Weinberg Out in Ayres' Retrial

Continuing with his history of the delay delay delay tactic, defense attorney Doron Weinberg is no longer representing accused child molester William Ayres. The new defense attorney is Jonathan McDougall, a former DDA, and he's being paid through San Mateo County's public defender program. (San Mateo County does not have a public defenders office.)

The money's run dry, and there are four civil suits currently pending against the child psychiatrist.

Of course McDougall asked for a continuance so he could get up to speed. He requested an April start day with a February "readiness hearing" so he could let the court know if he was ready to begin.

Deputy District Attorney Melissa McKowan is good to go, and wanted a new trial date set today.

Superior Court Judge Beth Freeman stated that she did not feel an April start date was reasonable at all. But she did grant a continuance until October 9, where it is expected McDougall will continue the tried and true practice of "I'm not ready, I need to re-investigate this whole case, Weinberg's strategy was all wrong."

Which is an insult to Doron Weinberg. By hitting the jackpot with a new grad attorney on the jury, the lone hold out, Weinberg's strategy was genius. His client was guilty as heck and Weinberg got his client another holiday season at home. Questioning Weinberg's strategies or abilities as a defense attorney are a pretty crappy tactic but all too common.

For more, go to Deep Sounding's blog and offer him some support. I guess good things are worth waiting for (shrug—the good thing being putting away a child molester for a very long time).

Details of today's hearing

Ayres gets new attorney for molestation retrial

Delay Delay Delay 2.0

Today in San Mateo County Superior Court, the child molestation re-trial of child psychiatrist William Ayres was officially deemed a “go,” with Deputy District Attorney Melissa McKowan eager to set a date.

Not so fast. Our old friend Doron Weinberg asked for a two-week continuance, so it appears he’s signed on for Ayres 2.0. Potential dates have been discussed in chambers, so one of those yet unknown to us dates will be it.

Another hearing will be held on September 11 in Judge Beth Freeman’s courtroom. I suspect I will be reunited with Caltrain in January …

Re-trial is a go!

Ayres Molestation Trial Jury Watch: One Week and at a Standstill Today

San Mateo County Superior Court in Redwood City, California

It is exactly one week today that the jury in the Dr. William Ayres case has been deliberating the fate of the child psychiatrist accused of molesting six boys, now men—and that has not gone smoothly. It was not expected to be a quick verdict, with nine counts, and strict instructions that each count stood on its own; each in-statute victim stood on his own, and that a guilty verdict with one victim did not necessarily mean an automatic guilty verdict in others.

But it was not expected to be an impossible verdict, and that’s what seems to be happening.

Despite no verdict, there is lots of news at the Ayers Watchdog blog, and I’d like to direct you there eventually. I’m not going to steal their news and represent it as my own.

A coupe of days after they began to deliberate, bloggers learned that the jury foreman was indeed the man in the front row, who wore hiking shorts to work every day, who took notes when appropriate, and who was very attentive. Court goers observed that was a good choice.

Later in the week, the jury asked for a read-back. Of course those of us waiting for a verdict did what we always do: look for meaning. Was this a good thing? Or is it a bad thing?

On Friday, a juror was dismissed because she stated during deliberations that if she were able to retrieve a long-forgotten childhood memory, why couldn’t the men who testified in the trial? Bless her, she did the right thing. This juror was prepared to talk to media-types after her dismissal, but in this day and age, there are no media types hanging around the courthouse. She has spoken to the Watchdog bloggers, and her observations give much reason for concern.

There is a deep divide amongst jurors. The individuals who believe Ayres is guilty believe it as strongly as the ones who do not believe in his guilt. Interestingly, the not guilty contingent are all childless young women in their 20s.

The dismissed juror revealed that they’d examined four of the six in-statute cases, and had yet to look at the other two. With the seating of one of the alternates, another male, certainly the complexion of the jury might change, but the naysayers are said to be of closed mind and not willing to listen or negotiate anything.

The dismissed juror was in the guilty camp.

Today (July 21) a juror called in sick.

Now we are left wondering: was this case lost at jury selection?

I did not attend the proceedings until testimony began, but observers at the Watchdog blog report that a jury was seated fairly quickly. As of yet I have not been able to locate/read a copy of the juror questionnaire. I have a feeling it will be very insightful.

Neither side employed a jury consultant.

It has been said there were two nurses and one new-grad attorney on the jury.

Are you as shocked as I am?

This case went quickly; the original timeline had it going to the end of July. However, when one witness backed out at the very last minute (that witness himself had ten counts, and his story was the most horrific, with no question that the abuse had happened. He’d undergone a digital rectal exam.), no doubt that cut off a few days. The defense shaved off a day or so when the decision was made not to call Dr. Marvin Firestone, a personal friend of Dr. Ayres, who was prepared to testify how Dr. Ayres did not fit the profile of a pedophile (stop laughing). Firestone is not an expert on identifying pedophiles. Deputy District Attorney Melissa McKowan promised to bring up a “hypothetical” about the books found in Ayres’ files—books containing nude photos of boys. The books were banned from evidence, but they hypothetical would have asked (paraphrasing): “Would your opinion change if that person was known to have in his possession, but hidden away, books full of photos of nude boys?” Voila, the books would have been in evidence.

Defense attorney Doron Weinberg is no dummy. Adios Dr. Firestone.

Mind you, the questions being asked of the jury are that not difficult; they’ve received a lot of information and to do an honest, good job so they can be at peace with their decision, each victim needs to be evaluated, the decision needs to be made if the juror believes something did happen to the boy, and that something was either lewd & lascivious behavior on a child under the age of 14, or simple battery.

In other words, for each count, the decision options are not guilty (juror doesn’t believe anything happened or the DDA didn’t prove the case beyond a reasonable doubt), guilty of a 288 (a) crime—lewd & lascivious behavior on a child under 14 (nine possible counts), or guilty of simple battery. The process must be repeated for all nine counts.

My readers already know that I utterly believe each of the men who were molested. I remember information from my child development and psychology coursework that children don’t remember or experience things like adults do. I can remember my own childhood and believing that if a grown-up told me to do so, he or she probably had my best interest at heart. Think about your most fond or traumatic memories—do you recall every little detail about the Christmas when you received your first bike? Do you remember a minute-by-minute account of the day your dog was run over in front of you when you were eight years old? 

I can imagine what went through the heads of each boy—no doubt each wondered what his penis had to do with what was going on in his brain (I am going to refrain from making jokes here—these boys were not yet old enough to be consumed by the need to listen to his penis, period.), and how strange the exam was nothing like those his pediatrician had done, on a proper exam table, with gowns and drapes and a countertop of medical devices—otoscope, ophthalmoscope, perhaps a hammer for checking reflexes, a tuning fork for hearing checks, and perhaps a nurse in the room. They had to be thinking “No way my parents would have put me into this situation. Or are they that angry with me that they knew this was going to happen?”

For the boys who did vocalize how strange they thought the whole thing was, they were listened to by sympathetic parents who assured their sons that a physical exam was normal. What’s a kid to do when your own parent says what happened to you is normal? So they buried the memory, and once they became adults, of were in what they felt was a safe place mentally or physically, brought the memory out for reflection and concluded that what happened wasn’t cool. 

I think what is bothering me most about that small group of naysayer jurors is the coldness in their thinking. They are essentially calling 10 men who sat in front of them, with various degrees of discomfort ranging from crying to being concerned if his real name got out, it could hurt his fledgling business, liars. Wait until they realize there are 41 known victims, and that there has been a civil suit against Ayres that was settled out of court.

They are also calling their supportive parents liars. According to the dismissed juror, one of the naysayers thought it was strange the parents of the now-grown men were waiting in the halls for them, being supportive. Some testified.

Which brings me to a problem I’ve had with this case from day one: the jury has been mishandled in my opinion. The jurors should never have known there were families of the molested men onsite at all. They reported to the hallway outside of Judge Beth Labson Freeman’s courtroom, standing amongst spectators, witnesses, family members, and yes, the defendant and his wife and adult son. They wore no badges identifying them as jurors. God knows what they overheard that first morning of testimony! Think of the possibility of the “sympathy factor” for the defendant, who uses a walker to toodle around the courthouse, yet who was also seen in San Francisco a few weeks back (by a very reliable person), attending an opera with no walker in sight.

