Opinion, by Blogonaut
In Spector I (which ended in a hung jury), trial judge Larry Paul Fidler excluded a statement allegedly made by Phillip Spector more that a decade ago to a former NYC cop (turned $10.00/hour security guard) Vincent Tannazzo—who sought to inject himself into the limelight of a televised celebrity murder trial by contacting police (after waiting more than 13 years to come forward)— months after Lana Clarkson died and claiming that Phillip Spector, after being ejected from a party hosted by Joan Rivers said: “They all (women) deserve to die,” …“They all deserve a bullet in their fucking head.”
That jury trial—apparently to the surprise of Judge Fidler—hung, initially with a minority of four votes for conviction, and eight votes expressing doubt about Spector’s guilt in the gunshot death of failed actress Lana Clarkson—who unequivocally threatened to end her own life less than 60 days before her death.
In Spector I (which ended in a hung jury), trial judge Larry Paul Fidler excluded a statement allegedly made by Phillip Spector more that a decade ago to a former NYC cop (turned $10.00/hour security guard) Vincent Tannazzo—who sought to inject himself into the limelight of a televised celebrity murder trial by contacting police (after waiting more than 13 years to come forward)— months after Lana Clarkson died and claiming that Phillip Spector, after being ejected from a party hosted by Joan Rivers said: “They all (women) deserve to die,” …“They all deserve a bullet in their fucking head.”
That jury trial—apparently to the surprise of Judge Fidler—hung, initially with a minority of four votes for conviction, and eight votes expressing doubt about Spector’s guilt in the gunshot death of failed actress Lana Clarkson—who unequivocally threatened to end her own life less than 60 days before her death.
.
Notably, when the fact the jury in Spector I was at an impasse was brought to Judge Fidler’s attention, he sought to implement various transparent strategies to influence the hold-out jurors into changing their vote to “guilty”—including telling the jury that his prior instruction on the definition of murder was wrong, and reinstructing them on a much broader definition more likely to result in a conviction. Judge Fidler thereby made his intentions known.
On retrial, a cash strapped Phillip Spector (who was arguably fleeced to the tune of some $8 million first go around—including one million dollars paid to Robert Shapiro for 3 week’s work)—hired a much paired down defense team consisting of one trial lawyer (Doron Weinberg) and one appellate specialist (Dennis Reardon).
Weinberg and Reardon wasted no time in filing a motion to object to Judge Fidler presiding over Spector II (the retrial) based on the applicable legal standard, that a reasonable person could entertain a doubt that Judge Fidler was biased in favor of the prosecution. In a highly unusual move, Judge Fidler denied the motion to disqualify himself, instead of following the statutory procedure of having the Judicial Counsel appoint an impartial judge to decide the issue of Judge Fidler’s alleged bias.
Fast forward to Spector II—wherein Doron Weinberg has avoided making any of the stupid mistakes committed by the half dozen, disorganized lawyers representing Phillip Spector first go around and has done a much more effective job—apparently persuading a (in our opinion) conviction predisposed Judge Fidler to literally put a heavy thumb on the scales of justice.
How did Judge Fidler place his paw on our justice lady’s scale?
Initially, by reversing his ruling in Spector I that Vincent Tannazzo’s testimony was inadmissible.
Second, by, yesterday, allowing the prosecution in Spector II to introduce the hearsay tape recorded interview of Vincent Tannazzo during the defense case, contrary to all arguable legal precedent and authority.
In summary, Judge Fidler initially excluded this decade old “evidence” by a former cop turned security guard seeking the limelight in Spector I, but on retrial changed course and allowed the prosecution to call security guard Vincent Tannazzo as a witness.
Now, that the defense case has gone much better in Spector II, Judge Fidler—who a reasonable person could believe in his heart wants a conviction as much as he seeks the limelight himself (see here) has put a heavy hand on the scale of justice.
As a society, can we afford to stand for this kind of judicial bias and agenda--even in the case of a criminal defendant that we may find loathsome and despicable?
Then how can we object to Guantanamo, water boarding, Dickie Scruggs, or other forms of alleged judicial corruption?
If we believe in fair trials, we cannot be in the business of deciding which defendant deserves a fair trial.
And the more unpopular the defendant, the more vigilant as a people we need to be.
Remember this: If Phillip Spector (or Roman Polanski) cannot get a fair hearing in front of Judge Larry Paul Fidler—then we have no hope if our sons, daughters, nephews, or friends are falsely accused.
A trial judge who previously ruled that evidence was inadmissible, and only changed his mind when the defendant escaped conviction, then allows the prosecution to again bend the rules of evidence when the defense case is doing well is cause for all of us to pay careful attention to our liberties—no matter how we feel about the defendant. Because judicial bias that happens to him, can happen to you and yours.
