weinberg never misses a trick. He wants the prosecution to have to present their closing and then give the jury a weekend to forget the details, while his arguments will be fresh in their minds. If he scheduled another case right in the middle of this one, shame on him. That is just an excuse.

Spector's defense is ending with a whimper. Once again, he put on nothing but a bunch of hired guns who would say anything they were paid to say. The only one that sounded credible to me was the Psychologist, Dr. Loftus, and her testimony did not seem very pertinent to me. It will be interesting to see if Pie testifies in sur-rebuttal.

Unless there is another Juror #10 on this jury, I would expect a conviction.

Ray

Sharon said...

I would have thought that the prosection would have called one of Lana's friends, but since they didn't I don't know if the defense can call PIE

Anonymous said...

Things are moving to a swift close.

What is the special instruction Weinberg wants? I feel the special jury instructions on the last trial were one reason it was derailed. Did I read it already and blip it by, or do you know what it is.

Thanks Sprocket for your great reporting!

Anonymous said...

I think the defense can call Pie, but only to talk about the party that Sims testified to. All the other crap she talked about in the first trial would seem to be out. I wonder if she is even around.

Ray

Anonymous said...

Even thinking about Pie makes me feel sort of nauseous. If you lived in a small town and had someone like that totally insincere woman rambling on at the local bar, stabbing you in the back with malicious lying gossip...... anyone who would begin to believe her trash talk would have to be as crass and clueless as she is. Of all the witnesses in the last case, she was the lowest of the bottom feeders and I'm sure hoping she would be getting something from good ole Phil's connections. Maybe she's not around because the connections aren't happening........

Carol L Beck said...

I agree with Sharon. I don't think they can call Pie to rebut Simms because he was a defense witness. The prosecution didn't put on any witnesses for Pie to rebut. What do you think, Sprocket?

Great work! I'll be sorry when the trial is over but I'll keep an eye on what you do next. Thanks for doing what you do!

Carol

my2cents said...

I'm thinking that PIE can be called to rebut Lisa Bloom's "take" on what Greg Sims' told her about that night. Since PIE was with them both (Lana & Greg). BUT I HAVE NO CLUE HOW THIS WORKS - it's just a guess on my part. I'm thinking PIE's testimony will have to be much more limited - tied to that night OR shortly after that. But WHY would Weinberg really want to do that? After knowing the feedback from the jurors of PS1 AND after AJ has had a little more time to "tweak" and refine his CROSS of PIE for round 2 . . . PIE could not offer anything positive for the defense. Just a final reminder to the jury of the lack of credibility these defense witnesses have all offered. IMO.

I also don't buy the impression Weinberg presents to the court - that Phil's afternoon appointment has played a role in determining what DW is going to do about this case and if he is going to call any rebuttal witnesses . . . as if he doesn't already know exactly what he's going to do. Oh Pleeeeaaassse! Why does this man drag his feet and wait til the very last second to disclose anything to the prosecution and the court? And then he has the nerve to suggest AJ proceed on Thursday with Closing Arguments so DW doesn't have a conflict with another appointment/case. Hey Weinberg, here's a suggestion: Tell your client's wife to cancel her standing Friday manicure appointment. Then you can hold court on Fridays as planned, and get this thing over with.

Anonymous said...

I believe Pie can be called to rebut Lisa Bloom, who the prosecution called to discredit Sims. That is why I think Pie can talk about the party and the other Sims statements. If the defense does call Pie, the prosecution might then be able to call other friends of Lana's to discredit Pie. I doubt that Weinberg wants that. I would not be surprised if we do not see Pie again, even if she is not hiding out. What a shame!! I certainly agree that Pie is a bottom feeder. I sure wouldn't want any friends like her, Sims or Jennifer HL.

Ray

Ray

Anonymous said...

Since the defense opened the can of worms by calling Greg Sims to testify as to Lana's state of mind in the week(s) prior - I do not understand why the prosecution did not call others that could refute his opinion and interaction.I think that the forensics presented by both sides could make the average juror call a tie.There was a noticeable lack of personal validation by friends that could have painted a much more optomistic picture.

Liz said...

