On July 27, 2009, the Los Angeles County Superior Court Clerk and Court Reporter filed the official trial court record on appeal—triggering a due date of September 9, 2009 for the music producer’s appellate counsel to file his opening brief on appeal.The case has been assigned to Division Three of the Second Appellate District; meaning that three of the following judges will most likely hear the appeal:
Presiding Justice Joan D. Klein
Associate Justice H. Walter Croskey
Associate Justice Patti S. Kitching
Associate Justice Richard D. Aldrich
The three judges to whom the case has been assigned is not publicly known at this time.
More later.
38 comments:
Great, can't wait for this thing to get moving and Phil to be a free man as he should be. Thanks for keeping up updated and please let us know any new info.
An appeal doesn't free guilty murderers ever. Anon, who is not so anon, get a clue already on how appeals work and will not work in the murderer, Phil Spector's favor. Typing "free Phil" a million times a day will never make it happen.
Yes, lets get this appeal moving so his appeal is rejected sooner than later.
No, an appeal does not free guilty murderers, but it frees innocent ones, so that is my opinion and you have yours. Oh and by the way I am not the person you refer to, typing free Phil, etc, but you believe what you want.
Dear Bird:
We would respectfully ask you to tone down the anger level of your posts.
We are very much interested in the substance of what you have to say, but personal attack and angry words distract us from your message. All points of view have equal dignity.
However, we must disagree with your assertion that “[a]n appeal doesn't free guilty murderers ever”.
To the contrary, an appeal does not relitigate or turn on the merits of the underlying charge against the defendant, and the issue of whether the defendant is in fact guilty is completely irrelevant to an appeal on the type of grounds anticipated here. Rather, an appeal is designed to ascertain if the trial resulting in the conviction was infected with one of more errors by the trial judge and/or prosecutorial misconduct, which singly or in combination were egregious enough to result in a miscarriage of justice.
In this case, the coroner testified that from the autopsy results alone, the possibility of a suicide could not be excluded.
Nor did the physical evidence exclude the possibility of a suicide.
Instead, the case largely turned on the testimony of Phillip Spector’s relief driver Adriano De Souza, who told the jury that at some point Spector emerged from his hilltop residence holding a handgun and said “I think I just killed somebody”. The fact that De Souza perjured himself in several annually submitted visa applications was also in evidence.
As such, the correctness of the trial court’s decision to admit the testimony of five women under Evidence Code Section 1101 that Spector brandished guns in their presence (in some cases) decades ago, if determined by the Court of Appeal or the California Supreme Court to have been in error could well result in a reversal and retrial of this case—whether Spector is in fact guilty or not.
Indeed, absent other overwhelming evidence of guilt (and the testimony of an admitted perjurer does not qualify as “overwhelming”) the system can’t be confident in the face of fundamental and prejudicial evidentiary errors that the defendant who is appealing the case is in fact guilty—notwithstanding your obvious strong believe, Bird, that Spector “did it”.
There is also the compelling issue of whether, even if the 1101 evidence of prior brandishing was properly admitted, the court erred by failing to limit the evidence to the issues of identity and lack of mistake and by allowing the prosecution to argue to the jury from opening statement through closing arguments that Spector had the propensity to kill women when drunk—a no no under section 1101.
Therefore, it is entirely possible—we think probable—that the pending appeal will ultimately result in a reversal and a new trial for Spector.
Sorry, I'm going with Bird on this one. It is frustating to see the same person posting the same thing all over the net. All facts that point to his guilt are ignored. Anon, (I know who you are as well) please do tell us how you know Phil is indeed innocent when he was convicted in the court of law where it counts? Now I know for a fact you've been asked this question many times and you never have an intelligent, well thought out reply. Your answer is "I just know he is innocent". That isn't possible especially when he said "I think I killed somebody".
Appeals free the innocent ones? Which ones would those be?
Blogonaut, I have to disagree with you. There is no evidence Lana killed herself and there are no judicial errors. The Judge bent over backwards to give him a fair and honest trial. Had Phil Spector admitted at first what he had done, he probably would be out now instead of trashing the victim and making it seem like it was her fault he shot her.
Remember his long history of abusing woman and is constant use of guns to threaten people with?
To Anon @ 10.53 am,
Well then I am not your person, because I have given reasons to back-up why I believe Phil Spector is innocent of the charges many times and I am not stating them again here. This is about the appeal.
He is in prison for the rest of his life.
Who knows - maybe he will become pals with good ole Charles Manson for real.
I don't believe Rachelle's story that they have exchanged notes, though.
They seem to crawl out when you least expect it don't they Meanwhile some of them block opposing views on their blogs, going as far as changing the rules so that some of us cannot even view their blogs. How pathetic is that?
