So, more time was dedicated yesterday to the issue of that there Sara Caplan, who, as previously reported, is nervous about testifying against her former client, Mr Phil Spector, despite recently, erm, testifying against her former client, Mr Phil Spector.
As previously reported, Sara Caplan was part of Phil Spector's original defence team immediately after he was accused of murdering actress Lana Clarkson at his Beverly Hills home in 2003. It was she that accused one of the defence's forensic experts, Henry Lee, of finding and removing a white fragment while he was investigating the scene shortly after the shooting that killed Clarkson. The prosecution say that that fragment was probably a missing bit of fingernail that could be crucial in determining whether or not there was some kind of struggle between Spector and Clarkson before she was shot. Lee, however, denies any such fragment ever existed.
Caplan formally made her allegations against Lee in a private hearing sans-jury earlier in the trial, and the judge hearing the case, Judge Larry Paul Fidler, described her as being a "completely credible witness". However, Caplan is now refusing to formally testify re Lee in front on the jury, citing client attorney confidentiality, but Fidler has ruled that she cannot refuse, and is threatening to hold her in contempt of court if she doesn't cooperate.
The whole thing is an issue because the prosecution in the case have said that if the defence call Lee as a witness, which they are expected to do so, they will call Caplan and question her about what she did or didn't see when Lee investigated the crime scene. The defence, of course, have said that their as yet to be fully disclosed forensic evidence will ensure they win the case. Lee's testimony is likely to be key to that forensic evidence so, of course, the prosecution are keen to do whatever they can to damage the forensic expert's credibility in the court room.
Caplan was in court yesterday in a bid to convince Fidler that she shouldn't have to testify should the prosecution call her - though she had an uphill struggle because the judge had already said he didn't buy her client confidentiality claim. Caplan's main line of argument seemed to be that the prosecution were misquoting her earlier testimony. Actually, I've just realized we misquoted her testimony last week, saying she testified that Lee found a piece of tooth, when she only testified that she saw him taking a "white fragment", which the prosecution (though not Caplan) assume was a finger nail (the tooth was another thing entirely). The point Caplan is making is that the prosecution is implying she is backing up their claims that a bit of fingernail was removed from the scene, when all she is testifying to is that some kind of "fragment" was found. She told the court yesterday: "I don't know what I saw. I don't know that it was removed from the premises. I don't remember where it was".
But, despite that, Fidler still seems to think it is important Caplin testify, because Lee is denying taking anything from the crime scene. He said yesterday: "Ms Caplan has clearly testified she observed Dr Lee put something in a vial. It was white, hard, with rough edges. You cannot reconcile Dr Lee's testimony and Ms Caplan's testimony". That said, Fidler put off making a final decision re Caplan until next week, ordering the trail to continue today without mention of the whole fingernail dispute.
And so the case continues.