What Weinberg appears to want is the prosecution closing this week and his closing next week - this would allow the jury to have the defense closing very clear in their minds, with the pros almost a week prior.

Combining the uncertainty of surrebuttal with his other case next week, would suggest this is the only option.

Fortunately it appears that Judge Fidler is looking at alternatives.

Marsha said...

IMO Jennifer Hays(?) didn't need a rebuttal witness. She did herself in. And Lisa Bloom was the rebuttal witness for Greg Sims, so Jackson didn't really need to bring anyone else on.

Anonymous said...

Marsha may be right, but what would have been the harm in bringing Nili Hudson back on? She was a most crebible rebuttal witness last time.
Maybe both sides just want the damn thing over with.

Laurie said...

Regarding Lana's agent, I believe he previously testifed that Lana was a "money maker" but has anyone ever testified to how much she made through acting in the year before her death?

The number would speak for itself, but I do not reall reading it anywhere.

lane99 said...

"Police Officer Ester Rodriguez (aka Corporal Pineda)"

Ah, is she the one who says she heard Spector admit he shot Lana?And who did not testify in the first trial?

Christine said...

Interesting that there is no sur-rebuttal case.

As there really has been no case other than the facts: "I think I shot someebody" and PS's hostility to the officers, a past history of threatening women with guns vs. trashing the reputation of the victim, known fact he gets "mean" when drinking.

It seems to me upon reflection that 5 months to be picking away at every ravel on the edge of the fabric is way too long. This case should have been wrapped up and put away in a month. But with the legal system as it is in this day and age, it is way too profitable for lawyers and the cottage industry of experts and a special person hired to get the best possible jury with people like #10 on the last one so it is an automatic mistrial. It seems that they must waste the courts' time and taxpayer money on stuff like this when there are so many pressing matters to be looked after.

I really hope that justice prevails in this case, unlike a number of other celebrity fiascos.

Anonymous said...

Very abrupt ending of testimony! Sprocket, I assume you will be there for closing arguments. Do you have any plans for Jury deliberations? I doubt that you would sit through them, but do you have anyone who will call you when they reach a verdict or have any questions?

Ray

Anonymous said...

No Pie!! Can't say that I will miss her testimony but was much anticipating the cross. Bet the DA had developed a connection the defense did not want exposed.
Looking forward to your report on closing arguments.
Bill

Anonymous said...

If Linda Kenney Baden flew to California from Florida, you can bet she is being paid. I will guess she is there to assess where they stand with the Jury (along with the Juror consultant) and to help prepare for closing arguments.

Ray

GuiltyIndeed said...

We are very grateful for your coverage!

No Pie. Thank God.

Anonymous said...

I was wondering, if Spector is found guilty of involuntary manslaughter, how much time could he get? Sprocket, do you know? Thank you so much for your coverage of this case. I was looking everywhere for the televised coverage and couldn't believe it wasn't on Tru TV. At least we have your coverage which is just like being there. Thanks for all your hard work.

Anonymous said...

I hope someone (Steve at LA Weekly?) does a follow up article entitled "Where is The Pie?" I'd love to know what has become of her, what her attitude is towards the first trial, why she didn't testify in this one, etc...

Shiva-the-God-of-Death said...

The defense got from Sims everything it could have gotten from Pie without the baggage Pie would have carried with her to the witness stand. So that tactical decision is easy to grasp.

If Pie was truly unavailable (as some has speculated) then on proper showing her prior testimony in the first trial (and based on Fidler precedent, the prior Court TV video of her testimony) could have been presented to the jury. So I tend to think that there was a decision made not to call her as opposed to her being unavailable.

Sprocket said...

Closing Argument Coverage:
Closing arguments could take up to three-and-a-half days. I highly doubt they will be televised seeing as how there has been little media interest in the case. There "could be" cameras there and portions shown at a later time. I won't know until I get to court next Monday morning.

What I expect to be more likely is that the verdict will be covered, if there is a camera crew around and available.

Weinberg's appellate issue:
I don't know the specifics of this. My best guess is, Weinberg had it moved to Los Angeles County so that he didn't have to fly back up to San Francisco area to argue. So that he could still be here, and only take a short time off from the trial to go and argue this other case. However, the trial ended quicker than expected.