It says much toward the devotion of the parents of the boys who attended every day of the trial. Every single day there was at least one parent, usually two, in the galley. Imagine what went through their heads. Even if they weren’t hearing about their own son’s case, they heard enough that was similar to their son’s story.

In every case we’ve heard about, what walked into Dr. Ayres’ office was an adolescent boy, doing things that are normal for adolescent boys to do. Psychiatric or psychological treatment is not contraindicated in these cases, but these boys were not troubled monsters—they were middle or upper middle-class boys going through the uncomfortableness that is adolescence and pre-puberty. What came out was a victim, a kid who had more to work out in his head than he ever did because of his ADD/ADHD, or self-esteem or anger issues.

No matter how many times defense attorney Doron Weinberg said the boys were troubled, “troubled” is a relative term. They were not potheads, or thieves, or animal torturers or sexual deviants. Two may have gone on to have problems with the law, but is that a consequence of the abuse, combined with their ADD/ADHD impulsivity?

I’m sure that in the naysayers group there are individuals who look at Dr. Ayres and sees a very ill (possibly dying) old man who couldn’t possibly be a threat to anyone. That’s certainly true—his complexion is pale with gray undertones, he’s lost weight during the trial itself, and he uses a walker to get around the courthouse.

The doctor’s health issues were put right out there at the beginning of the trial in opening arguments. It’s well known that his health caused at least one of the trial delays. Over the past several years he’s been treated for prostate cancer and also had major surgery for an abdominal aneurysm repair. As a consequence of these treatments, Ayres’ claims his memory is spotty.

Older memories are fairly immune to such bodily insults. I know from personal experience that my memory suffered terribly after undergoing a 9-hour spinal surgery that was supposed to take only four—there were complications. I have a 5-year period of time when the years are all the same and there are things I don’t remember happening that my daughter, then a pre-teen, totally does. I can remember dance routines from when I was a kid, but I can’t remember for sure what year my sister died.

I’ve been told that is a perfectly normal response to a grave bodily assault, including cancer treatment, and especially for a surgery that requires the patient to be on cardiac bypass (abdominal aneurysm repair fits here).

So the “I forgot” defense could have worked for Dr. Ayres if he’d been accused of molesting while he was undergoing those treatments. And he may not have remembered every single time he “examined” a boy—remember, it was not extraordinary to him. Unless a boy screamed or hit or bit him, one exam is as memorable as the next.

Supporters of Ayres’ survivors are all heartsick—we are praying that the jurors who believe Ayres is guilty stick to their resolve, and that if Ayres can’t be convicted because of mistakes made in selecting jurors, that at least a hung jury is the result, with a mistrial of course, but with the opportunity to re-try the case.

I encourage you to catch up at the Watchdog blog. You’ll also have the opportunity to read the text of a solicitation letter that has been sent out via e-mail to Ayres’ “colleagues” in the psychiatric community. 

Please stop by and offer the blog owner, Deep Sounding, your support and prayers for some sort of miracle in that jury room.

Juror replaced in Ayres molestation trial

Juror booted in doc’s molestation case

T & T’s coverage of Ayres trial

Deep Sounding's blog

The Patient Advocate’s blog

Closing Arguments—It's All About the Memories, Baby!

Salvador Dali's "The Persistence of Memory," 1931.

It’s difficult to sit through what I sat through today.

Despite the judge admonishing the jury that what the attorneys say is not evidence, it is hard to not sit there and think “Darn right, that’s how I see it” and not be able to take that statement as evidence—I have to go back into my memory and remember what the witness said, how I felt about what was said then.

I am not going to say that my mind was changed today by anything either attorney said; I still believe these exams performed by child psychiatrist Dr. William Ayres were unwarranted (from MY experience as a nurse) and that these exams constituted “bad touch” (lewd and lascivious behavior), even though the boys did not understand the difference until adulthood. Think about this: what if these men did not understand what had happened to them was wrong? Could they have been perpetuating what happened to them?

I can say with 100 percent certainty that all of the men who testified or I have personally met or heard of from their parents know the difference between right and wrong, and they know what they experienced was wrong. The cycle of abuse stops with them, period.

Before the jury was even brought in, defense attorney Doron Weinberg made a motion to withdraw the statute of limitations proof. I am going to be brutally honest here and say I’m not sure what this meant. Initially I thought it had to do with jury instructions, removing a potentially confusing clause. I welcome an attorney clarifying this.

And jury instructions, while really quite simple, are made complex by attorney speak.

Right off the bat we learned there are 9 counts, not 10. Initially there had been 20, but one witness backed out at the very last minute. On day 1 we were told that child psychiatrist Dr. William Ayres faced 10 counts; today we learned it’s nine counts if lewd and lascivious behavior on a child younger than 14 years of age. We also learned there is the possibility of lesser charges—that of simple battery. The jury may convict of neither, or 288 (a) or simple battery—not both.

There are three counts associated with the molestation of Orion B, two counts on Scott T, and one count on the remaining four in-statute victims.

Each charge stands on its own, and just because the facts say guilty with one charge on one victim does not mean the other charges were proved. Each count is it’s own and to be considered on its own merits.

As I’m understanding the difference between the CA PC 288(a) and the lesser charges is intent, period. For the 288(a) charge to stick, the juror must first think an inappropriate touch did happen, and then that touch was done with the intent to provide sexual gratification to either the boy or the doctor. Well, we know the boys know they weren’t gratified, they were mortified, but being mere children in the presence of an adult who is a doctor and an ally to their parents, what are the boys going to do?

Some interesting highlights to the jury instructions (which will be completed tomorrow after the prosecutor, Deputy District Attorney Melissa McKowan, finishes her closing arguments):

1. The inappropriate touching does not have to occur with the victim being naked.

2. The jury is not to speculate as to why Stephen S testified in chains (he’s serving six years at a California Department of Corrections fire camp).

3. The doctor is not on trial for poor medical practice. Standard of care is not what is on trial—it’s all about the molestation of the boys.

4. It is not necessary to prove the doctor himself was aroused/erect (something impossible to prove or disprove).

5. Why would the ten men who testified do so, knowing it would be difficult and in public? What did they have to gain? (Only one has a civil suit in the works, and he's been deposed in the prior settled civil suit.)

Of course there are explanations of what is direct and circumstantial evidence—and everything in this case is based on someone’s memory, except for the testimony of the expert witnesses.

McKowan was dressed for success today—an attractive black pantsuit with studded accents, her hair pulled back for business. She is a chart-thinker, which I think helps keep the jury’s attention and lets them visualize a thought process.

“If this is an accepted practice (doing genital exams on boys being seen for ADD/ADHD, enuresis, or self-esteem/aggression issues), where are witnesses who can testify to this?” said McKowan.

She also wondered aloud, “if Dr. Ayres taught his students at USF that they were supposed to do genital exams on psychiatric patients, where are those practitioners to support that practice?”

A 288 charge involves a simple touch anywhere on the child, including touch on the shoulder or fondling of hair—and the defendant’s mental state at the time must be because he or she is seeking sexual gratification.

A 288 (a) charge involves substantial sexual conduct—it raises the degree of touching. There must be an intent to arouse, appeal to the child or adult’s sexual desires. Full penetration/ejaculation/orgasm is not required of either the victim or perp.

Please check out Deep Sounding’s blog for additional specifics. Some points that stood out to me were DDA McKowan’s rhetorical questions: If these exams were necessary to the treatment plan to boys in psychiatric care, why weren’t girls given the same exams? If these exams were medically necessary, why were the results not discussed with the parents or the boys? Why is it only paid witnesses who say that genital exams are okay?

