TVCH FORUMS HOME . JOIN . FAN CLUBS . DONATE . CONTACT . CHAT  
 Wikia  Quick Links   TOPICS . TREE-VIEW . SEARCH . HELP! . NEWS . PROFILE
Archive through September 27, 2007

The TVClubHouse: Other Reality Shows ARCHIVES: Archives for 2007 - 2: Trials of the day - Court TV and others: Archive through September 27, 2007 users admin

Author Message
Maris
Member

03-28-2002

Wednesday, September 19, 2007 - 10:57 am   Edit Post Move Post Delete Post View Post Send Maris a private message Print Post    
Judge in Spector trial will not give instructions on lesser offense of manslaughter.

Carrie92
Member

09-15-2003

Thursday, September 20, 2007 - 8:38 am   Edit Post Move Post Delete Post View Post Send Carrie92 a private message Print Post    
I just can't believe they're hung up. How many more witnesses have to tell them that this guy held a gun to their head?
Did they put Michelle Phillips on the stand, or not? She would have had more clout I would think.

Maris
Member

03-28-2002

Thursday, September 20, 2007 - 8:43 am   Edit Post Move Post Delete Post View Post Send Maris a private message Print Post    
The judge has decided he is going to remove instruction number 3 which is what the jury is hung on. It also looks like the defense and the prosecution get to do new closing arguments.

If Spector is found guilty, sounds like he could win on appeal. I love this judge but he messed up on that instruction especially since the prosecution was against it from day one and the wanted it in. Looks like the Defense made a good call on this.

Maris
Member

03-28-2002

Thursday, September 20, 2007 - 9:19 am   Edit Post Move Post Delete Post View Post Send Maris a private message Print Post    
looks like the defense and prosecution nixxed the idea of re doing the summations. So the judge is just going to instruct the jury and back to deliberations.

Karuuna
Board Administrator

08-31-2000

Thursday, September 20, 2007 - 9:38 am   Edit Post Move Post Delete Post View Post Send Karuuna a private message Print Post    
Maris, what was jury instruction #3?

The man shot her, I have no reasonable doubt. Given his history, how could anyone think anything else?

Maris
Member

03-28-2002

Thursday, September 20, 2007 - 10:00 am   Edit Post Move Post Delete Post View Post Send Maris a private message Print Post    
The instruction reads, in part, "It is the prosecution's contention that the act committed by the defendant that caused the death of Ms. Clarkson was to point a gun at her, which resulted in that gun entering Ms. Clarkson's mouth while in Mr. Spector's hand."

It concludes, "If you do not find that the prosecution has proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant committed that act, you must return a verdict of not guilty."

Spector, 67, maintains Clarkson took her own life, either by accident or suicide.

At the close of testimony in the case, prosecutors agreed to the instruction, which was proposed by the defense, and the judge approved it. But Fidler told lawyers Wednesday that the final sentence of the instruction was in fact legally incorrect.

He said the law requires prosecutors to prove beyond a reasonable doubt only the elements of second-degree murder, not how that murder occurred.

The jurors who raised questions about the instruction indicated a difficulty reconciling it with the evidence.

One female panelist, an administrative assistant, said of Special Instruction 3, "Taking that instruction by itself, that's where some of us have that kind of problem, standing on that alone instead of the total picture."

A male juror, a producer for "Dateline NBC," added that some on the panel "have a question about whether every element of that instruction must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt."

The defense, which had argued strongly against removing the instruction, moved for a mistrial. The request was denied. Dennis Riordan, a defense lawyer, told the judge that, by changing instructions that had formed the basis for at least part of the jury split, Fidler was sending dissenting jurors a message that they were in the wrong.

He said the jurors' discussion in open court of their disagreement made "virtually any direction to go back and consider a case ... coercive."

The jurors have not said whether the majority favors acquittal or conviction.

