Tuesday, March 31, 2009

Spector Defense Attorney's Opinion Piece in the LA Times

My2Cents let me know that Mr. Weinberg and Susan Matross (I've been spelling her name incorrectly) published an opinion piece in the LA Times.

Many of the statements made in this article are directly from Weinberg's closing argument. In fact, I would say the majority of them are. The statements about bias in crime labs the National Academy of Sciences (along with an image up on the screen) were presented as part of his closing argument. A hefty part of Weinberg's argument was accusing the LA County Sheriff's Crime Lab and the employees working on this case of bias. However, the image of the report Weinberg put up on the screen was objected to by the prosecution and the objection sustained by Judge Fidler because it was a report that was never admitted into evidence at the trial.

Some of the arguments Weinberg made in his closing are open to interpretation. For example, let's look at this statement:

"The sheriff's chief criminalist could not estimate how many hours or public dollars she had spent, because no one had required her to keep any records, but she proudly asserted that she had spent months just on the examination of every square inch of clothing seized as evidence."

Weinberg is referring to Dr. Lynne Herold here. Dr. Herold testified that no one in her department is required to log how many hours they spend on a particular case. (I believe she stated the only thing the LA County Crime Lab tracks is the number of hours that employees spend in court, testifying.) From what I remember of her testimony, I don't believe anyone in the crime lab has to keep these types of records. You also have to ask, for what purpose would they keep this type of record? Why would they need to? So what if they have to spend an inordinate amount of man hours on an investigation? Some investigations take longer than others. Some investigations are solved quickly because there is not a lot of evidence Some cases take longer because there is more evidence to examine. For Weinberg to characterize Dr. Herold's response as "proudly asserted," to me that's a very pro-defense slanted description of how she testified.

Let's look at this statement:

"The L.A. County coroner admitted that in addition to undertaking every conceivable test and analysis, his office held meetings involving doctors, criminalists, sheriff's crime lab personnel, sheriff's investigators and representatives of the Los Angeles County district attorney's office to determine whether the death of Lana Clarkson could be declared a homicide even though the medical evidence could not support that determination."

In this article (and in his closing argument) Weinberg omits the fact that the Chief Coroner, Dr. Lakshmanan also stated that it's not unusual for the medical examiner to be unable to determine the manner of death (MOD) from the autopsy. Many times they cannot determine MOD from the autopsy alone and have to turn to law enforcement investigation to give them that answer. From the way this statement is written, it sounds like what the coroner did was highly unusual. It's not.

Another statement:

"Nonetheless, in September 2004, more than 19 months after the death, Spector was indicted. At that point, for the first time, Spector and his representatives were given access to the prosecution's "scientific evidence."

And I would say, "Thank God!" This is the way it's supposed to be. It would be a breakdown in law enforcement's ability to effectively prosecute a case and keep the integrity of it's evidence secure for trial if they made the evidence in an active investigation available to any Tom, Dick or Harry who wanted to look at it before a suspect was even indicted for a crime.

I find it interesting that Weinberg felt the need to address the reporting in the LA Times about how much Spector paid for his defense experts. Couple that with the fact that Weinberg went to great lengths not to turn over the amounts his expert witnesses were paid to the prosecution. The prosecution had to subpoena those records in a special type of subpoena to Weinberg. The subpoena wasn't delivered until just before the witness was called. When these witnesses did take the stand, many of them did not have their billing records with them. We also found out that several times Weinberg did not even pass the subpoena onto his witness. It was Weinberg who provided the amount that Dr. Spitz had billed. Dr. Spitz didn't even know.

There is a reason Weinberg fought so hard to keep the true amount that Spector spent on his experts from getting in front of the jury. It was a large amount of money and in my opinion, the reason is, it did not look good for his client.

P.S. Weinberg conveniently left out the fact that as a courtesy, Dr. Baden was able to observe the autopsy of Lana Clarkson. After the criminalist's were finished collecting evidence at the scene, it was released back to the defendant and his team was able to view it. They would have been able to observe the areas in the home where Spector left a blood trail. Anything beyond that (such as letting them view collected evidence) would have compromised the investigation. Weinberg conveniently omits a fact that the defense had something the prosecution did not. Complete access to question the defendant as to "what happened" that night. I'm sure the defendant would have been able to supply them with what was "missing" from his home, but I don't believe he returned to it for over a week.

Sunday, March 29, 2009

Phil Spector Retrial: Closing Arguments Day 4 Part II

March 26th, 2009: Continuation of Day 4 of Closing Argument & Jury Instructions. (unedited entry)

I get up inside the courtroom at 9:08 am. Jackson is putting a huge board up over by the jury with the 14 defense points. I bet this is the board where he is going to knock out each and every one of those points.

The cameraman is setting up right behind me to my left. More press enter the courtroom and set up their laptops in the back row. Yesterday, there were some signs taped to the back of the benches that said RESERVED. There was one where Linda Deutsch usually sits and one where Harriet Ryan usually sits. Their names were written in right below the huge printed letters.

9:13 am: Wendy calls the judge. I see Steven Mikulan from the LA Weekly in the back row, who is writing on the LA Weekly's LA DAILY blog. I know there is someone in the back row on Twitter, posting short items periodically, but I'm not sure if it's the very tall slender man or one of the other reporters that I have not personally met. Harriet Ryan is here. (Her latest story is already up, here.)

Over on the defense side of the room, the benches are not packed with supporters like they were on Tuesday for Weinberg's closing arguments. Tawni Tyndall is there, along with Rachelle and Mrs. Weinberg. Harvey with the white hair is in the back row, and there are I think two people sitting behind Rachelle, but I believe one of them must be either a reporter (doesn't look like it) or a clerk for the defense. It's a 30's looking dark haired woman in a black skirt suit and she's got a legal pad on her lap. Beside her is a young man I've never seen before. Compare that to the six women friends of Lana Clarkson who are sitting in the second row behind Mrs. Clarkson and her daughter, Fawn.

Fidler asks Jackson about how much longer he has. He informs the court he has about 25 minutes. Some people in the courtroom are quite happy about getting 25 minutes of Jackson closing verses 10 minutes.

Weinberg then speaks to Fidler "off the record" even though court is on the record. He's upset that yesterday, just past 4:00 pm (when court usually ends) he "...realizes there apparently was some sort of agreement between the prosecution and the court to go until 4:30. The defense had no notice that this this was agreed to. What if our client had an appointment?" Wendy explains that she had received a note from Mr. Jackson requesting to go to 4:30 pm and she passed it onto the Judge. She inquired of the jurors if they could stay until 4:30 pm, and they didn't have any problem with it. She apologizes for any misunderstanding.

There are some last jury instructions that still have to be resolved . In instruction 315, Weinberg wants the word "noise" added in the part where the types of distractions are listed. Fidler denies the request stating he feels the instruction as written is adequate. Weinberg is objecting to some of the language in the 1101(b) instruction. He goes on and on and on with his argument about this. Fidler patiently explains to Weinberg that "We've discussed this at length. I totally disagree. If it's taken out of context, yes, but if you read the paragraph in context it makes perfect sense."

The last issue is that special instruction that Weinberg wants. The court has to stop for a moment, while the jurors file into the jury room at 9:23 am. A few moments after them, Spector enters the courtroom with Rachelle. Rachelle is wearing a stark white suit. It's different than the one with all the zippers on it.

Weinberg then objects to the prosecution "rewriting" their special jury instruction #1. Fidler explains that the instruction, as it was originally written by the defense, "If it doesn't track the other instructions, then it won't be given."

Weinberg argues that there is "nothing legally incorrect in the instruction the way the defense wrote it." Fidler a bit irritated states, "I could not agree with you less." Weinberg goes on and argues some more, stating basically the same thing he said before.

Fidler says, "What I'm saying is, in it's present form, I won't give it." Weinberg responds, "Then I ask for the opportunity to amend the instruction." Fidler replies, "Okay." So this means that Fidler will not read to the jury the instructions directly after Jackson is finished. The defense will probably call Riordan for advise during the break.

Jackson gets up to speak to the jury.

"Folks, thank you very much for your patience. I've only got about a half hour more." Jackson proceeds to go through the 14 points that the defense began and ended their case with. "With the slightest scrutiny you will see that each one falls like a tin soldier."

1. Intra-oral gunshot wounds are 99% suicide. "Statistics don't tell us anything about real life. [...] But everybody watches the game," Jackson states. Jackson then proceeds to give the jury a long example to "hit home" his point. There's a strenth Jackson has that few have and that is he a powerful orator. He can draw his audience in when he's showing them an example. You can't help but pay rapt attention to the details of what he is telling you.

Jackson takes the jury back to 1941, when our country was wracked by crisis and a looming world war. "We were just recovering from the stock market crash and the great depression. During this turbulent time, the country turned to a great American sport, and that was baseball. They were following it with more passion than we do today. [...] And the big star of the time that emerges was Joe DiMaggio who was playing for the New York Yankees. He started the season and for 10 games in a row, he hit safely."

And then he hit 20 games in a row safely. Soon, this was big news with Joe DiMaggio never missing a hit in 20 games. [...] Then it was 30 games and the whole country took notice. Then it was 40, 45, then 50 games in a row that Joe DiMaggio hit safely. [...] Joe DiMaggio was the obsession of this country in 1941. The supermarkets would close during the games and people would listen to the game on their transistor radios, transfixed. [...] And then he hit 55 games safely."

"When it came to game 56, the experts said, 'My God, this is impossible! It can't happen.' The 56th game, was against the Chicago Indians. 'The experts said, the odds, the statistics, it will never happen,' that Joe DiMaggio would hit 56 games safely."

Jackson continued. "Now, do you cut your radio off? Do you just turn off the game because the statistics say it can't happen? Mr. Weinberg says yes, turn your radio off. Or do you listen to the game, or watch the pitch? [...] Joe DiMaggio got 3 hits off that game 56. [...] Statistics; it means nothing. [...] Just because it's improbable, doesn't mean anything in this case. [...] It means absolutely zero in reality."