Spector's doctor's appointments:

I have no idea what type of doctor appointments Spector has or how they are scheduled. For all we know, they could be psychotherapy appointments.

Dr. Loftus:

The bottom line on Dr. Loftus is, she was not able to discredit De Souza. Whatever she had to add was effectively blunted on cross.

No Pie; No Nili Hudson:

When you think about it, Pie had more problems than pluses which is why I think Weinberg didn't call her. Pie would have been shredded on cross. She would have been impeached by her own Christmas letter.

I thought it was a brilliant move by the prosecution NOT TO CALL Nili Hudson to the stand in the prosecution's rebuttal case. When you think about it, their other witness, Lisa Bloom, effectively discredited Greg Sims. Jennifer Hayes Riedl was her own worst enemy. What did they need to call Nili for? The jurors heard about Lana from her mother.

With just these four witnesses on rebuttal, Bloom, Katz, Terzian, Rodriguez, the defense didn't have a whole lot to rebut for a sur-rebuttal case. Buy severely limiting their rebuttal, they cut the legs off of any effective sur-rebuttal case being presented.

Lana's income:
Lana's bank records or tax returns were not admitted into evidence so we do not know what her income was like. I do believe she expected to get a refund on her taxes. I think that was testified to in the first trial though; I don't specifically remember a tax refund being mentioned in this trial. It could have been though.

Officer Rodriguez:

No. This is a different officer who interviewed De Souza at the front residence with Officer Kennedy. That officer who overheard the statements was "Beatrice Rodriguez," part of the "entry team" that took down Spector in the foyer.

Pie:
I don't know if there was something that the prosecution discovered that the defense did not want exposed. Mr. Jackson never gave me any indication of that in all the times I questioned him about whether or not he thought the defense would call Punkin Pie.

Jury Deliberations:
I will be hanging out in the courthouse, on jury watch. Now that the Criminal Court building has free WIFI, I will be talking my laptop and blogging in real time from the back row as to what goes on during deliberations.

I will report when the foreman is selected, as well as any requests the jury might have for the court, and when we hear, hopefully, those three buzzes that indicate the jury has reached a verdict.

I will also have with me a book I just received from the publisher that I will be writing a review on for T&T. The book is by a friend of mine, Lisa Sweetingham and it's called "CHEMICAL COWBOYS." I met Lisa at the Robert Blake criminal trial and we've remained in contact ever since. She spent over four years researching this book, traveling around the globe and getting up close and personal into the DEA's secret mission to hunt down a notorious Ecstasy kingpin. Although this is not a murder case, it looks to be a fascinating read.

Sprocket said...

The lesser charge:

I have no idea what jail time he could receive. I will ask though.

Anonymous said...

Sprocket, I am very impressed that you are going to hang out in the courthouse for jury deliberations. That is real dedication, above and beyond the call of duty. The deliberations in the first trial lasted a long time, but hopefully this will be a lot shorter.

I am looking forward to your updates straight from the court room. That will be very nice. Technology is great. Thank you for the dedication. You have done a fantastic job.

Ray

Shiva-the-God-of-Death said...

“Involuntary manslaughter is punishable by imprisonment in the
state prison for two, three, or four years.” (Pen. Code Sec. 193, subdiv.(b).)

Whether Judge Fidler would give Spector the “low” term, the “middle” term, or the “upper” term would depend on the exercise of his discretion in finding that either the “mitigating” and “aggregating” factors prescribed by the California Rules of Court, respectively, predominate—or that they cancel each other out (in which case the “middle” term of three years in state prison would carry the day.

Spector could get “probation” with a year or less in the county jail attached to it as a condition, but that is unlikely.

But here is where it would get ugly for Spector.

Penal Code Section 1222.5, subdivision (a) states that:

“… any person who personally uses a firearm in the commission of a felony… shall be punished by an additional and consecutive term of imprisonment in the state prison for 3, 4, or 10 years, unless use of a firearm is an element of that offense.”

Bottom line, if Spector is found guilty of involuntary manslaughter, he could be (and most likely would be) sentenced to 14 years in State Prison.

Given Spector’s age (68), that means he would be over 80 years old (if he lives that long) before again tasting freedom.