There are more reasons to not do a genital exam on a child in a psychiatric setting than there are to do those exams. Every boy in this case had his own pediatrician who did his physical exams and met the boy and his family’s medical care needs. Dr. Ayres was not the primary care doctor for any of the boys. There were no precautions taken to endure the boy’s mental health during the exams—the exams were not performed on a proper exam table in a proper exam room (they were performed on a regular table where the doctor and the boys would do puzzles and build models). There were no measures to preserve the boys’ modesty. In the case of the two boys whose medical records did exist, there was no tie-in as to how the genital exam would impact the treatment plan.

To me that statement says much. Even in a nursing capacity, you would not do an exam on a patient’s genital area if they complained of chest pain, or even abdominal pain. Looking at a person’s genitals, let alone touching them, is an extraordinary and invasive thing to do. One can argue that the boys’ own pediatricians had ruled out any physical explanations to the boys’ problems and behaviors (especially the boy with enuresis). Two of the men who were molested have Kleinfelter’s syndrome (one was diagnosed in utero; the other after his treatment with Ayres). Neither were offering any complaints of complications of their genetic disorder—they were too young for hormone treatment when they treated with Ayres.

In the case of Orion B, there were seven pages of his medical record that consisted of interviews with his parents before the boy visited the doctor. The bulk of the interviews were centered on the boy’s ADD/ADHD and his “playing doctor” episodes with his young friend and adopted sister. The parents revealed the prenatal diagnosis of Kleinfelter’s, but did not ask for any treatment at that time—the boy was too young to initiate hormone treatment, nor did he himself know of the diagnosis. He did not have any outward signs of Kleinfelter’s, though it is possible the ADD/ADHD was a consequence of the genetic disorder.

DDA McKowan’s chart reminded me why I felt each man was truthful, as were the four out-of-statute witnesses.

McKowan also very cleverly used expert witness Dr. Elizabeth Loftus’ testimony to her benefit. An excellent tactic—some of the statements certainly support what the witnesses said.

This is not to say Weinberg was 100 ineffective. There is no way he’d ever want someone like me on a jury, because he is very learned about the medical/memory issues in this case. He can be very convincing … I have no doubt that he is an excellent barrister, and when he's given something to work with, he's an effective defense attorney. I would not hesitate to recommend him to anyone I knew who required his services. I do respect the man.

He does not project the relaxed persona that McKowan does. He speaks from a podium and relies heavily on notes. He also “slipped” up twice in saying one victim’s full name, until reminded by the judge. I just feel this is something he does on purpose—obviously the full name is written in his notes.

Weinberg is an excellent storyteller—he told a story about a false memory of his own which did earn laughs throughout the courtroom’s galley and in the jury box. There is no doubt everyone has perceived an event happening one way and someone else who also observed the event recalls something totally different.

This is what happened in this case, according to the defense attorney. The more the story was told, the more that was added. Only the very first interviews are reliable—those are the strongest “core” memories.

Weinberg was especially damning toward the testimony of Orion B—is it reasonable to believe that at the very first visit with the doctor, with the parents in the next room, that the boy was undressed and underwent a genital exam in which the boy says he was aroused?

Dammit if Weinberg isn’t right. Under normal circumstances, no one in their right mind would do that. But are pedophiles ever of a right mind? Is it possible the doctor at this point had done this for so long he did not believe anyone would think the worst of him? After all, he’s a doctor first, and that makes him superior to a plain old psychologist!

Weinberg basically attacked the memories of the boys, and the way their stories evolved. He also tried to cast doubt on the “moral turpitude” of two of the victims who have gone on to have legal troubles—one has been in and out of jail, the second in prison and testified while in the State’s custody.

Neither of those men have committed any crimes that are sexual in nature. Each was candid about their crimes; each is trying to put his life back on track. That's not unusual, and all of us in the courtroom wish them success.

While I was listening to Weinberg’s closing arguments, I thought back to my one time at jury duty many years ago. I was all of 19 years of age. It was a simple case; three drunk Latino men assaulted some cops who had responded to a 911 call. We listened to two days of testimony, and in my opinion it was pretty darn cut and dried. The three men had prior drunk in public convictions, they’d also assaulted other people in other incidents, and there were plenty of non-cop witnesses verifying the assault.

Once we’d elected a jury foreman, we did a straw vote. There were two “not guiltys.” Huh? So we did an oral poll, and it was two older women (who are now the age I am today) who totally did not understand what a guilty verdict meant. “What is this all about?” they asked. “What did the men do?”

A simple half-day of deliberations took us a full day to explain to the women why we were there, what the crime was, and what a guilty vote meant. You could see the lights go off in their heads when they finally understood. There were no threats, no one called them stupid (thought we sure thought it!); we simply put the judge’s instructions into simple English, and the women then were able to vote guilty.

I worry with the jury instructions that there may be jurors who think they have to decide, as a group, if the four propensity to molest, out-of-statute witnesses, are on trial and that they waste time debating them.

I worry that some of the people on the jury think that they cannot send an ill old man who uses a walker to prison. He looks harmless enough today, maybe he’s in his own private hell and that’s enough.

I worry that they do not understand bad touch, and that just because those boys, in an intimidating position back then, did not immediately register that what had happened to them was wrong.

But I have faith that tomorrow morning, DDA McKowan will get those questioning jurors back on track, and that there are jurors who are intelligent and educated and are able to wade through mountains of testimony and because of their educations and experiences, are able to say “I believe those men were molested.”

There is no way Dr. Ayres is found not guilty of anything …

(As an aside, Happy Birthday to San Mateo County Times reporter Elizabeth Pfeffer tomorrow, July 14!)

Attorneys begin closing arguments in Ayres trial

Ayres Watch blog

Phil Spector Retrial: Opening Statements, Part II

Wednesday, October 29, 2008I'm up on the 9th floor pretty early, around 8:15 am. Mr. Sprocket came with me. I tried to get him to wear one of his nice silk ties with his white shirt, but he refused. His "excuse" was, he wasn't going to wear a silk tie with jeans. I think he can wear a tie with a nice pair of pressed jeans but Mr. Sprocket isn't buying it. I think he just doesn't want to wear a tie.

The 9th floor is pretty deserted at this time. I see ABC's local affiliate Channel 7's Miriam Hernandez is already there. Since she's the first reporter on the 9th floor, and it hasn't been decided yet who will film the proceedings, the PIO staff ask her to get her cameraman up on the 9th floor to film the proceedings.

Dr. Adams is there at the end of the hall waiting for Judge Pastor's courtroom to open; he's talking to Linda, who had emailed me earlier in the week that she was thinking of coming with her friend Paula. They took the Metrolink from San Diego. That's how much they wanted to see opening statements. Linda and Paula took a very early train and were at the courthouse before 7:00 am. It's going to be a long day for them.

I see that Spector's fan is here. A member from the PIO is taking names of the general public as they show up who want to attend opening statements, as well as the press that starts to show up, one by one. I see a gentleman whom I first met and talked to years ago at the Robert Blake criminal trial. I remember talking to him while waiting for the Blake jury to come back with a verdict. He firmly believed Blake was innocent, and that the prosecution didn't prove their case. The jury agreed with him and Blake is a free man today.

I see Harriet Ryan, but there is quite a bit of press here that I've never seen before. You can tell who they are because they are often wearing their press badges on lanyards or clipped to their belongings, and they all gravitate towards one another. I sit with Dr. Adams and Linda until 8:30 am, when Dr. Adams goes into 107. Terri from City News is here, and I see a member of the defense team, Jennifer Barringer and I believe one of the defense clerks, enter the courtroom.

A still photographer and more journalists arrive. Mr. Sprocket keeps taking my pen and writing what he thinks are funny notes on my pad. He's also making jokes in my ear and I have to tell him to stop and that he better not even try to whisper what he's saying inside the courtroom.

I over hear the PIO staff tell the accredited press that we will be starting at 9:00 am. They must be going to argue some motions before the jury is set to arrive by 10:00 am. Linda Deutsch from the Associated Press arrives along with another reporter I don't recognize.