Once Jackson is finished with the first point, he marks a big red X over the item with a huge red magic marker. He does this each and every time he's finished explaining why that evidence doesn't "prove" what Weinberg said it proves.

Jackson addresses the next point, #2 Blood on front strap and the grip.

"Phil Spector had his hand on the grip and Lana Clarkson ended up dead! He got blood everywhere! He got blood on the door latch, on the door knob and the banister. To assume that he got blood everywhere else but not on the gun is ridiculous. [...] We know that only Phil Spector could have left the fingerprint that was left in blood on the front strap of the gun because Lana Clarkson didn’t get up afterwords and leave it there."

“DW: Objection! Detective Katz...

Jackson, with a big smile on his face says, "Actually, Dale Falicon said, latex gloved hands can leave a print if it’s “wet blood.” There’s no question the print was left in wet blood. Detective Katz didn’t leave that print (because he handled the gun about 14 hours later. Phil Spector left that print on the gun and the smear on the gun proves it was Phil Spector."

Jackson crosses off number two on the board.

#3 Spatter on the gun grip. "I've got two words for that," Jackson explains, "James Pex. The perjurer. [...] He’s the only person who said that spatter was on the gun grip.

DW: Objection! Dr. Di Maio also said...

Jackson, smiling again, responds to that, “Dr. Di Maio said he didn’t consider it. He said he only considered the blood on the metal. He didn’t consider the blood on the grip because he said, 'That’s argumentative.' James Pex came in here and six years later and told you he found new evidence. He said something no one else has ever said before." Jackson goes onto explain how he feels about his job as a prosecutor. He's speaking now with quite a bit of emotion. "I take my job as a prosecutor seriously. Very seriously. And that word, perjury is something I've never had to say before (to a jury). [...] Mr. Weinberg would have you just dismiss that as a mistake. [...] It was more than a mistake. [...] He falsified evidence!"

Jackson crosses off number three on the big board.

(It's around this time, in the packed courtroom I start to have a coughing fit. I'm all the way down on the far left of the second bench row. I can't get up to leave. I'm embarrassed because I'm interrupting Jackson's fantastic argument with my coughing. I don't have any water and I'm looking furiously around me to see if there is anyone I know near by me, that has any, but everyone has their eyes focused on Jackson. I turn my head into my right shoulder and put my mouth right up against my upper arm and cough into in like that, trying to muffle the sound as much as possible until the fit has passed.)

#4 No Phil Spector DNA on the gun.

"The evidence shows it doesn’t matter. The defense desperately needs something, some that shows science. That’s a complete red herring. No one ever tested his gun for DNA because it was his gun found in his home. [...] Steve Renteria tested areas for blood, for Lana Clarkson’s blood. He took samples to test the blood on the gun. Spector’s DNA would have been overwhelmed by the copious amount of blood that was on the gun. [...] The banister was tested and there was no DNA from Philip Spector there. The bloody diaper was tested and there’s no Phil Spector DNA found on the diaper. Steve Renteria was interested in the blood that was on that rag. [...] Is the defense saying that the banister in his own house, he never touched? That the diaper that came from his house, he never touched? [...] (That's the logic the defense would have you believe.) The fact that Phil Spector's DNA was not found on the gun was of no consequence. It was tested for blood."

Jackson takes the marker and crosses off another number.

#5 No spatter on Spector's right sleeve. "The absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. You cannot; you must not believe that if something is missing it is of great importance." Jackson explains further that every expert who testified in this trial, even the defense experts who have written that phrase in their books tell you, you cannot make scientific conclusions about something you "expect to see." Jackson then goes over to Truc Do and performs two different demonstrations for the jury, showing how Lana's hands up near the gun could have prevented spatter from getting on Spector's sleeve. "What it proves is where Lana Clarkson's hands were."

Jackson crosses this point off with the red marker.

#6 No GSR on Spector's clothing. "Just cross this off. His clothing wasn't tested for GSR. He's got too many guns. If they were so certain there would be no GSR on Spector's clothing, why didn't they test for it? They had access to the evidence. The reason they didn't test it is because if they did and found GSR, they would say it was meaningless because he has guns (all over the house).

Jackson crosses this point off with the red marker.

#7 No Foreign biological material on Spector "For this, see number five. By the way, foreign biological material? That's what blood is. As far as to where it is on the sleeve, number seven is the same as number five. [...] Besides, even their own defense experts said that 70 percent of the time you do not get back spatter in a gunshot event. [...] Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence."

Jackson crosses off point number seven.

#8 No evidence of a struggle. "OH REALLY?" Jackson asks in a slight, mocking tone. "There were bruises on both bones of the right wrist. Contusions (on the inside) of the bottom lips. Regardless of what the defense said about the crane of the gun, you stick a gun in someone’s mouth the tongue is going to go someplace. [...] The defense would like you to believe that the bruising on the tongue on both sides was the same. Exactly the same. That's totally not true. Dr. Pena looked at that tongue. He took samples from it on both sides. On the right, it he determined it was postmortem congestion. [...] The bruise on the left was completely different. If there was no evidence of a struggle, how did the bruises get there? No evidence of a struggle except for the presence of a dead woman in your foyer!"

Jackson marks the next item off on the display.

#9 No Phil Spector DNA under Clarkson's fingernails "Ask yourselves about the other five women he pulls a gun on. [...] There wasn't a fistfight where people were scratching at each other with physical contact in those instances. [...] There wasn't a physical fight between Lana Clarkson and Phil Spector."

Jackson crosses out this point with the red marker.

#10 Spatter on Lana Clarkson's hands. "Everyone knows this showed physically, scientifically that Lana Clarkson didn't hold the weapon. She could not have." Jackson then reminds the jurors by gesturing with his hands where they saw with their own eyes that Jamie Lintemoot indicated she saw blood spatter. He then compares that on his hands to where Mr. Weinberg would have them believe she was indicating. While he's doing this, there are images up on the screen of Jamie Lintemoot indicating where she saw blood and right after that where Fidler indicated for the record that she demonstrated.

Jackson crosses off this item on the big display board.

#11 Directional Spatter on Lana Clarkson's hands "This is consistent with Lana's hands being up in a defensive posture."

Jackson marks through this item with the red marker.

#12 GSR on Lana's hands "Her hands were in a defensive position. It wouldn't matter where her hands were! She was in a geomorphous cloud. She would have GSR on her ear! If you tested her face, her thighs, you would find GSR.

Jackson marks this item off of his display.

#13 Trajectory of the tooth fragments "If the teeth came out via 'gases,' there would not be any dentin on the back of the gun sight," Jackson explains. "The left tooth breaks off and flies to her right. The right one ends up on her abdomen. It tells us she could not have been sitting up; that she was in that position when she was shot." A photo of Lana's slumped position, where she was clearly retreating from Spector is up on the screen. "The only other explanation for that tooth not flying off to her right is because of where Phil Spector is standing. He's standing over her, within 2 to three feet of her."

Jackson marks a big red x through this item.

#14 The broken thumb nail "Mr. Pex stated the broken thumb nail proves Lana Clarkson's thumb was on the trigger. [...] Well I've got just one question for Mr. Pex: Where's the nail? If it broke when it was in the house, the Sheriff's crime lab would have found it. They never found it."

Jackson marks off the last item on the display.

It's 10:05 am, and Jackson continues with his closing argument. "Mr Weinberg tried mightly to reduce Phil Spector's pattern of violence to just some bad things. [...] He then stood up here and called every one of those women liars and having an agenda. [...] He reduces this to some character assassination. [...] Those shifting sands. [...] When Weinberg was questioning Dorothy Melvin, he brings up Phil Spector pulling guns on other men." (Now in closing argument, he tells you not to believe her.) "Five women who never met. [...] Shifting sands. Now, all these women have an agenda. Five women who never met were all liars? [...] Each incident proves, those women walked away by just luck. They got the empty chamber."

"When it's a woman. Alcohol. Loss of control. Phil Spector reaches for a gun. Think about these women." And as Jackson reads the name of each woman, their photo appears up on the screen in a circle. "Devra Robaitille. A woman. Alcohol. Loss of control. Phil Spector reaches for a gun. CLICK! Dianne Ogden. A woman. Alcohol. Loss of Control. Phill Spector reaches for a gun. CLICK! Melissa Grosvenor. A woman. A loss of control. Phil Spector reaches for a gun. CLICK! Dorothy Melvin. A woman. A loss of control. He reaches for what? A gun. CLICK! Stephanie Jennings. A woman. Alcohol. Loss of control. Phil Spector reaches for a gun. CLICK! February 3rd, 2003. Lana Clarkson. A woman. loss of control. Phil Spector reaches for a gun. POW! She got the bullet. Lana Clakrson got the bullet. It's as simple as that."

"When you walked into this courtroom six months ago, you didn't know me. You didn't know Ms. Do, Mr. Weinberg or the Judge. You didn't know each other. But things have changed. Six months ago you didn't know Phil Spector, or what he does. But certainly over the last six months, things have changed."

"So I want to take you on a journey, to the parking lot of the House of Blues. It's a little after two in the morning. You can see the valet taking care of the last few cars in the lot. You can see this black Mercedes, brand spanking new. You can see Phil Spector, walking with a tall, beautiful blond. And you're just standing there, just looking. And you listen as Phil Spector starts talking to Lana Clarkson. And you listen as he invites her back to the castle."

"Phil Spector says to her, 'No, come back to my castle tonight. Just for one drink.' And she continues to say no, she's got things to do in the morning. (I have in my notes here that Weinberg says something at this point but I'm not sure if it's an objection, or part of Mr. Jackson stating that Weinberg would say this is an invention.) And Lana begs off, she tells him, 'No, I've been working all night, I need to get home.' And Phil Spector once again asks her, 'Come on, come on, we won't stay long.' [...] And then you see the driver open the door. You watch. You hear, a tiny crack in her voice, finally relenting. She just accepted his offer."