Murder, or manslaughter, it is all a life sentence for Spector if he is convicted.

Anonymous said...

I am with everyone else saying Thank you. Absolutely wonderful, complete, and riveting coverage of this trial.
It seems like from the last trial when people were speculating about the manslaughter charge, they were also saying that with the weapons charge to go with it he could serve some pretty substantial time.
If I were on this jury, I would be about fed-up with the whole thing so I think Weinberg knows that. Also as someone said, there really wasn't much to rebut. It will be interesting to hear the closing arguments. Just how convincing could one be with these facts?
Thank you again.
Tess

Sprocket said...

Involuntary Manslaughter:

Here is the California Penal Code:

QUOTE:
192. Manslaughter is the unlawful killing of a human being withoutmalice. It is of three kinds:
(a) Voluntary--upon a sudden quarrel or heat of passion.
(b) Involuntary--in the commission of an unlawful act, not amounting to felony; or in the commission of a lawful act which might produce death, in an unlawful manner, or without due caution and circumspection. This subdivision shall not apply to acts committed in the driving of a vehicle.

Doesn't sound like involuntary manslaughter is a felony.

Anonymous said...

Sprocket, who was the painfully thin woman who sang the praises of Phil Spector and gave interviews on Court TV as his friend in the first trial. Have you seen or heard from her this time around?

Sprocket said...

Painfully thin woman:

This was none other than Anita Talbert. It's been rumored (I don't know of a factual source) that Spector loaned her money and that's why she has been a supporter. She has stated on the old CourtTV/TruTV that she dated Spector but she was never alone with him.

Sharon said...

Since Punkin PIE didn't testify, that means that all the testimony about her from other witnessess can be stricken from the record because that is hearsay. The jury is going to wonder why she didn't testify

cherylt said...

Hi Sprocket!

I am probably being repetitive, but u r sooo awesome! You're going to be there posting live? Too cool & way beyond the call of any duty. Then again, by you reporting this whole trial, you have done everyone here a great service!!!

Up to 3 days for closings!? I think that is soo ridiculous! Why doesn't the judge give them a REASONSABLE amount of time for them? Why chance boring the jury??
IMO - Give them each up to 4 hrs - no more than that. How can someone pontificate for that long on any case? I realize this trial has lasted for months, and I personally COULD listen to AJ forever (be still, beating heart), but Weinberg! Yikes... I don't know I think it should be more limited and u know DW will try to pull some stuff and possibly filibuster... :) Who knows w/ him?

Sprocket said...

Punkin Pie:

I don't think that's specifically correct. If the defense referenced Pie in a way where they were "relying" on her to confirm another witness's testimony, yes it could be stricken because she did not testify to an issue they might have been relying on.

Or, if a witness stated, "Pie said this," or, "Pie specifically said this, or, Pie specifically did that," then those type of statements could be considered heresay now and tossed.

But, the defense was very careful in how they brought Pie into the discussions with Jennifer Hayes Riedl and Greg Sims. In my memory of these witnesses, there were few, if any type of statements like that.

If anything does get tossed, it would be a very tiny amount of testimony. Tiny amount, like a few lines or something like that.

Sprocket said...

Closing Arguments:

Fidler has been overly generous to both sides in letting them argue points outside the presence of the jury as well as putting no time limit on closing arguments.

That decision is totally in the hands of Fidler. Last year, closing arguments took 3.5 days. It's estimated they will take 2.5 days by the prosecution and longer by the defense.

This is in sharp contrast to the Bobby Cutts trial, where the Judge in that case put 1 hour time limits on closing arguments by both sides. That included the prosecutions rebuttal closing!

Shiva-the-God-of-Death said...

Dear Sprocket

You said: “Doesn't sound like involuntary manslaughter is a felony.”

“A felony is a crime which is punishable with death or by
imprisonment in the state prison.” (Pen. Code Sec. 17, subdiv. (a).)

As I previously posted, involuntary manslaughter (even the specie upon which the jury may be instructed in this case, that is defined as the commission of a misdemeanor offense (Brandishing) resulting in death) is punishable by 2, 3, or 4 years in State Prison. (see prior post.)

