After over four months of testimony, 28 hours of deliberation and eight billion column inches of coverage, the jury in the much previously reported Phil Spector murder trail said yesterday, "erm, well, yeah, we find the defendant, hmm, well, we don't really know".
Yes, the jury are split seven to five on whether or not, on the 3 Feb 2003, the legendary producer pointed his gun into the mouth of former actress Lana Clarkson, pulled the trigger in some kind of drink fuelled and not entirely uncharacteristic moment of loopiness, killing her dead. Or whether, as Spector and his defence team claim, a hugely depressed Clarkson went back to Spector's Beverly Hills mansion, slipped his gun into her own mouth, and committed suicide.
The foreman for the jury told the court room yesterday that he and his colleagues had failed to reach a unanimous decision on the case, adding that, with the evidence currently available, he couldn't see that position changing anytime soon. He said: "At this time I do not believe anything else can change the position of the jurors based on the facts in evidence". At Judge Larry Paul Fidler's request the foreman did not disclose what conclusion had been reached by the seven jurors, and what conclusion had been reached by the five.
Fidler must now decide what to tell the jury to do. He has admitted that he may ask them to consider the charge of manslaughter rather than the current charge of second degree murder. That would amount to a u-turn by the judge, who previously said a manslaughter conviction was not an option, a ruling supported by the prosecution and defence. If found guilty of manslaughter Spector would face two to four years in jail, with maybe additional years for fire arms offences, but certainly not the jail term he faces if found guilty of murder, which would basically see him in prison for the rest of his life.
Neither prosecution nor defence have commented on the jury deadlock. The defence would probably prefer for the deadlock to continue rather than for other charges to be considered. Ultimately the deadlock would result in a mistrial which would force the prosecution to decide whether they want to go through the hassle and expense of pursuing the case for a second time, or try to reach a plea bargain with the accused, or just drop the case completely. That situation could well go in the defence's favour.
Certainly the LA Times yesterday declared that the deadlock was bad news for the prosecution because it ultimately meant there was significant doubt in the jury room regarding their case against Spector, which prosecutors hoped was pretty clear cut. The Times quotes USC law professor, Jean Rosenbluth, as saying the latest developments would be "a huge, devastating surprise to the prosecution".