9:05 am: AJ and Truc Do come down the hallway. One by one the hallway fills up with people hoping to get in to see the opening. Then the bailiff's and PIO staff let us into the courtroom. At this time, there are still plenty of seats available. The Clarkson family hasn't arrived yet, and more general public slowly trickle in. It's a very different feel in the courtroom than the first trial. The "bigger" celebrity in the room from the first trial, Dominick Dunne, is back in New York, writing his memoirs.

Steven Mikulan from the LA Weekly is not here. He's covering the Anand Jon trial at the other end of the hall and he expects closing arguments to start any time. Ciaran McEvoy of the LA Daily Journal is covering Federal Court. He did tell me that he might be able to drop in for a day or two. John Spano and Peter Hong from the LA Times are not here either. I only recognize one other person from the general public and that's Jon Scott, of All Memphis Music, com. I met him at the first trial.

The court reporter sets up her equipment. The prosecution is testing the ELMO and has put up on the screen an image that says "People v. Spector."

The courtroom is almost full now with press and general public. Another video camera is setting up right beside the one from Channel 7. I overhear the female reporter talking with the second cameraman in a language I don't recognize. Mr. Sprocket thinks it's French but it doesn't sound like my 7th grade French Class. People are coming in and out. It's still a bit noisy and I wonder why it's taking so long. Linda Deutsch is in her regular seat: second row on the end.

9:17 am: No Spector and no defense team. There are five people on laptops directly behind me in the fourth row. More last minute press arrive that all seem to know each other. I see DA staff, reporters and public all mixed in together in the gallery. A man in the second row way down on the end close to the jury box gets up to greet Ms. Do. He obviously knows her. I find out later that he was a juror on the Black Widow case that she successfully prosecuted.

The Clarkson family enters with their attorneys and Ms. Do gets introduced to the entire group. Rod Lindblom, Donna, John Taylor, Fawn, a friend of Fawn's who came often during the first trial and a gentleman that I have not seen before.

Spector's defense attorney arrives with his paralegal, Susan. I also see Tawni Tyndall enter and sit in the defense area benches. She had attended a few of the pretrial hearings for round 2 and I didn't recognize her. Tawni is a very pretty woman and during the first trial she wore her long hair down and very form fitting outfits. Today, her hair is up in a french bun and she is wearing a black skirt and matching suit jacket. More press squeeze into the long benches.

Spector's son Louis arrives with his longtime companion, Frieda. More people show up and try to get seats. The DA's clerks who are assisting on the case are introduced to the Clarkson family. The courtroom is almost packed and bustling with conversation. I see Claudia from local station KFWB arrive and grab an empty seat along the back row. If I'm remembering correctly, she makes her way over to the video cameras for a moment. I'm wondering if she possibly sets up a microphone to do some sound recording.

9:30 am: I think what we are waiting for is Spector. Even more press enters the courtroom and those that know each other exchange greetings and catch up. The PIO staff ask the people in the bench rows to move down and squeeze closer together to try to make room for more people to attend. Ah, I see what they are trying to do. They are moving people out of the most of the seats on the defense side to make room for Spector's entourage. They also cleared out some seats along the back wall so that Louis and Frieda can sit there. Thats where Louis and Freida mostly sat during the first trial. The PIO's staff are really trying to pack in as many people as possible.

9:35 am: The bailiff's still haven't closed the inner courtroom doors. Suddenly, Judge Fidler takes the bench. Spector is still not here and we learn that he has waived his right to appear on the motions that will be argued before the trial is to begin.

Doron Weinberg brings up the Dr. Lee and Ogden matters. They will submit their motions now on the pleadings. Weinberg talks about Lee. "At the last trial, the defense was penalized because of what they did [...] legal ramifications [...] can't penalize the defendant for something out of his control [...] something to reconsider so that he's not penalized..."

Do stands up and says "[We've received] no notice of this motion." Counsel and the Judge agree that they will take this matter up at a later time.

Weinberg is now asking that if there is going to be a second bailiff in the room, that he not be seated in the chair directly behind Mr. Spector. (The bailiff's desk is surrounded by a half wall, and on top of the half wall, plexi-glass. It's right behind and off to the left a bit of the defense table. Right in front of this walled in desk area in the well, is a chair that a second sheriff often sits.) Weinberg states, "...this projects a sense that [...] that's where a back up bailiff sits; behind Mr. Spector. It sends a message that Mr. Spector is dangerous."

Judge Fidler responds, "I'll let them, the sheriff's decide how many [sheriffs] they need for the courtroom..."

Weinberg is now objecting to something on the prosecution's exhibit list, that he states is "contrary to the court's ruling..." I believe it's the word "pattern" on some of the overhead exhibits AJ is going to use in his opening. AJ counter's Weinberg's objection. "The court allowed the 1101(b) evidence exactly for that purpose." There's nothing there about common scheme or plan. It's a pattern to "...absence of mistake..."

Judge Fidler responds that he will not limit the prosecution to using this in argument. (I have that word, argument, but maybe he meant opening statements and I wrote the wrong word.)

The Ogden matter is discussed next. The defense is objecting to the video tape of Dianne Ogden the prosecution is going to show. The Judge tells Weinberg that he is not going to make the people "..edit the evidence further..." Weinberg can object during presentation, and the objection will be ruled on as the tape is played [for the jurors].

The motions have been dealt with and Fidler leaves the bench. It's not in my notes but I do remember Mr. Weinberg asking Fidler at one point if there was a time limit on openings. Fidler tells him no; take all the time you need. It's 9:45 am and we wait. As I look around the packed room I notice Detective Tomlin in the back by the inner courtroom doors. Claudia from WKFB is chatting with Linda Deutsch. At 9:50 am, the jurors enter the courtroom and go directly into the jury room. I see some unfamiliar faces in the first row on the defense side of the room. My best guess is that they are family members of the defense team.

With the Clarkson family in the room, my mind flashes back to visiting Lana's memorial and a big wave of sadness washes over me, just like it does now when I write this.

Spector, Rachelle Short and two bodyguards finally enter the courtroom. From where I'm sitting, it looks like Spector is wearing a black suit and shirt with a very bright white tie and matching kerchief in the suit pocket. I see one of the cameramen is being spoken to by Fidler's clerk. He bolts out of the courtroom and comes back quickly in pants. I guess Fidler doesn't allow men to wear shorts in his courtroom. Back in that far left corner I see Allan Parachini, the PIO's department head, squeezed in among the recording equipment.

10:03 am: Wendy announces that they are calling the jury and the counsel stand while they enter. Here's how the panel is made up:

1F; 2F; 3M; 4M; 5M; 6M; 7F; 8F; 9M; 10M; 11M; 12F; 13M; 14-18F.

Fidler explains opening statements to the jury. "Are the people ready" Fidler asks. "We are your honor," AJ responds. AJ takes the podium and addresses the jury. "Good morning everyone!" The jury replies "Good morning," back.

AJ: The evidence in this case is going to paint a picture of a man when confronted with a particular situation becomes enraged. [...] The evidence will establish a pattern [...] A very rich and active pattern of violence. [...] Before the end you'll be introduced to the real Phil Spector. [...] Let's step back to the beginning.

On the ELMO is an arial view of Spector's castle. "....a gunshot shatters the quiet of the community of Alhambra..."

AJ describes the palatial home surrounded by dense trees.

(I would disagree with the word "palatial." Granted, it's large but having seen some photographs of inside the home, the decor is more, oh, eccentric would be a polite word.)

Adriano the driver hears a noise. AJ describes what Adriano saw and heard. Spector exiting the house holding a gun with blood on one of his fingers. Watching the jury, to me they appear in rapt attention. This is their first glimpse of the prosecution's case and what happened that tragic night.

AJ continues, "I think I killed somebody. Phil Spector just confessed to what had just happened in that house. [...] Adriano asks Spector, 'What happened sir?' In response, Phil Spector just shrugged. (AJ pantomined a shrug.) [...] Adriano looked past Phil Spector in the foyer room and he saw the body of Lana Clarkson."

Up on the ELMO are two images side by side. One is the smiling Lana Clarkson, and the other is a photo of Lana lying dead in the foyer chair. Seeing Lana dead, another wave of sadness washes over me.