Therefore, involuntary manslaughter in this context is, I assure you, a felony offense.

Therefore the (up to) ten year use of a firearm enhancement applies.

What is probably throwing you off is that a misdemeanor offense that results in death is (one form of) involuntary manslaughter.

But if a death is caused (even by a misdemeanor offense) under Penal Code Section 17 a felony has been committed.

A similar result follows from the conspiracy to commit a misdemeanor--which is a felony because it is punishable by state prision time.

It is the PUNISHMENT for an offense that defines whether an offense is a felony or a misdemeanor. (See Pen. Code Sec. 17.)

Anonymous said...

Ahhhh! Finally an end to this madness! Guilty Guilty Guilty! I think the jury will take less than one day (8 hours) ... anyone want to start a pool - I'm game!

Thanks so much for everything you've done to keep us in touch with this case Sprocket! Hope you are working on a book ... or at the very least a role on the Tru TV "True Crime" story about this case! You are the best and your coverage has been much appreciated!

Anonymous said...

Spector is going down. Mark my words.

Anonymous said...

Thank you, Sprocket. What's next on your agenda? All of us need to pitch in for a family vacation getaway for Sprocket. I'm in....

Fan in Ohio

Anonymous said...

Wonderful reporting.

Anonymous said...

It's almost a let-down to have no PIE for desert, but, it's also not a surprise. She would be a liability to the defense due to her rock and roll lifestyle and bad memory. When you lie, you need a very sharp memory, and with the first trial record, she would have been creamed, worse than the lying
Mr. Sims.

However, I wonder if PIE had any remorse for betraying her dear friend, in order to help her murderer? I also wonder if Spector was expected to advance PIE's career, and if after nothing came of that,she saw no benefit in testifying?

I'm optimistic that Spector will be found guilty this time around. Even if it's only for manslaughter, remember, Lana's mom is poised and waiting to sue him for his money, something that will hurt him worse than going to prison.

Any guilty verdict will guarantee a large payoff. As sweet as it is to imagine the killer behind bars, it's equally as satisfying to visualize Rachelle, Mommy and Phil outside the castle as everything is auctioned off, and Rachelle and Mommy go off to live in some one-bedroom somewhere, without a pot to piss in.

I wonder how much the trial bride will "LOVE" her husband when he is nothing but a bald, broke, and old felon-loser?

michele

Anonymous said...

First of all thank you for keeping us posted on what's going on with the trial. Your coverage is awesome!!! When Phil is found guilty will he go directly to jail or will he be able to stay out on bond until sentencing? I makes me sick to see him enjoying freedom when he should have been in prison years ago. Thanks again Sprocket. You are the best.

Cali Prosecutor said...

I looked up the Penal code to see what a felony is. Section 17 says:

"A felony is a crime which is punishable with death or by
imprisonment in the state prison. Every other crime or public
offense is a misdemeanor except those offenses that are classified as infractions."

Therfore, since Penal code section 193 (b)says the punishment for involuntary manslaughter is 2, 3 or 4 years in prision, involuntary manslaughter is a felony as defined by Penal code section 17.

Anonymous said...

My concern is that DW will take GREAT liberies during closing argument and mis-state the evidence to the jury over and over. He's done this to many prosecution witnesses during his cross examinations. Luckily, the DAs were there to object.

My question is: during closing arguments, can AJ and TD do the same?

Anonymous said...

I'd like to know if anyone thinks the prosecution will use the same animation that they used last time during closing?

I thought it was extremely effective and hope they do but I'd like to know what the rest of you think...

Liz said...

Sprocket

Thank you again for the reporting. I remember from trial 1 the group waiting every day in court for a verdict, day after day. It is hard to believe the length of time this case has taken - the efforts of the defense to extend it seem to have been very fruitful.

Ray (posting as one of the anonymous folks)

I agree with all your comments (managed to repeat one, so I won't repeat the others)

Shiva

Thank you for the manslaughter detail - I assume it is rather difficult to escape the firearms enhancement

Sprocket said...

What is a felony:

Obviously I am unable to interpret the penal code as well as my readers. My apologies.

Closing Arguments:

Remains to be seen what the prosecution does this time. I would not be surprised if they used the animation again.