"If at that moment, right there, you could say one thing to Lana Clarkson... If you got only one shot, to say one thing, what would it be? What would you say? What would you tell her? If I asked you that question six months ago, you would have shrugged your shoulders. (You wouldn't know what to say to her.) But now you do. So let me ask you what it is you would say? You're all thinking the same thing, 'Lana, Don't go.' Say, 'Don't go.' You'd say, 'Lana, whatever you do, don't go.' And the reason you say that is because you know something she doesn't. Because you know the real Phil Spector. Like Dianne Odgen said, 'The demon behind the music.' Phil Spector is guilty of Lana Clarkson's murder. She's entitled to your justice."

Since Weinberg still wants to get his version of his special instruction before the jury, the Judge tells the panel that they will need to go into the jury room for just a moment. They file back in and Weinberg gets up to argue for a mistrial. Weinberg states there are two aspects to move for a mistrial. He first argues the "alcohol, women, loss of control...all the elaborate pattern." There's more, but I miss getting it down. Then Weinberg moves onto another issue and he appears to be quite a bit upset about this one. It's the broken acrylic nail. "For Mr. Jackson to say the acrylic nail was not in the house [...] At the last trial, that someone picked it up. And for him to say (in argument that it wasn't there is) beyond my imagination!" Weinberg goes on about how Stan White testified that it was a nail and that it had bullet wipe on it. "There's no way. [...] This man litigated for months that Henry Lee picked up that nail. [...] For him to say now... [...] And the court precluded us from calling Dr. Lee..."

Fidler addresses the first point. "Motion for a msitrial for pattern evidence is denied. [...] Mr. Jackson?"

Jackson's voice is raised and accusatory. "Is it a nail? I don't know. The reason we don't know is because Dr. Lee, HE STOLE IT! It was never determined because HE STOLE IT! We don't know because HE STOLE IT!"

Fidler addresses Weinberg. "I don't know what Dr. Lee found. (The court didn't preclude Dr. Lee.) The defense chose not to call him. [...] (What Dr. Lee recovered...) It was never established that it was a nail. It was possibly a nail, it was a triangular shaped item but it was never shown that it was a nail. [...] The prosecution is not bound to argue the same theory as in the last trial. (They can present a different theory.) (Weinberg, you were just out foxed by a younger, smarter fox on this issue.) [...] The motion for a mistrial is denied. [...] Work with each other regarding the instruction. [...] Let me add that the instruction as it was first written, is argument."

There is a short break. Jackson and Truc Do hug Mrs. Clarkson. At 10:47 am, we are back on the record but the jury is not present. Weinberg tells the court that he's had the opportunity to consult with Dennis Riordan. "It's his opinion that we are entitled to a pinpoint instruction to focus on anything that has not been proven as we have offered." Weinberg is not willing to rewrite his instruction. Judge Fidler tells him the instruction as offered he will reject. Weinberg responds, "With that ruling, our position is to accept the one (rewriting of his instruction) offered by the prosecution." Truc Do tells the court they have just a few moments to get the modified instructions ready for the jury, to make the necessary copies. I write in my notes that Donte is here. Truc Do says, "One moment your honor, we're having copies made." Fidler states that the reading of the instructions should take abut 45 minutes, which is what I predicted. The prosecution packs up their materials.

As all this is going on, I wonder, where are all the fans that were here for Weinberg's closing? Lana's family is here and sitting directly behind them are six of Lana's girlfriends who came to each day of closing arguments. Where are all of Spector's close family that came on Tuesday? I would think they would want to hear the opposing side's argument.

10:57 am: We're about ready for the Judge. Jackson makes a last minute check of his phone after the bailiff Kyles reminds everyone that their phones need to be turned off and that while the instructions are read to the jury, no one will be allowed to enter or leave. Fidler takes the bench.

Fidler addresses the jurors. "We have arrived at that part of the trial where I will be instructing you on the law (and what the) law requires." The Judge has a bit of a pause there and says something that makes the courtroom laugh. "Do not snack on pistachio nuts before you are to give jury instructions. I now know what my cat goes through when he gets a hairball." Fidler starts the instructions right at 11:00 am. I don't copy a single one down. Spector is staring straight at Fidler. At 11:15 am, I see that Rachelle is having a tough time keeping her eyes open.

11:34 am, from my notes we are all done with instructions. Weinberg asks to approach. There's a problem with an instruction. A typo, or something. I see that Weinberg is making an argument to the bench. The Judge indicates to the jurors and gallery that there is a paragraph in the instruction that should have been removed and it was missed and read to the jury. At first, the Judge was going to reread the instruction. But Weinberg and the people both agree to just have it removed from the written instructions that are given in hard copy to the jurors. That way, it won't stand out in the jurors minds. 11:36 am: The bailiff is sworn in to take charge of the jurors. He also swears to take care of the alternates. 11:37 am. The alternates are told that they would be escorted to another courtroom, #107, but they ask to get their belongings out of the jury room first.

That task is accomplished and once they finished, the twelve jurors start to gather up their notebooks and stacks of audio transcripts. Officer Williams takes the alternates to 107. The jurors now file into the jury room.

11:40 am: Fidler asks both parties about logistics and how they will handle possible read backs. Weinberg tells the court that he can be here in 15 minutes. Spector wishes to be present for all read backs, so those will happen in open court verses in the jury room by the court reporter. Weinberg requests that only the bailiff has contact with the jurors. Wendy will have phone contact if there is an emergency with a juror who might be sick. The Judge rules that 45 minutes will be the outside time limit for read backs if Spector wants to be here. We find out the jurors indicate they will not work through lunch this first day. We are asked to leave the courtroom. Outside in the hallway we learn that a single buzz indicates the start and stopping of deliberations. Two buzzes means the jurors have a question. Three buzzes means they have reached a verdict.

Saturday, March 28, 2009

How Long Before a Verdict is Reached?

There are a couple of things I wanted to talk about in this entry, but first I thought I would put up a poll to give everyone the opportunity to "guess" what day, and how many hours it will take for the Phil Spector jury to reach a verdict.

In this poll, you can cast your vote for what day you think they will come back. This poll will end Wednesday morning at 9:30 am.

In this poll, you can cast your vote for how many hours you think it will take. This poll will end Friday at 3:00 pm.

According to my calculations, I have the jury deliberating a total of 6 hours and 24 minutes so far. The jurors have the possibility of deliberating a total of seven hours each day if they took no breaks and deliberated through lunch. That's unlikely. Since we've already seen from Thursday and Friday that they have not deliberated through lunch and that they've taken breaks, they could deliberate as little as five hours each day. On Friday, even though they went home early, they deliberated a total of 3 hours and 53 minutes.

It's been brought to my attention that someone is claiming the defense team has been investigating the jurors Internet activity and that if the jurors convict Phil Spector, they will have to "face the music." (Would that music be, "Be My Baby?" Just wondering.)

First off, I recommend everyone take a good long look at the jury questionnaire (which you can view at the LA County Superior Court web site). You'll note that the juror's names are not asked for on the questionnaires, just their juror number. When the jurors are asked what city they live in, (Page 2, Question #3) they are also admonished NOT TO WRITE DOWN their street address. This was done to protect the privacy of the jurors from the media, because the juror questionnaires are public record.

Second, on Page 23, Section 8, the jurors are asked about their Internet viewing habits. You will note that they are NOT asked to supply the name of their Internet provider or their IP. (As a side note, even if they were required to provide it, the court would also have no way of knowing which individuals within an particular household accessed particular web sites.)

Third, I clearly remember during the vior dire process, Judge Fidler informing the room that the jurors would be known only by their juror number to the court, the prosecution and the defense team. This was to further protect the privacy of the jurors.

The Judge in the Phil Spector murder trial did not institute his own version of The Patriot Act, (and violating a number of laws set in place to protect citizens rights) just to track what the jurors are doing with their time away from jury service.

If there is any truth to the allegation that the defense team has found a way to monitor the jurors Internet habits, that would mean the defense team had found out the identities of the jurors, effectively violating their privacy the court has gone to great lengths to protect. That activity would be illegal and I believe the individuals partaking in any investigation of a juror (or jurors) would be subject to prosecution.

I've been busy most of the day today but I will be working on getting some detailed entries up on the closing arguments tonight and tomorrow. I will finish Jackson's summation on Thursday first, then go back and finish Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday in that order.

One final note about the E-mail notification for when a verdict is reached. I had no idea I would get the response that I did. I've received 300 requests so far, with new ones coming in every hour. It's been very time consuming adding these names to the "Blind Carbon Copy" area of the draft E-mail. I've decided that come Tuesday evening at 9:00 PM Pacific Time, (12 midnight ET), I will no longer be adding requests to the list. When I return to 106, I'd like to be able to concentrate on writing while I'm waiting to hear the jury give us the three buzzes that indicate a verdict has been reached. As soon as the court confirms the three buzzes, I will send out the draft E-mail. So if you want to be added to the list, please do so as soon as possible.

I'd also like to add that I've really appreciated reading your kind words of support and thanks that were included in many of the verdict watch requests that I received. I'm sincerely apologize that I have not had the time to write back and thank you personally to everyone who took the time to add a little note.

Friday, March 27, 2009

We Will Never Forget ...

Images from the funeral service for the four murdered Oakland police officers, Oakland Arena and Coliseum, March 27, 2009.

I was contemplating doing a quick entry this afternoon after the funerals today for the four murdered Oakland police officers, but I felt it best I not write what I was really feeling. I’m not in the mood for negative comments, so I’ve toned this down a whole lot.