During a 10-minute discussion with the judge about possible guidance he could offer to break the deadlock, the jurors sounded a serious, but not hostile tone. Seven of the panelists spoke about their discussions. (VIDEO)

In addition to addressing Special Instruction 3, the panelists described other difficulties, including a lack of access to the garments Spector wore the night off the shooting, the difficulty of some jurors to distinguish "reasonable doubt" from any doubt, and differences between jurors about what importance to assign evidence.

"Different jurors give different weighting to the individual facts ... and so that is causing some discussion about whether the totality of one is reasonable to the totality of the others," the foreman said.

link

Karmaholic
Member

08-19-2007

Thursday, September 20, 2007 - 10:05 am   Edit Post Move Post Delete Post View Post Send Karmaholic a private message Print Post    
Here is juror instruction #3:

“As I have instructed you, to be guilty of the crime of which the defendant is accused, second degree murder, the defendant must have committed an act that caused the death of Lana Clarkson. It is the prosecution’s contention that the act committed by the defendant that caused the death of Ms. Clarkson was (to) point a gun at her, which resulted in the gun entering Ms. Clarkson’s mouth while in Mr. Spector’s hand. The prosecution bears the burden of proving that defendant Spector committed that act. If you do not find that the prosecution has proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant committed that act, you must return a verdict of not guilty.”

Karuuna
Board Administrator

08-31-2000

Thursday, September 20, 2007 - 10:16 am   Edit Post Move Post Delete Post View Post Send Karuuna a private message Print Post    
Thanks both of you. That makes sense. But it does seem that while it may result in a guilty verdict, it may also be good grounds for a mistrial. Phooey.

Karmaholic
Member

08-19-2007

Thursday, September 20, 2007 - 10:38 am   Edit Post Move Post Delete Post View Post Send Karmaholic a private message Print Post    
I know Kar, only in California. But the good thing about a mistrial will be that Phil will have to spend another 150 million on the next trial. AND he's running out of high profile lawyers. Poor Philly.

Maris
Member

03-28-2002

Thursday, September 20, 2007 - 11:05 am   Edit Post Move Post Delete Post View Post Send Maris a private message Print Post    
I think we are looking at a second trial. The thing about california -- Those second trials dont work out so well for famous defendants -- Betty Broderick, Menendez brothers and now Phil.

Phil ought to look up Robert Blake's lawyer.

Carrie92
Member

09-15-2003

Thursday, September 20, 2007 - 2:16 pm   Edit Post Move Post Delete Post View Post Send Carrie92 a private message Print Post    
I wonder if some of them are hung up on the very little blood splatter that was on Phil's white jacket. I've only watched bits and pieces, but it seems like everyone was thinking he had to have been standing in front of her when she was shot.
Why couldn't he have been standing to her side? Or maybe she whipped/turned her head to try to get the gun out of her mouth and that's when it went off?

I hope they find him guilty. Hopefully with all the lawyers he's gone through he can't afford an appeal.

Karmaholic
Member

08-19-2007

Thursday, September 20, 2007 - 4:56 pm   Edit Post Move Post Delete Post View Post Send Karmaholic a private message Print Post    
Carrie, his appeal has been in the works for years now, anticipating a conviction. And if the jury hung 11-1, or 10-2, I think we could get a verdict. But they're split almost in half, and I just can't see 5 people, or 7, changing their minds based on the new instructions.

What would do it for me is him walking out of the house with the gun in his hand. IF she committed suicide, did he take it with him so she wouldn't do it again? I'm not saying he pulled the trigger on purpose, but his hands were on the gun when it went off. His hands were dripping blood. And she had big hands -- so if she had her hands over his hands and her mouth, that would explain the lack of spatter. Plus, like the poster said earlier, he didn't have to be standing right in front of her. (I also think that the prosecution's animation was a bomb. Made no sense at all except for DON'T TRY THIS AT HOME factor.

California juries are another problem. I live in CA and I guarantee you that at least 1 out of every 10 people is nuts out here.

I think we should bring back shunning. It worked for the Native Americans, it could work for us. I'm already shunning my husband and we've only been home for an hour.