On retrial, a cash strapped Phillip Spector (who was arguably fleeced to the tune of some $8 million first go around—including one million dollars paid to Robert Shapiro for 3 week’s work)—hired a much paired down defense team consisting of one trial lawyer (Doron Weinberg) and one appellate specialist (Dennis Reardon).
Weinberg and Reardon wasted no time in filing a motion to object to Judge Fidler presiding over Spector II (the retrial) based on the applicable legal standard, that a reasonable person could entertain a doubt that Judge Fidler was biased in favor of the prosecution. In a highly unusual move, Judge Fidler denied the motion to disqualify himself, instead of following the statutory procedure of having the Judicial Counsel appoint an impartial judge to decide the issue of Judge Fidler’s alleged bias.
Fast forward to Spector II—wherein Doron Weinberg has avoided making any of the stupid mistakes committed by the half dozen, disorganized lawyers representing Phillip Spector first go around and has done a much more effective job—apparently persuading a (in our opinion) conviction predisposed Judge Fidler to literally put a heavy thumb on the scales of justice.
How did Judge Fidler place his paw on our justice lady’s scale?
Initially, by reversing his ruling in Spector I that Vincent Tannazzo’s testimony was inadmissible.
Second, by, yesterday, allowing the prosecution in Spector II to introduce the hearsay tape recorded interview of Vincent Tannazzo during the defense case, contrary to all arguable legal precedent and authority.
In summary, Judge Fidler initially excluded this decade old “evidence” by a former cop turned security guard seeking the limelight in Spector I, but on retrial changed course and allowed the prosecution to call security guard Vincent Tannazzo as a witness.
Now, that the defense case has gone much better in Spector II, Judge Fidler—who a reasonable person could believe in his heart wants a conviction as much as he seeks the limelight himself (see here) has put a heavy hand on the scale of justice.
As a society, can we afford to stand for this kind of judicial bias and agenda--even in the case of a criminal defendant that we may find loathsome and despicable?
Then how can we object to Guantanamo, water boarding, Dickie Scruggs, or other forms of alleged judicial corruption?
If we believe in fair trials, we cannot be in the business of deciding which defendant deserves a fair trial.
And the more unpopular the defendant, the more vigilant as a people we need to be.
Remember this: If Phillip Spector (or Roman Polanski) cannot get a fair hearing in front of Judge Larry Paul Fidler—then we have no hope if our sons, daughters, nephews, or friends are falsely accused.
A trial judge who previously ruled that evidence was inadmissible, and only changed his mind when the defendant escaped conviction, then allows the prosecution to again bend the rules of evidence when the defense case is doing well is cause for all of us to pay careful attention to our liberties—no matter how we feel about the defendant. Because judicial bias that happens to him, can happen to you and yours.
22 comments:
What a disgusting testament to our justice system. No wonder Roman Polanski will not return to complete his case. No wonder why Phillip Spector cannot receive a fair trial.
Note to Judge Fielder: If I wanted to live under a totalitarian judicial system, I would have moved to Communist China, South Korea, Iraq, Iran, OR THE LOS ANGELES COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT years ago.
Words like "Kangaroo Court" come to mind.
Of course I could be misjudging the situation.
But I very much doubt it.
Screw a 'fair trial'; Fry the little gnome.
In my opinion, Judge Fielder should take of that fucking robe and sit down next to the prosecutor where he belongs.
Within days of Lana Clarkson's death on February 3, 2003, one of her friends contacted police to report that on December 8, 2002, 5the failed actress (who was being evicted) emailed him stating her intention to "tidy up her affairs" and end it all, because the pain wqas just too much for one girl to bear--but (not to worry, I will pay you back first).
The LA County Coroner’s office has admitted that the physical evidence cannot exclude suicide.
And yet the trial judge has allowed the prosecution to introduce evidence of statements that Spector allegedly made 14 years ago about women in general to bolster its case?
Any murder prosecution that takes more that 10 court days is suspect from the beginning. That goes double for a murder prosecution that takes more than 10 court days because most of the prosecution case consists of events allegedly occurring from 30 years to 10 years before the alleged murder.
Isn’t this the same LA County judge who told Roman Polanski’s attorney that he could come back to the US and get probation but only if the proceedings were televised?
No, then why has the publicist for the LA County Superior Court privately lobbying to kill an HBO documentary to that effect and why is the same publicist emailing TMZ.com employees to influence her response to document subpoenas requesting emails from the Court relating to the matter?
Why is this not an attempt to obstruct justice?
Read this article:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,496505,00.html
(Scroll down to heading “Polanski Case Exclusive: L.A. Superior Court Secret Emails”.)
Agree with unjust.
At leastRoman Polanski had a choice....
Corruption to serve any goal—even a misguided belief that the trial result one seeks to manipulate is “just”—is still corruption.