Frankly, I am angry at every politician who spoke on the dais at the Oakland Arena earlier today. Each offered the usual “they were brave men, died doing what they loved to do, kept us safe.” NOT ONE politician stood up and said anything about doing anything to restore the rights of police to fully do their jobs. Even the president of the United States sent condolences, but failed to send a strongly worded message about how we—the majority of law-abiding citizens—are sick of our police being victims and how government officials at all levels simply need to be more supportive of law enforcement when creating any budget.

No one in the mainstream has even verbalized the need to restore rights back to the police. Michael Savage did, but I guess few consider Michael Savage mainstream ...

Oakland police are hamstrung. There is more concern about the rights of criminals and suspects than there are concerns for police safety. If the rumored facts of this case are true, those officers were doomed from the beginning of the traffic stop. The perp (Lovelle Mixon) jumped up through his ‘ride's sunroof and opened fire on the two motorcycle officers. Mixon then left the car, approached the cops, and put more bullets into them.

The officers weren’t allowed to have their guns drawn, at least until they saw a gun threatening them. They had stopped Mixon for expired tags, and were waiting for information about the vehicle.

The SWAT officers were doomed because we are told by media accounts that Mixon’s sister (now in jail on a drug warrant) claimed she was sleeping and didn’t know her brother was in her apartment. Running about in the apartment were her young children, so officers were tripping over kids as Mixon came out of a closet, AK-47 in hand and shooting at the officers.

There is a small but very vocal group of people in Oakland who relish utilizing the race card. At a “vigil” for Mixon on Wednesday night, one speaker claimed Mixon was a “victim” of genocide. (I say too late, the guy had a kid, a little boy who will no doubt take his daddy’s place in ‘da hood unless his mother does the right thing, get an education, and take that kid from ‘da hood. I doubt that will happen …)

Sgts. Dunakin, Romans, and Sakai and Officer Hege were victims of liberal politics that encourage a “I’m a victim of society” manner of thinking, and politicians, attorneys and judges who are more concerned with the rights of convicted felons and repeat offenders who are well-known to law enforcement.

Godspeed to the four officers, and strength to their families.

Phil Spector Verdict Watch Day 2

Hello everyone! At 9:35 am on my computer clock, the juror's buzzed that they started deliberating.

I have had an overwhelming response to the email notification request. I am adding your names as quickly as I can. I will be working on them over the next hour or so. Understand that they all have to be added to that draft email manually, so it's a lot of cut and paste. Please remember that it's very important that you put VERDICT WATCH REQUEST in the subject line.

9:41 am: Pat Kelly from the PIO office is here, the CNN reporter, Terri Keith from City News, Linda from San Diego, and a reporter from the UK Press Association is here.

10:47 am: Jury just buzzed. They are taking a break now. Just heard Wendy say they are going to deliberate until 3:00 pm today. From what I've overheard Wendy say, she is behind in getting the evidence books to the jurors.

10:56 am: I just overheard Wendy talking to someone on the phone. Apparently, the jurors are going to eat lunch and then go back to deliberating at 1:00pm because they want to leave early today. And just now, the sheriff Kyles said something to Wendy referencing the 3:00. I didn't hear all of it.

11:01 am: Just a few moments ago, I finally got caught up in adding everyone to the email list. Everyone, you would be better off clicking on the link on the blog to the right, that gives you an automatic notification when there is a new entry. I will post a new entry when a verdict is reached. If you've signed up for notification through the widget, you will get notified. I will not be adding any more names to my email list until much later this afternoon. I'd like to try to get working on getting my notes transcribed covering all of the closing arguments. I'm sure I'll hear about it if I don't transcribe more of the defense arguments.

11:03 am: The jurors just buzzed. They are back on the clock!

11:55 am: The bailiff Kyles tells the room that it's time for us to leave. Evidently, the caterer's have arrived and they need to bring the food in.

12:05 pm: I'm in the cafeteria now, starting my lunch. The jurors had not hit the buzzer yet to indicate they had stopped deliberating before we left but Wendy did indicate that she would let us know what the times on the jury clock were when we returned. We had heard earlier that they were going to start back up at 1:00 pm, but we won't be allowed in the courtroom until 1:30 pm. In the elevator down, I heard Pat Kelly explaining to the UK reporter, Rachael, that normally, they don't let the jurors leave early. That they have to deliberate to at least 3:00 pm, unless of course if someone is ill, or something like that. Once I know more about that (I'll ask this afternoon) I'll let you know.

1:29 pm: I'm heading back upstairs to the 9th floor.

1:39 pm: I'm back inside the jury room. A few more people have stopped by. Katie and Lisa are here chatting with Linda from San Diego and Sherri. Another reporter has shown up but I've never seen her before. Here are the revised jury clock times.

9:33 am: Started.
10:50 am: Break.
11:02: am: Started.
12:10 pm: Lunch Break.
1:22 pm: Started

I'm going to look at the latest comments then I'm going back to writing up Jackson's final closing arguments.

1:45 pm: The woman who entered is not a reporter. She's a member of the PIO. She's one of the few I've never seen before.

1:46 pm: Wendy says, "Rickey, are you ready?" He answers, "Sure." He gets the cart and the big binders of evidence are put on it. He takes them into the jury room. I faintly heard the bailiff call out, "Mail call!"

1:49 pm: Right before the bailiff emerged, I heard a bit more noise in the jury room for just a second. Nothing audible or recognizable; just loud voices.

2:51 pm: Buzz! The jury is ready to go home.

2:59 pm: Just like during the breaks and out of the jury's presence side bars, we can hear a bit of laughter in the jury room.

3:00 pm: The jurors file out of the jury room. Now they have left the courtroom accompanied by their bailiffs. When they join up with the alternates in the hallway, we can hear them greet each other.

Court is done for the day.

Thursday, March 26, 2009

Phil Spector Verdict Notification

UPDATE: You must get your request in by 9:00 PM Pacific Time, or 12 midnight, ET, on March 31st, 2009. All requests submitted after that date will not make it on the list.

After many requests, I have relented and decided that I will send out a mass email as soon as a verdict is reached. To get on the list, here is what you need to do. Send me an E-mail through the blog. My E-mail address is on my profile page. In the subject line, you must write:


What I will do, is get an email ready in draft form and just keep adding emails to that list. When a verdict is reached, I'll send out that E-mail. All email addys will be under "Blind CC" so your email addy will not be shared with anyone else.

If you have a question, please leave a comment. I'm quite strapped for time right now, and I may not be able to answer your question via E-mail.

I can't stress to you how important it is to write "VERDICT WATCH REQUEST" in the subject line. I've received 75 requests just this morning to be added to the pending email list. These requests are mixed in with my regular E-mail I have to answer. Please understand that I don't have any way to do this automatically. I have to add all these email addy's manually to my draft E-mail.

Phil Spector Retrial: Closing Arguments Day 4

Hello everybody! I'm in the hallway outside 106. I don't type well with my computer on my lap, so I hope you will bear with me. I will be back to hand written notes from the second row for the last of Jackson's summation and jury instructions.

Once the jury goes inside the jury room to deliberate, I will move to the back row and get back on my laptop.

Our usual group is already here waiting to get in: Linda, Sherri, Katie, Lisa, and the young man studying for the bar. I just saw My2Cents is at the end of the hall. Four of Lana's girlfriends are sitting to my right on the benches. Pattie, Ann, Maryianne, and Nili. The ladies tell me that Annmerie is on her way.

Ann and Patti show me photos of Punkin before Lana was killed.

Harvey with the white hair is hear, a few other fans that have come the last couple of days and Teresa, the schoolteacher who has been here the most out of all of Spector's supporters.

8:58 am: Counsel was supposed to start right now, but we've not been let into court. Weinberg and his staff just passed a moment ago. The CNN reporter is here, along with the camera men and Aphrodite Jones.

Truc and Jackson just passed me in the hallway.

It's 10:28 am, and the rebuttal closings are finished. There is a short break because Weinberg is asking for his special instruction to be included. As it was written by him it's been rejected. Fidler told him, "It's argument, and it's out." Weinberg did not accept the rewritten instruction that the prosecution presented. Both parties are supposed to get together and rewrite that instruction. Weinberg is probably on the phone right now, talking with Riordan.

Jackson, Truc Do and Joshua are all at the podium. There are a few people in the gallery, mostly the press in the back row. I'm still in the second row, able to use my computer because court is not in session.

Jackson closed with the same scenario he did in the first trial, taking the jury back to the parking lot of the House of Blues, as if they were voyeur in those early morning hours, where Phil Spector is inviting Lana Clarkson back to his castle. And Jackson said those same words he said last time, "Don't go."

More to come...

10:47 am: Looks like we're ready to go! The defendant has filed back in and is at the defense table.

11:40 am: The jury entered the jury room. 11:43 am: Court is out of session and we are on verdict watch.

I will try to find out if the jurors will deliberate through lunch.

12:10 pm: I'm down in the cafeteria right now. I don't have a "precise" jury clock at this point. While Harriet Ryan, myself, and the CNN reporter were asking Pat Kelly from the PIO office about notifications, a single buzzer went off. That was about 11:50 am. We find out from the bailiff later that a single buzzer means they have started deliberations. Two buzzes means they have a question. Three buzzes means they've reached a verdict.

The bailiff did tell us that they would not be having a working lunch today. They were going to break, have a relaxing lunch and then get back to work. I hope to report when they've selected a foreperson.

I'm going to eat my lunch now, and then work on getting an entry up on the final part of Jackson's rebuttal closing.

1:30 pm: I'm back inside the courtroom in the back row. Weinberg and his paralegal are setting up on the defense table. Ah. I think they are going over their evidence book. Apparently, that's still not inthe jury room yet.

1:43 pm: All counsel are back in the courtroom. It looks like they are doing a last minute run through of exhibits and something with the jury instructions. When the instrucitons were read to the jury, there was one instruction that should have had a few sentences removed and it was not removed. So, before they were given to the jury in the jury room, both parties agreed to just have those sentences removed before the jury would be given their copies.

1:45: pm: Truc and Weinberg are going over it looks like copies of the instructions.