Maris
Member

03-28-2002

Friday, September 21, 2007 - 7:37 am   Edit Post Move Post Delete Post View Post Send Maris a private message Print Post    
Lol Karmaholic

Of Special Instruction 3 — the one that said jurors had to believe beyond a reasonable doubt the prosecutor’s theory that the gun discharged in Clarkson’s mouth as Spector held it there — Fidler told the jurors, “Treat it as if you had never heard of it.”

In its place, Fidler gives jurors an instruction that does not limit them to one theory. He tells them that to convict Spector, they must determine beyond a reasonable doubt that “the defendant committed an act with a firearm that caused the death of Lana Clarkson.”

He gives examples of possible scenarios: “Placing the gun in her mouth or forcing her to place the gun in her mouth, at which time it discharged; pointing the gun at or against her head, after which it entered her mouth, at which time it discharged; pointing the gun at her to prevent her from leaving the house, causing a struggle, which caused the gun to enter her mouth and discharge.”

But, he cautions jurors, Spector is not guilty if the act they find he committed was merely “drawing or exhibiting a firearm in a rude, angry or threatening manner.”

He then reads jurors a two-page, appellate-court approved exhortation that manages to both beg for a verdict and insist each juror stays true to his or her conscience.

“It is your duty as jurors to deliberate with the goal of arriving at a verdict on the charge if you can do so without violence to your individual judgment,” he tells them.

link

Let's see if they can come up with a verdict on this one.

Karmaholic
Member

08-19-2007

Friday, September 21, 2007 - 10:09 am   Edit Post Move Post Delete Post View Post Send Karmaholic a private message Print Post    
Maris,
If we're confused on this one, you can only imagine what that poor jury is going through. They've been putting up with each other's bad breath, bad moods, nervous tics and other general annoyances for months. And I would imagine they've been shoving imaginary guns in each other's mouths trying to figure out how he did it.

Now they have to go back and try to figure out what to forget? (Note to bailiff: If they ask for Kool-Aid, call 911.)

Maris
Member

03-28-2002

Friday, September 21, 2007 - 12:50 pm   Edit Post Move Post Delete Post View Post Send Maris a private message Print Post    
As a court tv buddy told me, "Fidler might have to grow his hair back to not be recognized and laughed at" after this debacle.

He and Judge Ito can form a support group.

Karmaholic
Member

08-19-2007

Friday, September 21, 2007 - 4:00 pm   Edit Post Move Post Delete Post View Post Send Karmaholic a private message Print Post    
I'm waiting for one of those animations that show the changes in Spector from Day 1 of trial to date. He started off looking like an aging Beach Boy and ended up looking like the director of a funeral home. And all those wig changes! I remember one day when he showed up and it looked like the dog had gotten ahold of it and used it as a chew toy.

But seriously, I'm not holding out much hope for a verdict from this jury. Shame on the defense for pulling a fast one on Judge Fidler re: jury instructions, and shame on Fidler for not catching it. The only verdict that will put an end to all this is an acquital, and that's just unacceptable. If they can't convict, I hope they hang.

Carrie92
Member

09-15-2003

Saturday, September 22, 2007 - 10:00 am   Edit Post Move Post Delete Post View Post Send Carrie92 a private message Print Post    
LOL Karma, what about the day he put his finger in a light socket?
I just hope the jury isn't buying the mousy Oliver Twist look he's had going for a while.

Maris
Member

03-28-2002

Saturday, September 22, 2007 - 5:56 pm   Edit Post Move Post Delete Post View Post Send Maris a private message Print Post    
something to think about?

http://www.tmz.com/2007/09/21/were-just-sayin/

Karmaholic
Member

08-19-2007

Tuesday, September 25, 2007 - 11:24 pm   Edit Post Move Post Delete Post View Post Send Karmaholic a private message Print Post    
Okay, if this jury doesn't come in with a verdict tomorrow, Thursday at the very latest, they are going to hang. Tomorrow is Wednesday, day 12 of deliberations. Poor Harriet Ryan, the Court TV blog reporter is reduced to trying to glean inferences from jurors bringing casseroles to getting new haircuts. It has to be over, for better or worse, by Friday. They can't go through another week of this. Please, God!