"To put the evidence of the evening in context," AJ says, "You will get a pattern of that very rich [...] (Damn! I miss getting those last few words!)

The ELMO changes and as AJ speaks, the names of the other 1101(b) witnesses appear on the screen. "... before her was Dianne Ogden; and before her, Melissa Grosvenor; and before her, Dorothy Melvin; and before her, Devora Robbitille [...] You will se that Phil spector acts in the same way [...] he reaches for a gun."

"The real Phil Spector," AJ says. The ELMO changes and there it is in huge type. The unedited statement Vincent Tannazzo will testify he heard Spector say. AJ reads the statement, not holding anything back or abbreviating in any way.

"Women are all fucking cunts. They all deserve a bullet in their heads." It's shocking and to me, it stuns the courtroom.

Up on the ELMO is another bit of text now that says, "Spector's Pattern of Violence."

Dorothy Melvin
In July, 1993, Spector owned a house in Pasadena. "Pay attention to the pattern that will emerge time and time again. [...] The people you will hear from ran in lofty circles. [...] Dorothy Melvin was a talent manager for Joan Rivers. She was Joan River's manager. [...] They met at a Christmas party."

AJ then describes Spector's and Melvin's bi-coastal relationship and how for part of the year, Spector lived in a hotel suite at the Carlyle or another New York hotel as well as his house in Pasadena.

Dorothy and Spector had a dating relationship. Dorothy Melvin had never been to Spector's home; had never been at his house, alone.

As I watch and listen to AJ present his opening statements he's not reading from a script. He's going completely from memory.

AJ describes the outfit Melvin is wearing ~a black dress with a fuscia jacket~ and the pleasant evening Spector and Dorothy had. While Spector has been playing the piano, throughout the evening he drinks an entire fifth of vodka. At some time during the evening, Melvin takes a cat nap on the white sofa. When she wakes up, it's morning.

I look on over at the jury, and one of the alternates in the front row, it appears that her mouth is dropped open a bit, listening to the story.

When Melvin steps outside looking for Spector, she finds him in the motor court, pointing a gun at her. He's screaming at her that he couldn't find her. Melvin is frightened and doesn't understand what's wrong with Spector. She tells him she was on the sofa with her bright jacket on, in plain view. Spector holds her at gunpoint. Spector is cursing and yelling at her to get back upstairs and take her clothes off. Dorothy takes off her jacket. AJ pantomimes with his arm out, his hand making it look like he's holding a gun.

Terrified, Melvin tries to escape. When she gets to her car, Spector comes at her with a shotgun and screams at her, "Get the fuck out!" AJ describes how Dorothy is telling Spector she can't get out because "...the gate, the gate is closed!"

AJ explains to the jury, "As we go through these incidents, that a pattern emerges of drinking and violence."

When Melvin gets out of the gated grounds, she calls the police. Her purse is still in the house and it has important papers in it; Joan River's passport. She needs to get her purse back.

AJ tells the jury about the police coming to Spector's house. "[Officer] Chris Russ will tell you, that he was confronted by Phil Spector wearing a shoulder holster. He found Melvin's purse and under the dining room table, the shot gun."

After AJ finishes with Melvin's story, he plays several of the messages that Spector left on Melvin's answering machine, cursing and threatening her. Up on the ELMO is a photo of Dorothy Melvin, and a summary list of events that occurred. After the story of each 1101(b) witness is presented, a similar display and list is put up on the ELMO.

Melissa Grosvenor
Melissa Grosvenor's terrifying 1992 experience is presented next. Melissa Grosvenor, who lived in New York, met Phil Spector at a party for Ahmet Ertegun. AJ describes who Ertegun was in the music industry. Phil Spector got Melissa's phone number and they began a casual dating relationship.

Phil Spector invites Melissa Grosvenor to visit his house in Pasadena for the weekend. He tells her, "I'll get you your own hotel room, to be respectful to you..." Spector booked her a flight and when she got to Los Angeles, she went to her hotel room to freshen up and then they went out to dinner where Spector started to drink. AJ goes on to describe more of the evening Ms. Grosvenor experienced. After dinner Phil and Melissa returned to Spector's Pasadena home. It's late into the evening and Melissa is tired; she's still on New York time. She tells Spector, "Phil, it was a great evening but I want to leave now." Melissa is in the foyer of this home, ready to be taken home, and SNAP!

(It's not in my notes, but I believe this is where AJ starts to add the "snap" of his fingers in his narrative, right before he starts to describe the change in Spector's behavior with each succeeding 1101(b)'s story.)

Melissa doesn't know where it came from but suddenly Spector is holding a gun to her head and he's yelling at her, "You are not leaving until I tell you!" Spector orders her into an overstuffed chair, all the while ranting and raving calling her names. Melissa Grosvenor was so tired from lack of sleep, she sat in that chair, exhausted, with Phil Spector holding her at gun point and she fell asleep.

Sometime the following morning, she was woken up by Spector nudging her foot. He was acting perfectly normal, and he asks her, "Hey! Do you want to go to breakfast?" Melissa thinking this is her opportunity to get out of the house, agrees and they went to breakfast.

Melissa and Spector don't discuss what happened. The only hint of the incident was when Spector says to her, "I guess you'll want to be going back east again?"

I take a moment to try to write down the summary list that's on the ELMO for Meilssa Grosvenor but I miss the last line.

Spector drinking/drunk
Romantic interest
Home alone
She tried to leave
Pulled a gun

Devra Robitaille
Devra Robitaille two incidents are described next. AJ goes into the history of how Devra met Spector over the phone when she worked for Warner Records and Spector was trying to negotiate a new record label with them that would be called Spector Warner Records. Eventually, Devra came to work for Spector. There was a dinner party that she helped arrange that Devra observes Spector starting to drink; and drink; and drink. After all the guests had left she says goodbye and starts to leave.

SNAP! She doesn't know where it came from but suddenly, Spector pushes a gun into her face. AJ describes how Devra ~and he tells the jury they will meet her, she's this tiny lady, a musical prodigy in her own right, with this British accent~ spoke to Spector in a stern tone of voice, like she was speaking to a child, because she didn't know what else to do.

AJ tells the jury that none of these women knew each other. They didn't know that Spector had pulled a gun on someone else, in a like situation, so they had no reason to be afraid. Spector locked the door and pulled a gun on Devra. The gun was pressed to her face.

Several years later, in the 1980's, "Here we go again," AJ explains. Spector has a dinner party and he begins to drink. As the last guest leaves, Devra checks the door and the door is locked. "Same thing again. She says she wants to leave. Spector finds a gun and presses it to her head. Spector said to her, Try to leave and I'll blow you away!"

Stephanie Jennings
1995. Stephanie Jennings is a photographer who lives in Philidelphia. AJ goes into detail how Stephanie met Spector. She was at an awards event, photographing the celebrities and she meets Spector. She is invited as Spector's guest to another event and Spector books her a room in the Carlyle Hotel where he is currently staying. The big attraction is really the after party event. At the after party event, Spector starts to drink.

I look over at the jury. To me, they still appear rapt at attention. AJ describes how Stephanie, very tired, goes back to her room to go to bed. Later in the night, she's woken up by a knock at her door. (AJ knocks on the podium for effect.) It's one of Spector's bodyguards telling her that Spector wants to see her in his room. Stephanie is adamant; she is tired, she wants to go to sleep. She tells the individual she will see Spector in the morning.

A few minutes later there is another knock at her door (AJ knocks on the podium again) and it's Spector. When she opens the door he has a gun with him that he points at her face. "You're not going anywhere!" Spector tells her. Spector takes a chair and sets it in front of the door, preventing Stephanie from leaving. AJ also describes the altercation Stephanie and Spector had in the bathroom where she ends up shoving him and he falls into the bathtub. While Spector is still in the room, Stephanie is able to call 911.

To be continued.....