1:46: pm: My2Cents is here on their computer as well as the CNN reporter. Louis Spector and his companion, Frieda are here. A man I don't recognize is here in the back row in the plastic seats. In a jacket, shirt, no tie and black jeans.

1:48 pm: Wendy tells both parties, "I want each of you to go through each other's books and go through them because I'm not turning anything over until you've both approved each other's books."

1:51 pm: Truc and Weinberg are going through a book together and Susan and Jackson are going through something together. Ah. Jackson and Susan are done.

1:54 pm: Just a reminder, for those of you who may not remember, the jurors from now on will be escorted to their cars out of the courthouse by a different route. They will go through a hallway that's behind the clerk's desk. Linda from San Diego and Louis are discussing moies.

1:58 pm: The Daily Mail has photos of Spector. These are not from today (the tie and suit are different); I think they are from yesterday. You can see the heavy makeup on his face. Maybe that's what the big mirror was for that I saw him use several times at the defense table. Maybe he was checking his makeup.

2:03 pm: Katie enters 106 a few minutes ago and sits with Linda from San Diego. It looks like they are almost finished getting the exhibit books to the jury. Weinberg and Susan are packing up. Jackson and Truc Do are still leafing through books.

2:05 pm: Looks like the books are on Wendy's desk, and Truc and Jackson are going over a few last items being pulled out of the people's books.

2:07 pm: Weinberg, Susan, Truc Do and Jackson are still going over some last items. Louis just told me that he just got off the phone with Gary and to tell me Gary said "Hello." HI GARY!!!

2:09: Court is once again in session! Fidler is on the bench! Inner courtroom doors close. Back on record. Correcte version of instrucitons. Gone over all exibit books. Everyone satisfied? We are your honor, Jackson. No problem with the jury forms? No you honor. We have phone numbers to reach you all Fidler asks? Mr. Weinberg, you may get a call from Mr. Parachini, if there's a verdict reached, they will set aside a courtroom for them if he wants to talk to the media.

2:11 pm: And that's it. Jackson and Truc say goodbye to those of us in the gallery and they head out. It's just me, CNN, My2Cents, Louis, Frieda, Katie, Linda and Lisa in the courtroom.

2:25 pm: There is a single buzz from the jury room. The bailiff enters and then a moment later comes back out. He goes back out. We find out that the buzz was letting Wendy know that the jury will need to leave early next Wednesday, at 3:30 pm. So looks like they are planning ahead. Harriet Ryan, who stopped in for a moment, asked Wendy if we know yet who the jury foreperson is. Wendy called the Judge and then told us a few moments ago, that unless the jury communicates with the bailiff who it is, they won't know.

3:54 pm: Terri Keith from City News enters 106. Pat Kelly from the PIO department entered a few minutes before her. We are waiting to see if there's anything that can be observed from from the jurors body language

3:56 pm: Buzz! This means they are done for the day. I don't know how this tracks out on the jury clock.

Today, from Wendy, the jury deliberated from: 11:52 to 11:55 am. Then 1:15pm to 2:10 pm. Then from 2:22 pm to 3:55 pm.

4:00 pm: By my computer clock, the jurors still have not emerged from the jury room. The bailiff is back by his desk.

4:01 pm: Single buzz again. They're ready to exit. Bailiff says, "Let's go." From the jury room we hear, "There's one guy still in the bathroom." The bailiff enters the jury room.

4:03 pm: They exit the regular way they came in. They did not ext the way they did during the first trial.

And that's it. Court is over.

Justice for Jersey – High Court Mistrial?

On March 17, British MP John Hemming and Jersey Senator Stuart Syvret appeared in the High Court to present testimony and evidence of the ineffectiveness of the Jersey legal system.

The application was made to force Secretary of State for Justice, Jack Straw, to intervene with issues stemming from child abuse at Haut de la Garenne, the illegal sacking of Graham Power, the harassment and besmirching of Lenny Harper and the basically inept ability of the good-old-boy network, run by Phil and Bill Bailhache, to provide justice in Jersey.

Interestingly, but not surprisingly, the two judge panel – Lord Richards and Justice Tugendhat – should never been allowed to preside over the hearing. Both judges should have recused themselves or been immediately disqualified.

Lord Richards has a history of accusations against him for sexual perversion. He was tried for exposing himself to a woman. This alone should have disqualified him because he can’t be seen as impartial based on that experience. He should never be allowed to hear cases related to sexual deviancy.

Justice Tugendhat, it seems, served as an appeal court judge in Jersey – knows the whole good-old-boy network AND was appointed to that office by none other - Phil Bailhache! So, Tugendhat can be impartial? I think not.

And, why do you suppose that Tugendhat didn’t reveal this little tidbit until the opening of the hearing? This hearing has been looming for some months!

Now the real circus begins.

The hearing was scheduled as the final business of the day for the court. Two hours were blocked for the presentation of evidence. One has to wonder why then, Senator Syvret was actually limited to one hour.

Lord Richards, repeatedly and excessively interrupted and questioned me, as I attempted to make the Applicant's case. This had the effect of disrupting the flow of my presentation; answering his constant interruptions caused me to have to repeat a number of points, which I had already covered - and introduced digressions down paths, which were of less significance for the Applicant. This further had the effect of causing much of the Applicant's case to be left unstated.

The judges rejected the Application on a single, narrow, ground; that we should attempt a Judicial Review of the Jersey judiciary - before that self-same judiciary.

Now, how the hell would that work? The whole purpose of the hearing was due to the fact the Jersey judiciary can’t be trusted.

No opinion was rendered on the facts and evidence presented and the judges didn’t comment on the duties of Jack Straw.

So, not a total defeat - just a new skirmish to plan.

John and I are already working-up a substantive Judicial Review case to bring before the court in Jersey - which will be fascinating in itself - as they'll have to produce a court competent to hear the matter.

And - we are going to bring a much broader range of complaints to the attention of Jack Straw - some deeply alarming material. And when he fails again to act on that - then we bring a fresh Judicial Review application against Straw - on all the broader issues.

As Stuart oft says, “you can’t make this stuff up!”

Senator Stuart Syvret Blog

Wednesday, March 25, 2009

Phil Spector Retrial: Closing Arguments Day 3

Doron Weinberg finished his closing argument at 2:10 pm. Fidler then asked Jackson if he needs any time to set up any presentations. Jackson says no, and quickly stands up to take the podium.

Jackson starts off by telling the jury, "You've heard almost two solid days of what I would call a filibuster. [...] Not a word that he said, was evidence. [...] That was an attempt to distance you from the facts. If it's not here (slapping his hand on the ledge of the witness box) or in a binder at Wendy's desk, it's not evidence. [...] Mr. Weinberg on 3/24 told you, 'I want to be straight forward, This is a difficult case.' [...] Well, I want to tell you about this case."

And Jackson goes back to where he tells the jury the case starts, at the House of Blues where Phil Spector meets Lana Clarkson and asks her to go home with him. At first she's reluctant but then relents and agrees to go home with him. Lana's got to do things the next day so she makes arrangements to move her car and she goes back to the castle with Spector to have a drink. And after a few hours, Lana Clarkson wants to go home. And Phil Spector does what he does time and time and time again. He pulls a gun and this time the gun goes off. He goes out to Adriano De Souza and says, 'I think I killed somebody.' And then he realizes, I just told somebody! I've got to get rid of these bloody clothes. I got to get rid of this bloody gun. He goes upstairs, grabs a diaper and he wipes her face off. And he waits. That's how difficult this case is. Mr. Weinberg wants you to think that this is the most difficult case. This case is straight forward. I just showed you this straight forward case in under a minute. 1. Women. 2. Alcohol. 3. Loss of control. 4. He pulls a gun.

Court normally ends at 4:00 pm but today it went way over. At almost exactly 4:30 pm, Judge Fidler asks Jackson how much longer he has. He states that normally, he would have to close the courtroom now but he can sometimes extend it a little bit. Jackson tells the court he has about ten minutes more. Judge Fidler looks on over at the jurors and asks if anyone has a problem with staying longer. Juror #5 raises her hand and says, "I have to go," and that effectively ended Jackson's hopes of finishing the last few minutes of his summation today.

Outside in the hallway, Jackson was disappointed that he didn't meet his own goal of getting all his argument finished by the end of the day today.

Court resumes tomorrow at 9:00 am for Judge Fidler to go over with counsel any last minute issues. Court resumes for the jury at 9:30 am. At that time, Jackson will finish the prosecutions closing summation. I expect immediately afterwards, the jury will be instructed. Last year, jury instructions took 30 minutes. I expect them to go a little bit longer than that, probably 40-45 minutes, depending on how fast Judge Fidler can read them.

It's doubtful I will be able to get any more notes covering today up tonight. I expect I will be transcribing my notes from inside 106 while I'm on jury watch. I hope the free WIFI at the courthouse works tomorrow.

More to come....

Steve Mikulan of the LA Weekly weighs in on closing arguments.

Harriet Ryan for the LA Times
, story written for tomorrow morning.

Chalk one up for Jose Baez?

Today’s hearing before Judge Stan Strickland was relatively brief and to the point. State’s Assistant Attorney Jeffrey Ashton argued his motion and Jose Baez argued his. Casey Anthony swore to the truthfulness of her affidavit. The parties went in camera for more detailed questioning by the judge. After a short break, the parties resumed their seats. Judge Strickland ruled he found no conflict of interest. Case closed. Baez won!

The question here is: What has attorney Baez won? Mainly, the State’s representative will be off of his back about the source of Casey’s funding for her "Dream Team."

On the other hand, this victory will more than likely preclude any future, post-conviction argument by Casey Anthony that her attorney had any conflict of interest. Thus, this pre-trial victory could lead to a post-trial loss. Did Baez really win anything?

What did bother me personally during the hearing was Baez’s off-topic comment that the defense was learning more and more that Casey is innocent.