This is all taken out of text, as usual biased media coverage stories are. If anyone is following this trial, like the last one, they will vividly see that this case is in dire need of justice. That justice would be a California, or better yet L.A., jury convicting a guilty person rather than buying into that guilty, wealthy person's bought legal team and expert witnesses. So, some think the judge is biased, it's more like he just wants this guy to get his deserved sentence instead of getting off like the rest of the celebrity clowns in that county have. The judge is sick of spending taxpayer's money to try celebrities who just end up buying their freedom. WEAK JURORS!
Dear Anon:
Perhaps Judge Fielder feels that by slanting the case toward the prosecution he is, as you say, serving justice by not allowing a wealthy celebrity defendant to obtain an acquittal.
Except that is precisely what, as a trial judge, he is NOT allowed to do.
The rules governing judicial impartiality very explicitly require a judge to step down from any case where a reasonable person could entertain a doubt about the judge’s ability to be fair and impartial to both sides of the case.
It would also appear that we both share such doubts about Judge Fielder in this case.
Where we disagree is on whether that is appropriate in this or any other case in persuit of some "greater good".
If Phil Spector--with all of his money--cannot get a fair trial, what chance doe the rest of us have if we (God forbid) had to defend ourselves from false murder charges?
That is the reason I want to see a fair trial in this case. If Sepector cannot get one, than our so called rights mean nothing.
I keep waiting to see how judge Fidler will do next to try to swing the jury toward a conviction.
Manslaughter option?
More evidence of decades old bad conduct by Spector?
I am sure Judge Roy Bean will figure somthing out for Sepector.
The judge should go back to practicing entertainment law, that is what he was good at.
Phil Spector's first comments after Lana C's death was," I think that I just killed someone". (to his chauffer). This guy has a history of threatening women with handguns. Is his ethnicity and musical talent a factor in the bogus groundswell of sentiment in support of this creep. put him where he belongs... in the Polo Lounge at the Beverly Hills Hotel!
conflicted
“Ethnicity”? I see that the anti-Semitic hate Phil Spector commenters have finally revealed the true source of their hatred.
PS: What Phil Spector told the driver--even according to the driver--is unclear.
Well,well,well where have all the reasonable people gone.Having watched the first trial i just couldn't believe that the WORM was found not by a hung jury.All you liberal LA,NANCY PELOSI,SEAN PENN,BROKE ASS CALITES,should know that this WORM is as guilty as sure as the fact that OBAMA will bury us.
Dear Anon@March 10, 2009 8:55 PM:
Since you have injected politics into this discussion, if you must know we voted for John McCain in the general election but are giving Barack Obama, our newly elected President, the benefit of the doubt.
What you mean is where have all the haters gone.
Try Georgia.
This a response to Dear Aron:Im not from GA. Im from the real world where idol worshiping Obama fiends, and thats all u Cal. who voted 4 this antiAMERICAN nEGRO,who think that people like Spector deserve to be treated like the terrorists at Gitmo and given rights that the average American think are way beyond reason,well Spector is Guilty just as you are a true idiot.
Thank you Sir, for making the point far more eloquently than I ever could, that those would abandon our constitutional protections embodied in fair trials and reasonable doubt for EVERY defendant—no matter how unpopular—are the true “idiots”.
Not only did JF change the jury instruction, he included verbal, graphic scenarios for the jury to ponder as well.
Dear Aloha:
1. The murder instruction that Judge Fidler gave after the jury deadlocked was in our view an improper comment on the evidence that told the jury that the evidence in the case supported various means by which Spector could have caused the gun to go into Clarkson’s mouth—including that he forced her to put it there. Fidler thereby essentially argued the prosecutions case for it.
2. The timing of the murder instruction is highly suspect. It can be inferred that he changed the instruction not out of a sudden realization that the initial instruction was wrong, but to make it easier to convict. Fidler came up with the idea of instructing on manslaughter at the same time (but decided to not instruct on the lesser charge until the end of the retrial—again to make it easier for the jury to convict of “something”.
3. Either you think De Souza is reliable as a witness in view of the totality of the other evidence (Spector is responsible) or you believe that it is reasonably possible that Clarkson shot herself. But there is no way to put a gun in someone’s mouth by accident or without committing assault with a deadly weapon. Therefore, any manslaughter instruction would be improper under People v. Garcia. If Fidler decides to give a manslaughter instruction later this morning, in our opinion the motivation to do so will not be out of any perceived obligation under the law.
4. Juror #9 from the first trial, in my opinion, is not the brightest bulb on the tree so to speak. Nor did he understand the Court’s instructions to the jury. He had a duty to deliberate—discuss the case with the other jurors—and all he wanted to do was vote. Imagine six months of evidence and the primary juror favoring a conviction on the jury sees no need for the jurors to discuss that evidence among themselves? Frightening.
Post a Comment