Phil Spector Pretrial Hearing August 14th, 2008, Kazuhoshi Miura, Cameron Brown and Dominick Dunne

With so much going on in the Sprocket household these days, I decided to drive into downtown LA for Spector's pretrial hearing so I could get back home, faster. I was hoping that I might run into Dr. C. Carroll Adams for an update on what's happening in the Cameron Brown case and as luck would have it, Dr. Adams was in the hallway on the 9th floor, waiting for Judge Pastor's courtroom to open at 1:30. He is currently watching a retrial of a case he first started watching at the end of Spector 1. He could not talk about it above a whisper at all (I barely heard what he said), since jurors from that trial were in the hallway all around us.

Dr. Adams mentioned that Spector's defense team was at the courthouse yesterday, appearing before Judge Perry in Dept 104. This had to do with the double jeopardy issue and the motion for an "indefinite stay" in Spector's trial that the Associated Press reported on yesterday.

We talked a bit about this motion for an indefinite stay filed by Spector's defense team. I will explain it a bit here since I've received a few emails and comments on the blog about the "double jeopardy" motion filed by the defense and people are confused about it. First, you need to read the defense's motion , titled "DEFENDANT'S NOTICE OF MOTION IN LIMINE, BASED ON PLEA OF ONCE IN JEOPARDY, FOR ORDER PRECLUDING THE PROSECUTION FROM DISCUSSING IN ITS OPENING STATEMENT, INTRODUCING EVIDENCE OF, MAKING CLOSING ARGUMENTS ON, OR SEEKING INSTRUCTIONS ON ANY LESSER INCLUDED OFFENSE OF THE CHARGED CRIMES OF SECOND DEGREE MURDER." It's available on the LA County Court's website, here. After that, I recommend reading the prosecution's response to that motion here, on T&T. I did not copy the entire document and the Court's website has not yet uploaded a copy of the document.

At the end of Spector 1, once both parties rested and the jury instructions were hammered out. (Do you remember that torturous process?) At that time, the Court ruled that since no party presented a theory that would support a lesser included charge (manslaughter or involuntary manslaughter), then the jury would not receive any instruction to consider lesser included. They were only given the option of second degree murder or not guilty. The defense is now trying to say that since the Court instructed that in the first trial, that amounts to an "acquittal" of a lesser charge of manslaughter or involuntary manslaughter. Consequently, because of that ruling, the prosecution should be prohibited from being able to present any arguments for lesser included charges in their case in the retrial, because if they did, that would be "double jeopardy" for those lesser charges.

On July 29th, the motions mentioned above were argued before Judge Fidler. At that hearing, Fidler stated that he would not rule on the defense motion at this time because it's too early. The Court does not know what the evidence will show. He would not make a ruling. There is no decision on this yet because the trial evidence has not been presented to a jury. However, the defense went before another judge requesting an "indefinite stay" so they will have ample time to "appeal" this issue. The problem is, there is no ruling to appeal. Fidler hasn't ruled on their initial motion. My thoughts are (and one reporter I spoke to agreed with me) that this stay will fail because how can one appeal a nonexistent ruling? Here is what I think is happening: Spector is trying to delay the trial by any means possible and Riordan and Weinberg are just following Spector's marching orders. If Riordan is half the appellate attorney he thinks he is, he knows this latest stunt will not fly.

The Cameron Brown case, Dr. Adams tells me that the trial has been delayed until sometime in early October. He did not have an exact date for me in his notes. Geragos is off the case and Pat Harris has officially taken over as lead counsel. According to Dr. Adams, apparently, Geragos has not been paid and that appears to be the main reason he's no longer representing Brown. The next pretrial hearing in that case is scheduled for September 5th, and the count reset to 0-45 from that date. From what Dr. Adams told me, Harris is currently in trial on another case and that is delaying the Brown case. At the last hearing it was agreed by both parties and the Court that Harris doesn't have to appear on September 5th; someone can stand up for him. I won't be attending that hearing but thought I would report on the new dates for those who are interested.

While I'm talking to Dr. Adams, Allan Parachini arrived and so did the AP reporter and another reporter whom I don't know. They are chatting away about the Miura hearing tomorrow in Torrance. Almost at the same time, Ciaran shows up as well as Robin and Sherri. It's about 1:25 pm and Courtroom 106 isn't open yet. There is a cameraman talking to Allan, and for a moment I think he's going to cover the proceeding but then he says his goodbye's to Allan and the other reporter's and takes off. There will be no video coverage or photos of today's rulings. Two distinguished gentlemen arrive and stand near the end of the hall. I get the feeling they are from the DA's office because they are not carrying briefcases but I don't know for sure.

Weinberg arrives without Riordan. Spector has waived his right to appear which means Rachelle Short, the trial bride has missed another photo op. Weinberg comes up and shakes hands with the AP reporter and says hello to the group of reporters. A few minutes later the prosecution team arrives. It's Alan Jackson, Truc Do, Ric Ocampo and a few others I don't recognize. The team greets the reporters and walk past them to shake hands with the gentlemen who arrived earlier and are standing a bit behind the press. I didn't see Sandi Gibbons walk up but she's here. The courtroom is finally opened and everyone slowly files in. Once inside the courtroom a familiar face who was at the prosecution table operating the Elmo shows up and says hello to everyone. She takes a seat on the "defense" side of the room. If I'm recalling correctly, I believe her name is Sudi.

The man I don't recognize with the prosecution team sits directly in front of me beside Ric Ocampo. I'm in the second row, about two seats in, leaving plenty of room for the AP reporter who likes to sit on the end of that row. The reporter is right there ready to sit down and I think I mention to Sherri or Robin that this is where the AP reporter likes to sit. she smiles and I tell her, "That is your reserved seat." Sherri and Robin sit in the row behind me. The AP reporter is kind enough to update me on Dominick Dunne. I knew that the surgery was cancelled but I didn't know that the book he is currently working on is his memoirs. I thought he was still working on finishing his last Bailey book. The AP reporter said that he went to the Dominican Republic for stem cell treatments. While he was there, a big party was thrown for him. He may go back and get another round of treatments there. That's just like Dominick to have a great time in the midst of his health issues. I said to the reporter, "Dominick has so much to offer the world. It would be so sad if he's not with us much longer." Please go to Dominick's Diary page, and leave him some positive thoughts towards a swift recovery. You could also send him a card, care of Vanity Fair and it will get to him.

Jackson and Truc Do are at the prosecution table, and Jackson is speaking to the reporter I don't know, who is sitting beside Ciaran. Jackson and the reporter exchange a few words about the Miura hearing in Torrance tomorrow, where Jackson will be presenting arguments to continue the extradition of Miura to the US. Jackson then looks over at me and asks how I'm doing. I don't hear his question clearly, and I think he's asking about Mr. Sprocket (but I realize how could he know about his injured arm) and then I think I hear the words carpal tunnel. I don't know why but I'm embarrassed. He's asking about my writing at the keyboard. I'm a little befuddled because I'm now wondering if he is referring to all my typing of recreating the prosecution's motions for the blog, but I'm also wondering if he was referring to the fact that I don't have my laptop with me. I smile and say I'm fine.

As I look around the courtroom, I see Pat Dixon in the third row, way off to my left. He's busy studying a small section of newspaper. Jackson, Truc and Weinberg all go into Judge Fidler's chambers and are there for a few minutes and after they exit, court is called into session.

Fidler states that since the people have presented two motions they should go first. Jackson starts off by mentioning something about a filing that the defense made that ". . . purports to be a declaration, but it's not a declaration. It doesn't establish any evidence or facts...but it does state argument...." Since I don't know what document he is referring to, I'm immediately lost. I then regain my footing just a tad. It has something to do with the defense making a statement, something to the effect of, the Court has ruled the PBA witnesses could not testify. That didn't make any sense because they were admitted, but maybe the defense motion is about the one's who were excluded. I'm lost again.

Jackson then moves on to present the argument of his motion to admit all 12 PBA's, and his argument is the Doctrine of Chances and the Doctrine of Corroboration.

