Thursday, June 26, 2008

Poor Phil Spector: No New Judge for Retrial

The ruling from the California Supreme Court was wonderful news to wake up to this morning.

E! Online reports:
The California Supreme Court on Wednesday declined to review an appellate court's refusal to order a hearing on the defense's wish to have the judge who presided over Spector's first murder trial removed from the case.

The Associated Press reports:
The notice on the Supreme Court Web site said: "Petition for review denied." It noted that Chief Justice Ronald George was absent and did not participate in the decision.

Isn't that just music to your ears? Spector's defense attorney, Doron Weinberg's bank account gets fatter and fatter each time Spector has him waste the courts time on another delusional motion. I never thought this motion would go anywhere because I remember many discussions during the trial among the accredited press, talking about how Judge Fidler has the lowest number of reversal appellate cases on record.

I can just imagine the maniacal tirade that ensued at "the castle" last night when Spector was given news of the ruling. Lets hope the next trial is shorter than round one.


Anonymous said...

Weinbergs account grows assuming spector pays him! Dont you think these motions to get rid of Fidler are driven by Rachelle since Fidler wont tolerate her nonsense?

Anonymous said...

Here is a really cool blog that Ashleigh Banfield posted (several Months ago,,,,,,,,,,,,but I just ran into it!) I thought it was so very well written:

March 30, 2008
Commentary: Tick tock, Mr. Spector
Posted: 09:45 AM ET
NEW YORK – So Phil Spector wants a new judge for his new trial, does he?

Ashleigh Banfield thinks Phil Spector should stop blaming others for his predicament.
The latest figure to be blamed for everything that’s wrong with Spector’s wilting life is the Honorable Judge Larry Paul Fidler, who patiently presided over his trial for five long months last year.

It seems Mr. Spector doesn’t think the good judge was good enough.

But Spector’s complaints don’t end there, nor do his efforts to dole out blame for his miserable lot and defame all those involved.

It wasn’t good enough that his first trial ended with a hung jury.

It wasn’t good enough that his own lawyers secured him that deadlock, because he’s gone ahead and replaced every single one of them.

It wasn’t good enough that Spector besmirched Lana Clarkson’s memory while insisting during his defense that she simply shot herself in the mouth while waiting to leave his California mansion, purse slung over her shoulder.

It wasn’t good enough that he cast aspersions upon five women who had their deep, dark and embarrassing secrets unearthed during the prosecution’s case because they, too, had looked down the barrel of Phil Spector’s various guns while trying to end a bad date with him.

It wasn’t good enough that the renowned forensic scientist, Dr Henry Lee, came to Spector’s defense, because Spector’s own incessant legal wrangling caused Lee’s credibility to be thrashed in court.

It wasn’t good enough that Spector’s immigrant driver offered no embellishment when recounting seeing Spector with blood on his hand, holding a gun, and saying “I think I just killed somebody.” Instead, Adriano De Souza offered only the facts, and no more, even though he was so afraid for his own life he sped out of the driveway while dialing police. Spector’s reaction? This military veteran who excelled in advanced English classes had his reputation reduced to that of a dumb fool who doesn’t know guns, and doesn’t speak English well enough to be believed.

If all that weren’t enough, it’s now it’s the judge’s fault that Spector didn’t get everything he’s used to having — a room full of sycophantic people who tell him he can do (and has done) no wrong.

Bring on round two, whoever the judge may be. It only takes one person to hang a jury, and for a fleeting instant, that’s exactly what Spector got. One man — Juror Number 10 — who for some reason bought into Spector’s expensive defense.

It’s unlikely the music legend will see this chorus repeated.

Even though Spector just keeps spending his way out of a giant, roiling, wake of broken people, defamed professionals, jilted lawyers, weak arguments and disappointed music lovers, the evidence is what it is.

Message to Mr. Music: Here’s what’s up, Pussycat. Your nine legal lives are almost over.

– Ashleigh Banfield, In Session anchor

(How So very well put!,,,,,,,,,,,)

Get READY for Sept. 29th!,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,Time for the "Wall of Sound" to get to the "Wall with the Ground",,,,,,,,,,,,,!


Sprocket said...

Hi llylabrat,

I don't think these motions are driven by Rachelle. It is my opinion that this is all Spector. Remember, in that article in the Daily Mail, back in September 07, Spector said he felt the Judge didn't like him.

From my understanding, Spector and Weinberg were haggling over a fee to represent him, and that's why it took so long for them to sign an agreement.

In my opinion, if Weinberg was smart, as part of his representation agreement, he would have had Spector sign over directly to him those songwriter royalty payments Spector gets twice a year. That way, he would not have to sue him later to get his bill paid.

Anakerie said...

Thanks for the news about Judge Fidler, Sprocket. I became a "fan" of Judge Fidler during PS1 and am looking forward to seeing both him and AJ in PS2. Of course, I hope PD will be there too.

I have to admit I am curious about Weinberg. It will be interesting to see how he handles himself in the courtroom. Will it just be two lawyers on Phil's "team" this time? Have you heard anything?

Sprocket said...

Hi Anakerie, Nice to see you here!

I have a "hunch" that Weinberg will have a co-counsel, a woman. There might be more on the team beyond that but I'm not aware of it.

Far as I know, Plourd is still on the team. I haven't heard any news reports that indicate he's left. They need him to cover the science. It would not go well with Judge Fidler if they tried to replace Plourd at this late date, what with a trial date set with 0-10.

If anyone can find any noteworthy cases that Weinberg defended and the outcome, it would be greatly appreciated.

Unknown said...

Maybe we'll see justice, this time!!!

Anonymous said...

Hmmm not sure about big names,
but back in '78 it was Doron (plus another name, it escapes me) vs. John Mitchell....

More recently, again not major names I recognize, but perhaps you might:

"But if Weinberg can do for Spector what he did last year for Santa Clara County murder defendant Roy Garcia, L.A. prosecutors have a tough case ahead. Garcia was convicted in 2000 of first-degree murder and sentenced to life without parole. After the conviction was reversed on appeal by the California Supreme Court, prosecutors went for a new trial. Weinberg got Garcia acquitted the second time around. Weinberg is also busy appealing the 2004 federal money laundering conviction of another client, former Ukrainian Prime Minister Pavel Lazarenko.

According to the Weinberg & Wilder Web site, the firm’s 63-year-old founding partner has represented thousands of clients since 1972, lectured on criminal law and ethics issues and has been certified as an expert in criminal defense and legal ethics."

It is interesting on his site that he does not name any names. Every year he's named the best Lawyer,
but for doing what exactly and for whom?


whimsical brainpan said...

Here's hoping round 2 serves justice.