The Prosecution's case vs The Defense case:

The bottom line is, the prosecution's star witness, Adriano De Souza was unimpeachable.

Not a single defense witness was able to impeach his testimony.

No matter what Weinberg's closing argument will be, he will not be able to get around that fact.

Anonymous said...

I agree its downright anti-climatic to not have a bitch-fight between PIE and the DA...but the jury has been much too patient already. And they never get to find out what "PIE" is/was...

Trial bride may already be preparing to hi-tale it otta there: the myspace page and webpage were both down as of 2 days ago. She was never my idea of the gracious, classy, well-bred trophy wife anyway.

Thank you Sprocket!!
Wes J.

Anonymous said...

Hi Sprocket,
Great job. When/if PS is found guilty, where will he go to serve his time?

Barry said...

Wineberg has already proven to be a better lawyer than the "Dream Team" by realizing what a disaster "Punkin Pie" was as a witness.

I think juries understand he role of expert paid witnesses and don't resent it. As bad as Dr. Baden, Dr. Spitz, and Dr. DiMaio were, and as much as they were paid, it does not invalidate their training and expertise. But when psychotic wannabes life J. Hayes and Punkin Pie trash the memory of their "best friend" I suspect jurors just tune out.

As a layperson watching the first trial, I DID pay attention and give weight to the Defense expert testimony. While I think they were wrong, I respect their credentials and experience and I hope (perhaps naively) that if they examined the evidence and truly believed Spector was guilty, that they would have refused to testify.

When Hayes and Pie testified, I had a few moments of wondering whether Lana Clarkson might have been suicidal. Not because the lying witches said so. But I remember thinking, "If this was my life - that these two were my best friends - maybe I would want to end it all." In the final analysis, they completely undercut the defense case, by exposing the cynical and mean spirited nature of Spector.

If this was a suicide - or an accident - the defense would only really have needed one witness. The coward sitting at the table who refused to testify.

Ashley said...

It really would be justice if Phil Spector was found guilty on April 5, Lana Clarkson's birthday

Sprocket said...

If convicted...where would Spector go?

I honestly don't know. I know he will be evaluated to determine what type of situation would be best suited for him. Because (if convicted) he would be a high profile inmate, my best guess is that he would be isolated.

The right not to testify:

Spector has the right not to testify. And, inside a courtroom a jury is instructed not to hold that against the defendant. That's one of the rights that makes our justice system one of the best out there.

However, that being said, that in no way means that the general public, including myself and Barry, can't have an opinion about a defendant not taking the stand.

Sprocket said...

April 5th:

That would be a physical impossibility since April 5th is a Sunday.

Anonymous said...

Sprocket, thanks so much for following this trial with such great insight, expertise and detail. I truly believe that DeSouza's testimony (unshakable) will be the lynchpin (I wish literally) to a guilty verdict. I hope Alan's or Truc's closing argument does not leave out the part where the evidence indicated that Spector used toilet water on a rag to wipe the blood off Lana's face. This was in Alan's original closing argument and was absolutely riveting and horrifying. I will never forget it and saved it my files.

Anonymous said...

Spector managed to weasel six years of freedom for himself after killing Lana and that is a huge flaw in our “justice” system. But I think he’s finally going down for this murder and my only wish now is that he suffer terribly in his new state-owned home… although it will be nothing compared to the way Lana suffered when he shoved that gun in her mouth.

katfish said...

Sprocket,
Thank you friend for your great reporting of this case and all of the time you have spent to bring us the coverage of this and the first trial. I suspect this blogging is a labor of love or you wouldn't do it,but I have to say that I love you for doing it! You're the best.
I am counting on a conviction for Spector, it is way past time for him to pay for killing Lana.

Word is Judge Fidler is handling aspects of Howard K. Stern and Anna's doctor's case. Any chance we will hear from you on that one?
(LOL, after a well deserved vcacation of course.)

Marsha said...

Sprocket, thanks from me also for keeping up updated on this trial. What a change from the first one!
I am giving the jury 2 days for a verdict. Anyone?

Anonymous said...

