This website uses cookies so that we can provide you with the best user experience possible. Cookie information is stored in your browser and performs functions such as recognising you when you return to our website and helping our team to understand which sections of the website you find most interesting and useful.
Artist News Legal Top Stories
And that’s the case for the prosecution: Spector trial update
By CMU Editorial | Published on Friday 23 January 2009
Oh yes, the Phil Spector trial, what’s going on there then? We all got very bored of that quickly didn’t we? Not like the first time round where the media glare was on full capacity throughout.
Though me thinks the media glare quickly looked elsewhere when it became apparent that this trial was going to be almost identical to the first, or at least certainly while the prosecution were in control.
I think I promised you a little update late last year and did start writing one, but every day seemed to be “oh, here’s so and so taking the stand again and saying the same as what they said last time blah blah”, and I quickly got bored of writing it.
True, Spector’s new defence lawyer Doron Weinberg is worth his no doubt exorbitant fee in mere entertainment value; he’s been giving some of the prosecution’s witnesses a real hard time these last couple of months. But, as far as I’m aware, there have been few revelations that we hadn’t previously seen in SpectorTrial.1.0.
As much much previously reported, legendary producer Spector is accused of shooting dead former actress Lana Clarkson at his Beverly Hills home in February 2003. He claims she shot herself.
When it first went to court in 2007 the jury reached a 10-2 deadlock after assessing a plethora of evidence from both sides, and as a result Judge Larry Paul Fidler declared a mistrial.
The prosecution quickly let it be known they would have a second go at getting a conviction, but Spector’s defence team from Trial.1.0 didn’t want to have a second go at stopping them, so the second trial was much delayed while the producer appointed Weinberg, and he familiarised himself with the case.
As I say, the prosecution’s new case against Spector has centred on the three main elements that appeared in the first trial. First, a string of former Spector girlfriends recalled how, in dark drunk moments, the normally charming producer can turn nasty and often threaten women with guns – the implication, it was only a matter of time until one of those gun-toting loony moments turned to tragedy.
Second, there’s the producer’s former driver who claims Spector said “I think I killed somebody” just minutes after Clarkson had been shot. And third, there’s the forensic evidence, mainly relating to blood splatters at the crime scene, and nasty things like that, which, the prosecution’s experts swear, prove Clarkson could not have shot herself.
With a new legal team in place on the defence’s side, it’s not yet clear whether the second half of the trial will be so similar to the first. The defence, of course, will want to argue that just because Spector can be foul mouthed and bit sinister, it doesn’t mean he’s a murderer.
They’ll wheel out their own forensic experts who’ll say the blood splatters show Clarkson did kill herself. And they’ll probably revisit all the evidence that suggests Clarkson was deeply depressed prior to her death, and therefore could have realistically contemplated suicide.
It was presumably to combat those latter claims on the defence’s side that the prosecution ended their presentation to court this time round by questioning Clarkson’s mother Donna, who talked about their last day together, the day before she died. Clarkson senior says her daughter was talking about plans to return to acting – optimistic chatter that could, presumably, contradict other claims that Lana Clarkson was in a suicidal frame of mind.
Weinberg says the case for the defence, which will begin on Monday, should be done within three weeks. This part of the trial could garner more media interest, given there’s a new man leading the proceedings. And especially if Judge Fidler allows Weinberg to take the jury to the scene of the crime, Spector’s home, which he has requested to do so.
Arguably neither side presented particularly compelling cases in the first trial, which may be why the jury couldn’t reach a unanimous decision. Though with reports that the majority vote in the jury room was towards guilty, the onus is on the defence to present the clearest case this time round.
Spector’s defence case in the first trial wasn’t brilliant, mainly because lead attorney Bruce Cutler seemed to lose interest half way through (and eventually left the defence team), and then there was the whole distraction over allegations the producer’s original legal reps had removed evidence from the crime scene, allegations that led to one of the defence’s star witnesses, celebrity forensics expert Henry Lee, not testifying.
Weinberg, who has led the case single handedly so far, is seen as a stronger attorney for Spector, though it remains to be seen how his sometimes excessively confrontational style with witnesses plays with the jury. He’ll take centre stage on Monday.