I think 3 things are possibly hanging them up:

A: They have the wrong foreman. He's the youngest juror and may not be able to control them.

B: There are a number of jurors who see this as an accident and don't feel comfortable with calling it Murder 2.

C: Fidler has lost control and as a buddy put it -- he's been Ito-ized. He's caught up in the sudden fame and popularity, and made some pretty lame decisions.

Would love to hear what others think.

Karuuna
Board Administrator

08-31-2000

Wednesday, September 26, 2007 - 3:29 pm   Edit Post Move Post Delete Post View Post Send Karuuna a private message Print Post    
Karma, you were correct. Hung jury, 10-2. Judge declares a mistrial.

Lexie_girl
Member

07-30-2004

Wednesday, September 26, 2007 - 4:08 pm   Edit Post Move Post Delete Post View Post Send Lexie_girl a private message Print Post    
Absolutely amazing.

Slightly OT, two years ago I sat on a jury in federal court for a death penalty case. It took us 90 minutes to come back with the death penalty... and that includes the smoke break and the potty break we took while deliberating.


Karmaholic
Member

08-19-2007

Wednesday, September 26, 2007 - 7:20 pm   Edit Post Move Post Delete Post View Post Send Karmaholic a private message Print Post    
Wow, Kar, there's no satisfaction in being right on this one. If the state of CA can't find 12 individuals capable of making an impartial decision when a "celebrity" is on trial, then we need professional jurors. This is ridiculous.

The justice system is obviously on the auction block in Sunni California (intentional typo).

Let's just hope, like Maris said, they will re-try Spector and 2nd trials don't tend to acquit, mainly because the defendants leverage themselves to the hilt on the first trial and have run out of money.

But Spector's pockets are bottomless. His checks rack up at BMI faster than he can cash them.

I take a little comfort in the fact that he'll have to "chelle" out more money on the next trial. And you can bet there will be another trial. The whole world is watching this one -- to some degree or another. A sad and frustrating day for Lady Justice and the Clarkson family and anyone who happens to run into Spector in the future when he "has his drink on."

Karuuna
Board Administrator

08-31-2000

Thursday, September 27, 2007 - 10:15 am   Edit Post Move Post Delete Post View Post Send Karuuna a private message Print Post    
Interestingly enough, it was the foreman who hung the jury. At one point, the jury was 11-1, the foreman was the lone holdout. He eventually convinced one to come back and vote not guilty with him.

It sounds like this foreman wanted his moment in the spotlight to last and last and last....

Karuuna
Board Administrator

08-31-2000

Thursday, September 27, 2007 - 11:36 am   Edit Post Move Post Delete Post View Post Send Karuuna a private message Print Post    
Oh, juror #10 on Court TV now. Ashleigh Banfield is really giving him what for. He's annoyed that the other jurors named him as the hold out, and apparently wasn't aware that they had "outted him". LOL, he thought he was coming on tv to talk about 'celebrity justice'.

He wants to talk to the prosecution about how to improve their case. Then again, he also said he could to the defense about how to improve theirs.

Man, just listening to this guy talk, I would have had to throttle him if I had been on the jury with him.

Maris
Member

03-28-2002

Thursday, September 27, 2007 - 11:44 am   Edit Post Move Post Delete Post View Post Send Maris a private message Print Post    
well he will have to wait 90 days to sell his book. By that time trial number two will be ready to roll. Fidler is pissed enough he isnt giving anyone a break, first hearing is October 3.

Fidler will learn next time not to suffer from "Ito-itis", bent over backward with the instructions for the defense. Aint going to happen next time, plus no Henry Lee, No Michael Baden probably and the prosecution will be ready. On the plus side Spector's wife is stuck with him a while longer .......