If convicted, Spector will probably go to a prison that has a wing for prisoners who would be in danger inside the general population. An example is Mikhail Markhaseev, the convicted murderer of Ennis Cosby.

There is another prisoner who is in the same place as Markhaseev, who might soon be Phil Spector's neighbor. This is a fellow named Charles Manson. In a few months, Charlie may be walking up to Spector and saying; "Phil, I've always enjoyed your music. I'm your best friend around here."

David From TN

Anonymous said...

David: Good one! I love that visual

Marsha: I'm going with 3 days as the jury will have so many exhibits in the jury room that if they decide to review many of them its going to take some time.

My only concern is the juror (i think it was #5) that wore the old rock & roll t-shirts earlier in the trial. I'm hoping he's not been paid off or otherwise influenced.

Bill said...

Thank you so much for a wonderful job of reporting on this trial. Now we can only hope that Spector goes to jail directly at the end of this trial, where he should have been years ago. Will you be able to keep us informed on the lawsuits facing Spector. The Clarkson family should take everything he has left. He has murdered an innocent woman and becides losing his freedom he deserves to lose everything else too.

Deidre Bowen said...

Sprocket~ You"re coverage has really been brilliant...that to put it mildly. How difficult do you think it may be to get a seat in the courtroom during closings??? What is a good arrival time to at least be in the running?? Please advise....

Sprocket said...

t-shirt wearing juror:

He asked to be excused due to financial hardship. He was replaced with alternate #15, an Asian woman.

Attending the closings:

My recommendation: Get there early, like by 9:00 am or earlier, if possible.

If you are driving and cannot afford to pay $16.00 to $18.00 a day for parking, I recommend the budget lots that are on Main and Broadway, 2.5 blocks south of Temple Street. They are SOUTH of 2nd Street and are only $9.00 a day.

Here is the link to the Court's web page: http://www.lasuperiorcourt.org/locations/Location.aspx?loc=CCB

The parking lot directly behind the building fills up pretty fast. It's usually full by 8:30 am and costs $16.00 or $18.00; I can't remember which. The building takes up the entire block between Broadway and Main Street. So, if you are parking in one of the budget lots, just walk north on those streets and you can't miss the building.

There is a lot that is $8.00 a day, but it is five blocks away, near LOS ANGELES STREET, south of SECOND STREET

If you are taking the Metro, or MetroLINK you need to take the Red Line Train to the Civic Center Station.

Once you exit the train, take the TEMPLE STREET stairs or escalators to your right. When you get up on the street, you will be facing North, half way between Temple and 1st Street, on HILL STREET.

If you turn to your right, you will see a big open granite plaza. This is called the "Court of Flags." Walk through that plaza and down the steps to BROADWAY. You will be able to see the Criminal Court Building at the bottom of the steps and there is a crosswalk right there. You can easily enter from the rear of the building.

You should also arrive early because you never know how long the line to get through security will be on the main floor. It has taken me as long a 20 minutes to get through that line sometimes, but usually takes anywhere from two to ten minutes.

Courtroom 106 is on the 9th floor, where there is a second security screening station. Once you clear security in the elevator bay, turn to your left and go all the way down to the end of the hall. 106 is the last courtroom on the right.

Christine said...

I am rereading the de Souza testimony. One thing I don't think that has been mentioned or stressed is that Spector YELLED at Lana in the limousine not to talk to de Souza. He didn't even know her, but already he's in his controlling mode. I would think that this bit of behavior would make a difference in determining Spector's actions later in the evening.

Anonymous said...

I have been reading 'Be My Baby', which should have been called, 'How I lived thru and abusive marriage'. This man has been in a self-made prison for his whole life. On the outside, going to jail will be justice, but he has been paying inside for a long time. The only peace he will find is when his life is over. Too bad he had to hurt so many in between. A totally aberrant person. And that's a euphemism!

Thanks, Sprocket!

Laura said...

Thank you all for following this trial. My best friend has had unfriendly encounters with PS, which kind of made these trials personal. I felt that PS's attorney's could have taken a vastly different route in defending him than trashing Lana. ("It was an accident," for instance.) And, I do think PS is a menace (and should have had jail time for his previous gun episodes). You don't have to write me back. You've done so much already. Thanks again.