AJ: "1101(b) doesn't require that level of recipe, that all 1101(b)'s are on a date . . . the defense said this is not consistent because it's not similar enough . . . they are relying on a civil case, Bowen, and not a criminal law case." Jackson explains the case, and says that the Court ruled correctly in that case to exclude all eight PBA's. "(In this case here) . . . in every one of our incidents, the exact same weapon was used . . . that distinguishes our case from Bowen . . . a single common marker . . . and in our case. . ."

Weinberg then stands up to interrupt Jackson. He's objecting to Jackson's motion. He's upset that Jackson is arguing a motion that they did not have time to respond to. That in the last hearing, time lines were agreed upon as to when motions would be filed. The prosecution was supposed to file by August 8th, and they filed this motion they are arguing on August 11th. And, the prosecution has not responded to their motions about the PBA's or Kemper. It's Weinber's understanding that this was all agreed to in the last hearing. You can tell he's quite perturbed that the prosecution has not followed the agreed upon filing dates, and has not made any formal response to their motions.

Weinberg is upset about the prosecution's latest motion to admit the PBA's under a new theory, the Doctrine of Chances and the Doctrine of Corroboration. . . these are totally contrary to what where the Court ruled in the first trial, that the PBA's needed to be linked by motive. "What the Court said is motive. The Curt identified that as the basis . . . no way that this evidence flies as motive . . . they are trying to do exactly what you told them not to do.

Jackson steps away from the podium and sits down. Weinberg continues: "There's no response (from the prosecution) to the "motive" motion (they filed) . . . Riordan is not here today to brief it, and there are no motions in reply."

Judge Fidler then says, "This is a new trial. I'm not bound by any of that. I'm not bound by anything in the first trial." He goes onto explain that we are starting fresh here. If a new argument is presented, a new theory for admitting evidence, he's obligated to consider it.

Out of the corner of my eye I see Dixon motioning Ocampo in the first row to come over to where he is sitting.

Jackson gets up and explains to the Court that, "We didn't respond because our thought is, we didn't think it was necessary. We thought it was ridiculous. We felt we didn't need to (respond)."

Jackson goes onto explain that these arguments are all interconnected. We don't concede motive. We don't concede Kemper. We are seeking 12 witnesses.

Unfortunately it's not clear in my notes but I believe this next part is Weinberg speaking.

"They presented the Doctrine of Chances; the Doctrine of Corroboration . . . under that theory . . . our motion was to exclude this evidence on motive . . . our motive is that there simply is a misconstruction of motive of 1101(b). . . with Kemper . . . that was presented as a common scheme or plan, not motive."

Jackson leans over and whispers to Truc as Weinberg is speaking.

Weinberg goes onto say, "There are so many things wrong here. . . In order to add Kemper, they are suddenly changing their scheme . . ."

Jackson stands up and says, "Mr. Weinberg says he's not prepared . . . not prepared to argue Kemper. . . and then he argues Kemper . . . we could have saved several pages of Diane's transcription (the court reporter) . . . and the court's time . . ."

Judge Fidler finally says something to the effect of, that all these arguments should be addressed at one time and not in piecemeal. All parties agree to that and a new trial date is set for September 15th at 1:30 pm. The admissibility of Dr. Pena as a witness is brought up and whether or not that will be argued then but I believe the Court indicated that this would be held over until October 2-3, or right before trial starts.

And that's it. Court is over. The reporters are commenting a bit that there is no headline today. The AP reporter says that in a few days (I think next week) she's going to Vegas to cover the OJ trial, so she may or may not be here for the start of Spector. As we all slowly head toward the elevators, Weinberg answers a few questions off the record. As we wait for the elevator, I ask Mr. Weinberg if he is flying home this evening. Sherri, Robin and I ride the elevator down with him. He is polite to Sherri and Robin, asking who they are, what is their interest in the trial and making a correct guess that they are not here, "for" Spector. I had the devilish urge to introduce myself as, "the woman your client tried to get permanently removed from the courtroom in the first trial," but I censored myself and didn't say anything.

On the way back to the parking lot I gave donchais a call and tried to explain what happened today; basically nothing. I think both sides came to the hearing unprepared, but for different reasons. I have to say, it didn't appear to be a very good excuse that Jackson gave for not having filed any responses to Weinberg's motions. From what transpired, it looks like the prosecution is presenting an entirely different theory for Spector 2, as to why all the 12 1101(b) witnesses should be admitted into evidence. Whether Fidler will be swayed by their new arguments remains to be seen on September 15th.

December 7th, Pre-trial hearing, Phil Spector

Update 3!
I'm here on the 9th floor with Dr. Adams. There is no one that I can see from the Spector trial, although Judge Fidler's clerk, Wendy just arrived. Hopefully the courtroom will be opened soon. Dr. Adams is still watching that dual jury trial in 107. The two juries are in deliberations, yet there is another case with the same judge that is starting jury selection for another trial. One of the juries is using courtroom 104's jury room for their deliberations. Dr. Adams just ran off since his courtroom opened just as I wrote this.

I'm having trouble keeping connected to the net in the hallway. When I tell Dr. Adams that before he took off, he tells me that all the CourtTV personnel, anyone on a laptop in the back row during trial number one had the same problem.

The hallway is somewhat empty. They're are people on benches, but it is no where full. I think one of the court reporters just went into 106. It's a face I've not seen before.

I just got kicked from the net again, but it could be because I was looking at the phone, and just jiggled the wire a bit. It's a waiting game now, to be let into 106.

Although I promised myself I would try to learn to use the built in keypad for my macBook, I procrastinated. So, I'm cheating. I've got my Logitech wireless mouse on the bench beside me, and I'm using that.

There is a mix of people in the hallway. Court employees, attorneys, and those waiting for trials that must still be in deliberations.

And y'all will just have to bear with me and my terrible spelling. I probably won't have time to spell check everything before I post it.

There was this one attorney in the hallway, but it appears that he's waiting for 108 to get started. I've seen his face before, but I don't know his name.

There's is quite a bit of chatter from the people in the hallway. Some are reading books while others are catching a last minute bit of breakfast. The hallway is getting busier, but no familiar faces other than Wendy, the clerk, who already arrived.

A reporter, a woman I've seen before has shown up.

A juror on another trial comes by and thinks I'm working. "That's a good idea." I explain that I'm a blogger, writing about the Spector trial. He wants to know how I'm connected, and I tell him my husband figured everything out, using our cell phone to "tether" to the net. The juror, Larry, and I talk about the Spector trial for a bit. But it looks like he might have to go into a courtroom soon.

I'm inside the courtroom!

The female reporter is arranging with the bailiff to set up sound for the hearing. She's from radio. I just got the courage to ask her which station she's from. It's KNX.

There are a total of five people in the gallery. (That includes me.) Wendy is talking to some one who is at her desk. The bailiff is at her station.

Another trial watcher enters, a young man in jeans, tennis shoes and carrying a red notebook. I've never seen him before, and he sits on the plastic chairs against the back wall near the door. I'm hoping my battery holds out for the next hour. I can see that from now on, even in the hallway, I'm gong to have to hook up the Mac to an outlet. During Spector I, power was provided for those on laptops. Now there is an outlet, or what looks like an outlet from here, all the way in the far left corner, right where the still photographer would set up, and behind where the CTV video control operators would sit at their little console station. I'm going to go check it out.

Darn! The problem with tethering the phone is, any movement with the phone wire can cause it to disconnect, but yes, if I have to, I could move down there and use the outlet.

Ah, the guy with the notebook appears to be an undercover detective. He's talking to other people in the courtroom, and it's clear from the conversation. It's most likely they are here to get documents signed by Judge Fidler, but I won't know until I actually see the Judge.

The bailiff leaves to get a defendant. Wendy just asked her to go get someone. Maybe the black man at Wendy's bench is the individuals attorney. Yep. I just heard him say, "I wanted to get on that case."

There's Judge Fidler.

He's signing documents for three gentlemen who have been waiting. Two of the gentlemen leave. The one who appears to be an attorney is still here.

The defendant comes in. His attorney is a woman, and the man who stayed behind must be the prosecutor.

