Well, we knew it was going to be entertaining, but even I didn't think it was going to be this entertaining. Judge Larry Paul Fidler has thrown a former attorney of Phil Spector's in jail for refusing to testify against him. Well, I say he's thrown her in jail, he's giving her a week to appeal the ruling before she actually gets chucked into the slammer, but nevertheless, the whole trial is taking on a whole new dimension over and above all the lurid tales of Spector's loony moments with guns and the grim circumstances in which the body of former actress Lana Clarkson was found slumped over a blood splattered chair at the legendary producer's Beverly Hills castle in February 2003. And the new dimension is more constitutional than homicidal.
As previously reported, Sara Caplan, a former member of Spector's defence team, came to attention following allegations by the prosecution that a forensics expert hired by the defence - the already pretty prominent Henry Lee - had removed what might have been a vital piece of evidence from the crime scene shortly after police officers had finished their search of Spector's home. There was some confusion as to what was found by whom and when, and Spector's new defence team and Lee both denied any such evidence ever existed, but in a private hearing sans-jury the prosecution presented two of Spector's former defence team whose testimonies seemed to back their claims.
One of those former defence attorneys was Caplan, who claimed she had seen Lee pick up a small white object from the floor of the room where Clarkson was shot and put it into a vial. The prosecution reckon that small white object may have been a missing bit of fingernail which may, or may not, had it ever existed, have provided forensic evidence that there had been a struggle between Spector and Clarkson before she was shot. Had the fingernail existed, and had it been used to suggest a struggle, then that would favour the prosecution's claims that Spector shot Clarkson rather than his claims that the actress shot herself.
But, despite earlier recalling the small white object incident in court, and being deemed a "completely credible witness" by Fidler, Caplan has subsequently backtracked somewhat, claiming the prosecution have twisted her words. More importantly she has refused to make any more statements about the defence's crime scene investigations, especially in front of the jury, because, she claims, to do so would violate the client attorney confidentiality privilege.
Fidler has said from the word go that he doesn't buy the client attorney privilege claims and that he would hold Caplan as being in contempt of court if she refused to testify. To be fair, he put off making a ruling for as long as possible, seemingly hoping a deal could be reached outside the court room that would see both sides in the case agreeing to not actually call Caplan, thus saving her the constitutional trauma of having to testify about her former client's legal affairs. But the prosecution wouldn't play ball, and so the whole dispute went back into court yesterday, again sans-jury. Again a tearful Caplan refused to testify, again citing attorney-client privilege and constitutional reasons, and again Fidler ruled said privilege and reasons were not sufficient to refuse.
He told the court: "I can admire what she's doing and what she's going through. I cannot allow it and I cannot find it to be an adequate explanation or a basis for a refusal to testify". Caplan was held in contempt and will go to jail on Friday unless she can successfully appeal the ruling in the meantime, or if she finally agrees to testify. Fidler's ruling had two elements to it. His ruling that client attorney privilege could not be used as grounds for not testifying in this case will no doubt be of much debate in American legal and constitutional circles, though he strengthened the grounds for his ruling somewhat by adding that Caplan had already discussed the Spector defence's investigations at two previous court hearings so that, even if Caplan had previously benefited from the privilege, she had waived it as soon as she voluntarily discussed the case in court.
Prosecutor Alan Jackson told reporters yesterday that he thought he might now be able to use Caplan's previous testimony, given in a private hearing, in front of the jury, assuming Caplan loses her appeal, because she will then be in jail and will be declared "unavailable to testify" in person. If that's the case then Caplan would probably be better off testifying in person anyway. Which all means it will be interesting to see what decisions the former defence lawyer makes this week.
Which is all rather interesting, though arguably all this constitutional wrangling over what might be a non-existence or insignificant piece of evidence is possibly getting in the way of the real issue at hand. Which is, erm... actually I don't' remember. Was someone shot? Something like that. I seem to remember a wall of sound being involved somewhere along the lines also.
The case continues.