Ashton objected strongly to this statement, saying that Baez was clearly speaking to the cameras (surprise) and that it had nothing to do with the case at hand. Judge Strickland agreed and put an end to the situation.

The very end of the hearing was one for the books. As the judge was asking if there was anything else, Baez (I always have to have the last word) stated that due all the "leaks" in the case, that the Court should advise the State that what happens in camera stays in camera. The judge politely did so and Ashton stood, with his hands in the air and said, "We don’t need to be reminded of our ethical obligations." It was obvious that he was very upset by this and that such commentary was getting tired. The judge agreed and the session broke up. Click HERE to see the exchange for yourself!

I would suppose that Jose Baez believes this was a second "win" for him today. He looked over at an angry Ashton with one of his more incredible smirks on his face. "Are you alright?, "he asks. Ashton answers, "NO." The smirk on Baez's face grew.

But did Jose Baez "score" in that little skirmish? I don’t think so.

Tuesday, March 24, 2009

Phil Spector Retrial: Closing Arguments Day 2

I get to court a little after 8:00 am. The regular morning group is there. Linda from San Diego, the young man studying for the bar, Sherri, Joe and Ron from Phoenix. Slowly some of Lana's friends show up. At 8:34 am the both Diane and Cindy the court reports arrive with their equipment. Miriam Hernandez from local ABC Ch 7 arrives a few minutes later. She's always dressed to the nines but that's also because she does report on air. More familiar faces start showing up; Donte, Harvey with the white hair, My2Cents, as well as quite a few I've never seen before. Some of the new faces indicate that they are "family." Overnight, Spector's family tree grew exponentially. I didn't understand where all these family members came from. Where were they all throughout the trial? It wasn't until I read Michelle Blaine's blog this evening that I got my own "AHa" moment. Michelle confirmed that Rachelle Short sent out another plea to have all of Spector's extended "family" show up at court to support him. (I mean, how else would his extended family "know" that he needs their support at his murder trial?)

At least twelve to fifteen people from the accredited press showed up today. This left the PIO office with the task of holding a lottery for the few remaining seats. Many people who have attended the trial on a more regular basis did not get in. Ron, who drove from Phoenix didn't make it as well as My2Cents (although they did get a seat in the afternoon session) and the guy studying for the bar. (So long Ron! It was great meeting you and I'm sorry that you didn't get to hang with us trial ladies more!) I would say that the inside of the courtroom was mostly packed with Spector's "family." If Linda from San Diego hadn't arranged for us to be admitted after the press, it's doubtful that I would have had a seat. Richard Gabriel is back as well as the Joyce Danelen look alike. Louis Spector and Frieda also arrive and are given seats.

The last people to enter the courtroom are Spector and Rachelle, who's wearing the palest coral pantsuit with a dark, black looking top underneath. The over-belt appeared to be almost four inches thick and cinched tight around her waist.

Before Weinberg begins his closing arguments he has a complaint about the Jamie Lintemoot video that was shown in the prosecution's closing arguments. I miss most of the first statement where Weinberg says something to the effect that the prosecution turned a court (judge?) into a witness (without being?) cross examined. "Not only was the tape shown, but at the end of the tape [...] it came at a hearing regarding evidence... (it wasn't testimony in front of the jury)." Weinberg's main concern is there were still photos from it. Three photos of Jamie Lintemoot (the tape did show the images in slow motion), "...and three pictures of you in it in support of the prosecution. [...] That's totally inappropriate."

Judge Fidler asks the people to respond. I think Jacksons first words are "Completely unnecessary. [...] The previous six times Mr. Weinberg complained about this, it was for the (recording complying?) within the preview of the court. [...] Because it was a hand gesture and the witness was clearing it up."

Fidler asks, "Do you plan on using it in your closing?" Jackson replies, "Yes, your honor."

Weinberg adds, "What I was complaining about was your image (Fidler, at the end of the tape)."

Jackson speaks again and then Fidler addresses Weinberg and says, "I'll give it some thought and let you know later."

Weinberg now has the podium facing the jury. He has a binder with a stack of notes inside. The page I see on top, and many of the pages I see throughout the day are all hand written. Since I'm sitting in the second bench row directly in front of the jurors beside Terri Keith from City News, I can only see some of the faces of the jury. Those that I can see, it's just a profile view.

Weinberg starts out addressing the jury that we've been together for a long time now, over several holidays, and complimenting them. "We've had an inordinate amount of legal and forensic facts to get through together." He tells them something like he's never seen "a group more thoughtful; bonded. [...] But now I want to be straight foreword. [...] If you knew only the case from the outside it looks like a lot of evidence. [...] And if you believe Adriano De Souza, it looks like he did it; (and you may be thinking) he probably did it. [...] But you look like the kind of people who are objective and fair.'

Weinberg takes the time to talk a bit more about the type of jury that they seem to be. "Some of you hate guns and have really strong opinions about guns. some of you came here and think that (paid experts) they can manipulate and fool the jury. And some of you said it was better to convict a guilty person than let them go free." (Weinberg is referring to their jury questionnaires they filled out.)

"The reason you are on the jury with attitudes that most people have (is because) that you are fundamentally fair and are going to judge the case on the evidence you heard. Some of you in the jury room are going to find you have different ideas bout trials. What I'd like to do, would be able to sit down with each one of you and answer your individual concerns. (But since I can't do that, what I have to do is think what the common denominators are (and try to address all of those). So what I'm telling you is I'm going to be there for a while. [...] Phil Spector did not kill Lana Clarkson. that's what the evidence shows. [...] Despite the presentation that Ms. Do had, it is not the case here. [...] The problem with their case is that it relies on the starting proposition he is a bad person and so he must have done it."

Weinberg states that the investigation and prosecution was "not to independently investigate what happened here, but to prove that he did it. [...] There's one question and one question only: has the prosecution proven beyond a reasonable doubt? Not with speculation, not with theory but with facts. [...] Is the evidence clear beyond a reasonable doubt. [...] I believe that the evidence shows that he didn't (kill Lana Clarkson). [...] It probably would be easier if we worked under Scottish law. They have three options: guilty, not guilty and not proven."

Juror's $ 6 and 7 have their pens ready to take notes but I don't see any writing going on. Weinberg continues about the structure of the US Justice system and that we don't have the option of the Scottish system. I note here that Weinberg is speaking in a low soft voice for the beginning of his summation. It's a tone that is totally different than how he has addressed witnesses throughout the trial.

"The bedrock of our system is to prove beyond a reasonable doubt. [...] This is a circumstantial evidence case, because one one has told you it wasn't video taped and it wasn't recorded. [...] The prosecution has a theory that they want you to believe. [...] Although yesterday, Ms. Do went over some of the law instructions..." Weinberg now educates the jury on "CALCRIM" and other jury instructions that the judge will give them. He brings up an instruction that states, "You must be convinced the people have proven each fact essential to that conclusion beyond a reasonable doubt..." Weinberg stresses the point that if one conclusion points towards innocence, you must accept the one that points to innocence.

From where I'm sitting, I can see a perfect profile of Mrs. Clarkson in the front row. To me, the expression on her face is a combination of sadness and stoicism.

"The burden is on the prosecution. It's a heavy burden and it should be. [...] I'm not saying Phil Spector is guilty but don't convict him because they didn't prove their case. I'm saying because he's innocent. [...] I think we should address it, why Phil Spector didn't testify. [...] It is the burden of the prosecution to exclude all reasonable possibilities. [...] So if/when the defendant testifies, it reduces the prosecution's burden. [...] So when a defendant says, 'Here's what happened.' what he really says, is, to tell the jury to choose between tow versions. So the defendant give us his most absolute right. [...] So why should he do that? [...] By giving an explanation in a circumstantial case, the defense fundamentally makes the prosecutions case less harder. [...] If a defendant testifies, you may not believe him because sometimes the truth is stranger than fiction." Weinberg goes onto say something to the effect that "this is his job" to make the prosecution's case harder to prove.

(I will interject only this one comment on Weinberg's entire summation, specifically addressing this point where if a defendant testifies, he makes the prosecution's case against him much easier to prove. My question back would be, what about the truth Mr. Weinberg? I would think that the ultimate goal of a five month murder trial is a search for the truth, and not a means to obfuscate the quest for the truth.)

"Let me talk about the attitude that people are expected to believe about (wealthy defendants). [...] That high paid experts are hired guns to say what they want to say. [...] The truth is the opposite in this case."

"Since they (LE) heard Mr. De Souza's version in that supposed confession, everyone involved in this case is making that expectation of homicide come true. [...] They spent 40 hours at the scene. The examined and micro scoped and collected and they left with all the evidence. [...] The prosecution took possession of all the evidence then some defense (staff?) experts were allowed on the scene. [..] Then for the next year and a half, the crime lab did whatever they wanted to do."

"Dr. Herold testified they could do any test they wanted to do. [...] But each expert had no idea how many hours they worked on this case. No idea. [...] But Dr. Herold spent months looking at Mr. Spector's clothing. [...] The coroner's office had many staff meetings with the DA's staff, with their own staff; the meetings were on, 'Can we make this a homicide?' [...] They needed outside evidence."

"So even though the evidence was not there, Mr. Spector was indicted. They (criminalists) had no idea how may man hours and time and money spent on that case. YOUR money. [...] They can look at all the evidence and spend all this time and money without reporting it to anyone."

AJ: Objection! That's completely improper!

Fidler: Sustained!

"Ms. Do said that Dr. Seiden just cashed a check. Dr. Seiden, who sits on boards of suicide prevention... do you think he really would do that? But how else are we going to get the evidence to you?" Weinberg goes on about how Spector had "no choice" to defend himself. "There are not charities out there who are paying for investigations for affluent people. [...] You judge these people on what they say and the merits of their life's work."

