So, what exactly must be implied in order to constitute "implied malice" (or "implied intent") in order to secure a murder conviction? I'll be honest with you, I've never really got my head around that question, though I did dedicate most of my thinking time on the issue while pulling an all night revision session ahead of my first year criminal law exam, which probably wasn't the time to be considering such academic legal debates. If only I had spent a bit more time getting to the bottom of it all I might be a better position to comment on yesterday at the ongoing Phil Spector murder trial.
The "implied malice" thing was up for debate because the defence put forward a motion to have the murder charge against their client quashed - either altogether or to be replaced by a manslaughter charge. That motion was made this late in the day because it is traditional for the defence to put forward such motions at the end of the prosecution's case. Although the defence have been giving their case for three weeks now, the prosecution only actually formally concluded their case on Monday, hence the quash motion yesterday.
The issue for the defence is this: the prosecution's case centres in the main on Spector's tendency to point guns at women and whether or not he was close enough to be holding the gun that killed actress Lana Clarkson at his Beverley Hills home in 2003. They didn't seem to provide any evidence that the legendary producer wanted or intended to kill Clarkson, even in the heat of the moment, but rather that it was quite likely that Spector ended up in a situation where he could have accidentally pulled the trigger. Therefore, the defence argues, even if you believe Spector did pull the trigger - which, of course, the defence don't (they say Clarkson shot herself) - you can't prove any intent to kill. No intent, no murder - you could only convict for manslaughter. It was on those grounds they called for the murder charge to be dropped.
But prosecution lawyer Alan Jackson disagreed, bringing up this tricky concept of 'implied intent/malice'. He told the court: "He had the gun in his home, loaded with his bullets. Whether he pulled the trigger, whether he sneezed or she slapped his hand away or there was an earthquake - it doesn't matter. It's implied malice". Recalling the women who testified for the prosecution that Spector had, at one time or another, pointed a gun at them and threatened to kill them, he added: "He finally made good on his promise".
Judge Larry Fidler sided with the prosecution on this one, telling the court: "I've listened very intently to all the witnesses that have been presented during the people's case in chief. It's very clear to me ... that there's more than enough substantial evidence to support a conviction if there was one".
The case continues.