The woman reporter from radio, leaves and tells me that the hearing is at ten am. Now it's coming back to me. I do remember meeting her at Spector 1, but for the life of my fading brain, I can not remember her first name, and I'm too embarrassed/shy to ask. But she addressed me by my first name, so she remembers my first name like a good reporter would.

Court is in session for another case. Defense attorney is asking to put the matter over for Feb. 1st. They are still hammering out charges. Everything is agreed to, and the defendant in his blue jail uniform, is taken back.

Alan Parachini, head of the court's public relations office comes in, and the KNX reporter tries to arrange with him to get the audio sound set up. Alan looks good. His hair is a bit shorter. I'm not sure if she got that approved or not, but I think so. They chat a bit, but I'm not really following the conversation.

The courtroom is very quiet. Probably no one will show until about 20 minutes from now, if they are on time. Alan left, the reporter is here with someone (another staffer?), and they talk. It's just the three of us in the gallery. I ask the reporter if they will have sound, and she tells me that Channel 5 will be filming, so they will take sound off of them. Understand, Ch. 5 will not be live. They will have to wait to take the film back to a truck or studio before they can put it on the net.

The court reporter is all set up (She handled the 30 second hearing earlier.) and Wendy and her chat a bit.

The Spector's and two bodyguards just walked in. Steven, Mikulan from the LA Weekly, who just arrived and sat down beside me, said they had to use the public metal detectors today. The place they used to go to was locked. (The private service elevators.)

Rachelle and Spector are sitting in the front row, Rachelle has her arm around Spector. She's wearing what looks like from here, a suede tan colored suit. Here hair is pulled back into a ponytail, and she has these little childlike tiny flower clips in her hair.

Damn. What happened to my last entry?

Doron Weinberg shows up. Rachelle gets up and gives him a hug and a big smile, Spector smiles, and they exit the courtroom. Alan Parachini is in the back row, texting on his blackberry, and Ciaran McEvoy from City News sets up. Steven suggests I plug into the wired box in the back corner, but I tell him I better ask first.

The Spector's and bodyguards reenter the courtroom. Doron goes up to speak to Wendy. The Spector's are back in the front row, sitting next to the wall. One of Alan's staff enters, a cute young woman I remember from Spector 1. I wish I could remember all their names. Doron hands Alan Parachini his business card, and leaves the courtroom. This all looks good towards a deal being inked. Let's hope so!

Another reporter entered earlier and is sitting in row 2 behind the KNX reporter. They are all chatting it up, and then the KNX reporter asks me if I remember "Circus of the Stars." And, it's vague, but I barely remember a show like that.

The family, their counsel, Alan Jackson, Pat Dixon, and Ric Ocampo (sp? do I have that name right?) all arrive. The attorney's greet Mr. Weinberg, and Rick is chatting with him still standing in the aisle.

I catch Mr. Jackson's eye, and he waves to me. Linda Deutsch arrived with the big group, and another reporter just arrived with Sandi Gibbons. Sandi and Linda Deutsch chat a bit, and Alan Jackson is talking to Ciaran and Steven.

KTLA (Channel 5) has NOT shown up, so KNX is trying to quickly set up their microphone. I notice Rachelle is wearing some gold hoop earrings that look like they might be about 1.5 inches across.

Rod Lindblom, one of the family attorney's looks back, catches my eye, smiles and waves.

There is a bit of chatter. The reporters are trying to set up a microphone at the judge's desk. Mr. Weinberg paces. Jackson and Mr. Taylor are chatting.

The bailiff announces: "Cell phones off please!" The attorney's stand. Spector is at the table.

The Judge takes the bench.

Weinberg says he is prepared to be accepted at his attorney.

He is the soul counsel for the defense at this time. Chris Plourd is in San Diego and is unavailable since he in another trial after the one he currently in now.

35,000 pages, including trial transcript. Weinberg is giving a list of things he has to go over.

In order for me to get to the level of knowledge about the trial and the .... he needs about five months. And then, more time after that. Plourd isn't free until September anyway.

The Judge asks to hear from the people. Jackson and Dixon confer.

Dixon says they want something as soon as possible. I would ask at this time not to set (a date of) September, and come back in February, to see where we are.

Weinberg responds, referring to Plourd's schedule. "He is in trial right now." Mentions the trial/defendant. He won't be done with that, until March 12. And then, another trial after that. Brown and the one he is in now will keep him tied up until the earliest, August/September.

Judge Fidler speaks. "I think I have a resolution that will solve it for everybody. Set it as the beginning in July, up to mid August."

Just depends on Mr. Plourds trials.

Weinberg asks not to do that. Plourd won't be ready until at least July, most likely August.

Now Weinberg mentions a family vacation that he always takes in August, 2 weeks, and goes on about his boys being at an age where, this is the last time they he will probably be able to vacation with them.

Judge Fidler responds, "We will come back in May, and see what your needs are."

Alan speaks. He has a request. They may be looking at other experts. "I don't want to wait until May to know about other experts." Waiting until May is okay as far as checking where we are.

Doron is still stalling about that.

Judge says, "discovery compliance date." Doron says a date in March. Alan looks at calender. Alan leans over the gallery wall and asks John Taylor about March and he says okay.

Judge just needs the "zero of 60" date for legal purposes. Thursday March 22nd, is the next trial date time. 9:00 am. That's just a check in date.

And that's it.
The judge leaves the bench.

Then Doron asks the judge back, and asks about the Spector's gag order from first trial.

Doron asks if they can be relieved at the gag order.

Fidler responds. Any potential witness, anyone acting on their behalf, at this time he is going to keep the gag order in place.

Judge says, everyone else can, but he doesn't believe the participants should. Keep that order in effect.

How does the Judge want to schedule motions? The Judge replies, to get with the DA, work something out, and then schedule it with the clerk.

And that's it for sure. Everyone slowly mills out of the courtroom, chatting with those they know and exchanging pleasantries, talking about other cases. Etc.

The Spectors finally leave the courtroom with their attorneys.

Hopefully, I'll have more later.

The bailiffs say they are going to take the Spector's down using the service elevator.

Updated! 12:15 pm
It appears I have my dates totally off. I missed it totally when they said Friday, March 7th, for the next pretrial hearing, and it's Thursday, May 22nd, for the next "zero-sixty" countdown. The time I believe for the first hearing would be 10:00 am and in May, it would be 9:00 am.

Outside the courtroom, I met two very nice ladies, Sherri and Robin, trial watchers just like me, who saw my Market Tote and asked me, "Are you Sprocket?" Yep, that's me! We talked about the first trial a bit, and they both said that they are going to attend the second trial. Robin and Sherri said that originally, they were going to fly up to San Francisco for the Barry Bonds hearing, but they couldn't get a flight. Another thing one of them asked (I'm sorry I can't remember which one) was, "Does he always look like that?" And I ask, "You mean like, Medicated? Yep. That's how he always is." I'm looking forward to seeing both of them at the next pretrial hearing. It will be nice to have some other trial watchers to discuss the case with and hopefully have lunch with.

On my drive home, I finally remembered the KNX reporter's name. Claudia! I hope I don't forget it again.

Update: 1:35 pm
I know that Alan Jackson leaned into John Taylor and appeared to be asking him about a check in date for the next pretrial hearing sometime in March. And I thought at first, I heard March 7th, then the date "Thursday, the 22nd was passed around, after Wendy said "the 23rd, they were dark."

Linda Deutsch of the AP has a report up, but it doesn't mention a date in March. It just mentions the May 22nd date. I've sent out a few emails, asking friends in the courtroom for clarification on the next pretrial hearing date.

Update: 2:05 pm
Thank you so much Sandi Gibbons! There are two dates. March 7th and May 22nd. Both hearings are at 9:00 am. The first date is being called a "discovery compliance hearing," but will probably be more of a status hearing, to see how far the defense is, in going through all the material from trial #1. The May 22nd date is a trial date, but it is not a "firm" trial date. It will also function as a status hearing, to see how much longer the defense will need to get ready, and what is happening with Plourd's two cases, one in Imperial County and one in San Diego County. Those two cases will be the ones to watch, to see how far they get and if they have any set backs.