Weinberg then questions the honesty and prejudice of people working for government agencies verses people who are hired as an expert witness to (supposedly say whatever the defense wants them to say). "If that's all they did, they wouldn't last in the field. [...] They told you they often turn down work. [...] In law enforcement context, you have a built in pressure and built in bias because they have the same employer."

Weinberg reminds the jury of Dr. Herold's statement that she "practiced with Mr. Jackson" the hand and body placement positions of Lana Clarkson and Phil Spector, and that Mr. Weinberg tired to get her to demonstrate on him, she wouldn't, she testified, "You're different." Weinberg states that the defense experts agreed with the prosecution at times on some points but "tell me of one (prosecution) witness" that (did the same when he cross examined them).

At this time one of the jurors (I can't see which one) has a coughing fit and the Judge asks them if they need to take a break. So we take an early break. Linda Kenny Baden who is in the courtroom again today give an affectionate pat on Weinberg's arm when he comes over to where she's sitting in the gallery. Mrs. Weinberg comes over to speak to some Spector supporters (or maybe these are personal friends of the Weinberg family) in the third row near me, Sherri and Linda. I also note that Weinberg's daughter is here. The defense got a lot of people to show up. There's lots of socializing and chatting in the aisle by the defense supporters and I see Rachelle hug quite a few people. I note that there are quite a few faces I've never seen before.

1o:34 am: We're back on the record and Weinberg is talking about the close working relationship the LA County Sheriff's lab has with law enforcement. "(There is a strong) relationship of entities to each other and they work routinely with each other and that working influences (their work) and it is a bias. [...] They support each other and they come with a bias."

Weinberg puts up on the screen an image of a NPR flier or announcement of a study that was released last year. Jackson objects. "That's not evidence in this case." Fidler requests a side bar.
While they are at the sidebar, I read what's up on the screen and start writing as fast as I can. 'The study states separating crime scene analyst from the investigation of cases.'

The sidebar is over and Weinberg addresses the jury. "We don't need acknowledgment of the (separation of) science (from LE). We know it. [...] But you have to understand that they are not true independent scientists in the truest sense."

Weinberg touches on the issue of Lana Clarkson and her state of mind. "I take no pride in talking about the sadness and despair of Lana Clarkson [...] it has to be explained now. [...] But that doesn't mean I can stop to point out the point she had reached in her life... [...] It's to talk about what really happened here. [...] The prosecution asked you to go with your gut, your emotion. [...] But I'm going to talk about facts. [...] The prosecution was trying to get you to see me as untrustworthy but I'm hoping you don't see me that way."

Weinberg says something about "...the first part of (the prosecution's case was) Mr. Spectors history [...] and Mr. De Souza was in-between [...] and so therefore he must have done it with drama and accusation! [...] The third part, what really happened? [...] Who was Lana Clarkson and where was she in her life? [...] What the prosecution thinks. [...] What science shows. [...] What Lana Clarkson was, where she was in her life. [...] How accurate was Adriano De Souza in what he thinks he heard. [...] The five women, who all had an agenda, what effect (did) time have on their memory? [...] Dr. Herold: an expert on everything except pathology. [...] (I asked her), Can you say that Mr. Spector fired that shot? Her answer: 'No.'

"On February 16th, 2008, we met with Dr. Herold. And we asked her, 'Is there any physical evidence or forensic fact that proves Lana Clarkson didn't shoot herself?' Dr. Herold replied, 'No." I asked her, 'Is there an inconsistent fact?' Dr. Herold replied, 'No.' Dr. Herold acknowledged that."

Weinberg continues to point to the science with testimony up on the screen. He states again that there isn't a single piece of (physical?) evidence that (proves) Lana Clarkson didn't shoot herself. "Since then, the prosecution has tried to find some evidence that was inconsistent and based on that you should tend to find Mr. Spector innocent." Weinberg then lists fourteen separate items that support the theory of Spector's innocence.

1.) Intra oral gunshot wound: 99% of intra oral gunshot wounds are suicides. Weinberg mentions the history of all the medical examiner's who testified and that in their entire careers, they had not seen any that were homicides. The only exception to this is Dr. Di Maio who testifies that he saw three, and that there was a clear explanation for each one. He mentions that Dr. Pena thinks that he saw one, years ago, but there was also a second defendant involved at the scene. Weinberg gives the jurors an analogy of an investment, where 99% of those who invest will lose money. Is that an investment you would use? He also gives an example of a doctor who tells you that you need surgery but 99% of the people who had the surgery died. "Do you really think that people who report what they think they heard or think they saw are 99% correct? It's more like 50 or 60%."

"How do you get the gun in the mouth, particularly one with such a short barrel? How do you keep it in? [...] There's no evidence the gun was forced or shoved into the mouth. [...] You saw that hard metal crane. It would have left a bruise."

"I don't want to spend any time on this involuntary manslaughter charge. (Weinberg makes a few more statements but I miss getting them about this issue.)

Weinberg talks about how the prosecution made a big deal about intra-oral suicides were through the soft palate and points out that the autopsy report says the bullet went through the hard and soft palate. "That's exactly what this bullet did. It went through the hard and soft palate. [...] So how do you take a scientific fact and ignore it? [...] They combed all the literature and they found three cases of homicide. [...] The prosecution's case is a story; in-between is science (and facts). [...] That's what the prosecution's case is. It's a story. But this case is about facts."

2.) Blood on forward portions of the gun grip: A photo of the blood on the front strap of the gun and the grip is up on the screen. Weinberg holds the gun with no gloves on. To me, he's handling it very carelessly. Weinberg goes over the blood on this area of the gun and that the "prosecution didn't explain it. If Spector was holding the gun, how (did) the blood get on the front strap and the grip? How does blood get on there?" Weinberg kept his hand on the gun and putting it in various positions the entire time he is talking about it.

3.) Spatter on the gun grip: Now Weinberg explains satellite spatter and impact forward and back spatter to the jury. The photo up on the screen is a very enlarged photo of the "checker" pattern on the grip of the gun. He focuses on a specific area where his experts testified there was spatter (and not a transfer) pattern. Weinberg then explains how the blood that is supposedly on the dorsal side of Lana's wrists could have gotten there, if Lana was holding the gun on herself. "Dr. Di Maio talked about how spatter is a mist. There is a parabolic arc and they drop down. [...] The mist could easily have landed on the wrist in a parabolic arc. [...] It was Mr. Jackson who asked, but Ms. Do made you believe it was a question I asked. [...] The prosecution presents that there was blood on there and then wiped off. [...] Did they put any witnesses on to prove that? [...] You would think that with the way the prosecution presented it's case that 'we' would have to prove that's spatter on the grip of the gun."

"I asked Dr. Heorld about the blood on the gun grip and whether or not it could be spatter and she said she would have to go back and look at original photographs. [...] And now compare that to Jamie Lintemoot and what Dr. Herold did when presented with Jamie Lintemoot's testimony. [...] And when presented with that Dr. Herold said, 'Oops. Change that.' [...] There's no way to explain that spatter on the grip of the gun (if Spector's hand is completely covering the grip)."

Weinberg then explains James Pex and the prosecution's accusation that he lied to the jury. "He said it was a Colt Cobra. He was mistaken. It was a Smith & Wesson. That's all it was and it was virtually inconsequential." Weinberg goes over the questions by Jackson about the differences in the two weapons which Weinberg state are minor differences since they were both snub nosed barrel weapons. "They think that by finding one mistake they can discredit their entire testimony. [...] But how many mistakes did Jamie Lintemoot and Adriano De Souza make? [...] The prosecution didn't put on a rebuttal case to refute that was spatter. They didn't call Dr. Herold back to state it.

4.) Phil Spector's DNA was not on the gun: "They didn't do 'handler' DNA. Their experts testified they didn't swab parts of the gun that didn't have blood on them. [...] You've seen the blood on the gun. [...] With the exception of one area, the gun was very lightly smeared. [...] Yet Steve Renteria swabbed only seven areas; only bloody areas and in not one of those areas did they find Mr. Spector's DNA. [...] They did find foreign DNA mixed in with Lana Clarkson's blood on the cartridges. A single DNA markers that was not from Lana Clarkson or Mr. Spector. [...] Either one of the police officer's touched it or a long time ago someone touched the cartridge. [...] Think about what that means."

"Phil Spector's DNA was found in the blood in the pocket (of this pants). Spector's DNA was found on the doorknow and door latch. But five spots on the gun and Spector's DNA is not in any of them. (Yes, there is a discrepancy that earlier Weinberg said seven areas were tested and here he said five. I believe he misspoke. I'm just writing what I heard.) [...] Steve Renterial said there was so much blood on the gun it must have overwhelmed (Spector's DNA). But no. Spector's DNA was no where on the gun."

5.) No spatter on Phil Spector's right sleeve: "Now onto the jacket. [...] It's a very light beige jacket, practically white. [...] There's no spatter on the right sleeve; only on the seam (on the backside) only. [...] James Pex did tests and studies on firing a weapon and what spatter you would expect to see on a person's sleeve who is holding the weapon." Weinberg puts up the photo of spots on a sleeve cuff from one of Pex's experiments. "There's 10-12 spots on the sleeve. [...] That's what you expect to find when you fire a weapon close range." A photo of the wool jacket is put up on the screen. "This is not the jacket of a person who fired a weapon."

6.) There is no GSR on Phil Spector's clothing: "There's no GSR on Spector's jacket. [...] If Phil Spector shot Lana Clarkson you would expect ot see some GSR on Spector's clothing. [...] From Dr. Herold's notes, 'there's no smokeless powder of obvious morphology.' But then she comes into court and she's got a photograph. [...] Even if she was right about that, with the person who owns guns, and put his jacket on the floor where there are guns (in the room), it means nothing.

7.) There is no foreign biological material on Phil Spector: " There was no foreign material found on Phil spector in his hair, or on his face. [...] There was no GSR. [...] The only foreign biological material on Phil spector was in fact Lana clarkson's DNA on his scrotum. [...] Steve Renteria told you that there was (percentages?) one in 96 thousand chance that it was someone other than Lana Clarkson. That was the only foreign DNA on Phil Spector.

8.) There is no evidence of a struggle: There was no disturbance of furniture. They looked at the carpet and there were deep indentations in the carpet showing the furniture had not been moved. The photos on the bureau was undisturbed. There was nothing knocked over except a statue and the police did that."

9.) Phil Spector's DNA is not under Lana Clarkson's fingernails: "There was no evidence of a struggle."

10.) Spatter on Lana Clarkson's hands: "There was spatter on her hands. It was seen at seen at the scene. [...] These are the only four photos of Lana Clarkson's hands. No others were directed to be taken." The photos up on the screen have circles around several areas of the hands. Weinber states those noted areas "appear to be spatter."

AJ: Objection! There are circles on these exhibits. There is no testimony that said this is spatter.

Fidler: The problem is, this is argument.

AJ: As long as the jury is aware that there is no testimony (that states that).

Fidler: If they wern't aware of it, they are now.

Weinberg continues. "Each of our defense experts had a different way to hold the gun in their analysis. That tells you that they didn't rehearse."

11.) Directional spatter on Lana Clarkson's left hand.

12.) Presence of GSR on both of Lana Clarkson's hands: "There's copious amounts. The people who did the tests did not document where it came from (specifically) on her hands. But we know that both hands were close to her mouth. [...] Phil Spector had essentially no GSR on his clothing. [...] But yet, by the prosecution's (demonstration), both people had to have GSR on them (since) their hands were in the same vicinity. [...] The prosecution suggested that maybe he washed his hands but ther'es no way to wash GSR out of fabric. [...] He as handcuffed, taken to the police stations and no one noticed that the sleeve was wet (if it was)?"

13.) Trajectory placed the tooth fragments: "Those fragments flew ten to fifteen feet. They were projected out (wards) a great deal. [...] One fell on her lap. The prosecution contends it hit Phil Spector. [...] It could have hit her lip and just fallen down."

14.) The broken acrylic thumbnail: "There's no evidence that there was a struggle. [...] Detective Lillienfeld agrees that if could have broken off in pulling the trigger. 'I think so,' he replied to my question about that."

Weinberg then reviews in general the 14 points. "Fourteen pieces of forensic evidence all point in the same direction. Weinberg then moves onto other physical evidence that was collected at the house. He states it was all left out, for LE to find and collect. It wasn't hidden or destroyed. "Phil Spector's DNA shows up on the brandy sniffers, the eyelashes and on her hands. Not on the bruises, like Ms. Do suggested, but on her hands. [...] Phil Spector's DNA is found on everything except the gun and the bullets."

The afternoon recess is called. Before everyone leaves, Fidler tells the counsel that he would like to see them briefly at the bench.

Back on the 9th floor, waiting for the afternoon session to begin the regular group sees that even more people have shown up to support Spector. More people who claim they are "family." Dan Kessell is here. While I was waiting by the door, Spector was standing not more than two feet from me and I saw him hug several new people that arrived to show their support. I heard Spector say to an older looking man, red-faced man with thinning hair, "That was a great opening!"

When I get inside the courtroom for the afternoon session, I'm in the second row and sitting to my left is a black man in a Laker's jersey that Allan Parachini is addressing as "Judge." I ask him his name and he tells me he is Judge Kelvin Filer, who is a judge serving in Compton. He came to the closings in the hopes of seeing Jackson give his closing argument. When Jackson sees him he comes over and gives him a big hug. Judge Filer, who at one time was a defense attorney says that he remembers when Jackson was first trying cases. This was either when he was opposite Jackson in the courtroom, or when Jackson was first starting out and presenting cases in his courtroom. It's taking some time to get the afternoon session started. The PIO is still trying to seat more of the people who are Spector's long lost relatives. As I look around the room I see that Aphrodite Jones is putting on makeup again. Court finally gets started around 1:41 pm.

Weinberg now goes into a presentation of all the prosecution's misrepresentations (of the facts of the case) and there are quite a few that he reviews with the jury.

More to come..

I've still got about 34 more pages of notes to transcribe for this day, but it's midnight and I have to make a decision. As much as I'd like to get the rest of these notes up, I've only had less than six hours of sleep for the last two days. I have to get some rest. This summation I will have to try to update, when I'm on jury watch.

Everyone should also know that Mr. Weinberg is far from finished with his closing argument. In his binder, it appears he has a stack of at least 40 or maybe 50 pages of hand written notes. I tried to count today the number of pages he has turned in his stack to see how far along he was and I only counted something like fifteen or sixteen pages. So be prepared. If I am right and Weinberg has that many pages of hand written notes still to go through, we may not get to Jackson's rebuttal closing tomorrow. Understand that Weinberg mostly spent the rest of the day going over the physical evidence. He had not addressed the 1101(b) witnesses in full and only touched a tiny bit on De Souza's testimony as the last few statements of the day. It's my opinion that he has much more to still present to the jury.

How is Casey Paying Baez? Hearing Tomorrow

The Orlando Sentinel has just reported that there will be a hearing tomorrow morning before Judge Stan Strickland concerning a motion filed by the State's Attorney, Jeffrey Ashton. The hearing will take place at 10:30 AM according to MyFoxOrlando.

The Motion to Determine Potential Conflict of Interest and Waiver asks the judge to make an inquiry to determine the existence of any potential conflict of interest and establish the Defendants knowledge of and waiver of any such potential conflict of interest.

Among the reasons he felt this was necessary were:

At the bond hearing on July 22, 2008, the court heard extensive testimony as to financial status of the Defendant and her parents George and Cindy Anthony, which established little, if any, net worth on the part of George and Cindy Anthony and none on the part of the Defendant. (Para 3)

...approximately eight different lawyers have been retained to represent the Defendant in different aspects of this case and numerous experts have been announced as having been retained in this matter. (Para 4)

Ashton went on to explain that... logic dictates that certain conclusions must be drawn. First and foremost among these conclusions is that the Defendant's seeming conversion from pauper to princess did not come from the sale of some tangible asset... The only asset that appears available to the Defendant is her story or otherwise valueless items, such as photographs or video tapes...

He also stated that...Such precarious financial relationships are fraught with potential for claims of conflict of interest... Since the value of her "story" may change based upon the outcome of this case, such an arrangement could easily be argued by the Defendant, in the inevitable post conviction motion, as giving the attorney an incentive to advise his client in a manner that increased the value of the property as held, as opposed to advising her as to the course that was in her best interest.

This motion strikes to the heart of the mystery surrounding Casey Anthony's finances. Who is in control of her business deals? Who is signing the contracts for licensing fees for pictures and videos? What deals have been made for the future?

Shortly after Ashton submitted his motion to the court, defense attorney Jose Baez fired back with an Objection And Motion To Strike The State's Motion To Determine Potential Conflict Of Interest.

Baez wrote in his motion that the State had filed the objection among its own speculation, possibility based on rumors of tabloid news broadcasts. (Para 2)

Actually, when you go back and read the State's motion, there is no mention of such things as, "We heard rumors that... We read in the National Enquirer....." or anything of the sort. Mr. Ashton simply pointed out that there was a lot of money all of a sudden and there could be some logical conclusions drawn based on what they know of the situation.

Baez continues by mentioning that the State is out to retaliate for his previous motion for Sanctions against them (which he lost). He states in his 6th paragraph that the State is trying to interfere with his client's Constitutional Right to counsel.

If you read the State's motion, it clearly states that, The State is not requesting that, based upon the findings of this inquiry, the court block counsel's representation of the Defendant. We have no interest in interfering with the Defendant's right to counsel of her choice.

Finally, and as usual, Baez takes it to the usual level of his legal arguments:

... this motion has been filed solely to harass and embarrass the Defendant's counsel, and to possibly deflect attention away from the pending Motion for Sanctions as well as the future motions of misconduct stemming from the release of discovery which involves the unauthorized videotaping of the Defendant's counsel, while meeting with the Defendant. (Para 7)

That's quite a bit to take in within one sentence! First, Baez feels that the State's attorney is out to "get" him and make him look bad. Then, he says that it's obvious that the State is trying to deflect from other motions filed by him and to be also filed in the future!

I will say this right out. I am NOT a legal eagle. I've followed my share of trials and I can't recall so many motions filed stating that the prosecution is out to "harass and embarrass the defense. My problem with all of this is that this case is all about the law. While Mr. Baez might have some legal basis for his arguments, it would be nice to see that particular case law cited! Without proper foundation, these arguments resemble a schoolyard fight, not a case in the courts of law.

Finally, attached to this motion is a Sworn Affidavit by Ms. Anthony herself, stating that Mr. Baez doesn't have the ability to market her or Caylee's story. That still doesn't answer the question as to what was asked in the State's motion. It also doesn't explain how she obtained the money to pay Mr. Baez's retainer. If I recall correctly, Casey had told him at their first jail meeting that she had money in the bank and would pay him. I suppose Mr. Baez bought that story from Ms. Liar Liar.

The most interesting part of these documents filed by Baez was Casey's own personal contribution. Ms. Casey added, in her own handwriting:

I believe that Mr. Ashton is angry because I have refused to take a plea agreement for a crime that I DID NOT COMMIT.
Let's see, the only "deal" offered so far has been the one that expired in September. It offered immunity to Casey for information leading to the location of Caylee. That wasn't a "plea agreement" and she turned it down anyway. The State took the death penalty off the table; I can't imagine what plea agreement she could think of at this point. Oh, YES! Casey lives in her own fantasy world and she probably thinks there is a deal on the table!

It does appear that this should be quite a hearing. There has been no mention made as of yet if it will be held in public or in camera. Let's all keep an eye out for news of live coverage. I hope to see you all in court tomorrow!

Note: WESH has announced it will be streaming the video live tomorrow. That means that there should be more than one feed.