If anyone thinks that justice prevailed in this case,all I can say is you obviously have personal issues.
There has been no justice in this case and even IF Mr S. commited this crime, do you really think that a 19 year minimum sentence, locked up in what is arguably one of the worst prisons on earth is justice?
Dear CoinGuy:
We understand your frustration, but please keep in mind that the punishment for second degree murder is 15 years to life + whatever the judge was required to tack on for using a gun (not much discretion there).
In addition, Michelle Blaine is being harassed by rude and threatening comments and in any event has every right to make her blog invitation only.
That said, we believe that Phil Specter has good and meritorious grounds for appeal but realize that we are in the minority on that issue.
Thanks Blogonaut, I didn't know about Michelle Blaines problems. I would certainly appreciate an invite and would have liked to request that but couldn't find any way to contact her to make a request.
I know about the mandatory sentence and all the more reason I find that all by itself an injustice.
Had Phil Spector been a career criminal, had been convicted of violent crimes before, I might be able to buy the length of sentence he received. But the fact is he was a law abiding , very productive human being, and in this instance claims innocence. I do not think he received a fair trial and truly hope he's given a shot at appeal asap.
Society does want to deter and punish murder--so we have no problem with the length of sentence, as long as Spector got a fair trial and therein lies the rub.
We have tried cases with 1101 evidence in the past, including a bank robbery case where the prosecution showed to the jury a video tape of my client robbing a gas station clerk 3 hours earlier—after he punched the female clerk—so the tape was very prejudicial. (In our system, we the goal is not to convict of crimes based on the perception (or the reality) that the defendant is a dirt bag, of bad character, or ha the propensity to commit crimes.)
The Court of Appeal held that the crimes were not simular enough to make the prior uncharged crime admissible and that the trial judge erred by admitting it.
This is a far more viable issue on appeal for Spector than any of the anti-Spector posters realize.
We shall see.
People forget that what you talk about with your friends at your your kitchen table doesn't always get in at a trial because of the Rules of Evidence. Those rules are also usually the number one basis for appeals being overturned along with improper jury instructions.
The Spector Appellate panel will be asked to overturn surely for the 1101 witnesses and the erroneous jury instructions that flowed from this testimony.
As far as evidence of PS pulling the trigger I believe that none was presented at the trial since he had no GSR or significant blood on him as someone would wearing a white dinner jacket who allegedly was shoving a two inch barreled gun into Lana's mouth that presumably would have been entirely in her mouth when the gun discharged and surely would have caused massive DNA to be on PS.
This case was tried in the media and the vilification of Spector was why he was found guilty not the evidence.
7/31 Anon 10:53,
The judge bent over backwards to have Phillip Spector convicted, not to give him a fair and honest trial. During the first trial when the jury initially deadlocked 7-5 in favor of acquittal, the judge, to make a long story short, then gave the jury hypothetical scenarios as to how the gun could have ended up in the decedent"s mouth. During the second trial, the judge used his own wrist to point out to the jury where the blood spatter was on the decedent's hand. I found both incidences peculiar especially since the judge is supposed to be neutral. Phillip Spector is innocent and the evidence and science proves it. I believe his appeal will be a success.
Blogonaut,
When the appeal is heard, is done in open court or is it closed to the public. Thanks.
Dear Aloha:
The short answer to your question is yes. A detailed description of the process follows.
Appeals are mostly won or lost behind the scenes based on the briefs that are submitted by each side and which side’s arguments the three judge panel find to be more persuasive.
The case is not “retried”—the appeal is based strictly on the record from the trial court, including the transcript of the testimony and the court’s rulings and any written evidentiary motions and related oral argument in the trial court.
The court of appeal does not reweigh the evidence, and defers to the trial court’s credibility determinations, exercise of its discretion in admitting and excluding evidence and factual findings, unless the trial court clearly abused its discretion. In addition, the appellant (Spector) must not only prove error, but that justice miscarried. It is a daunting burden.
First the appellant files his opening brief, and then the People file their brief. The appellant then may file a reply brief.
In this case it is expected that any bail motion made by Spector will accompany his opening brief on appeal.
Once the case is fully briefed, the record from the court below + the briefs are transmitted to a staff research attorney (“clerk”) assigned to one of the three justices who will decide the appeal.
At some point the court will send out an oral argument waiver notice giving the parties 15 days to request oral argument. (Oral argument will be requested in this case.)
At some point in the process the staff research attorney will prepare a “bench memo” for the three justices hearing the case. This memo typically contains a summary of the salient facts, a legal analysis of each issue on appeal raised by the appellant, any additional relevant legal issues or authorities not addressed by the parties and a recommended disposition (e.g., “reversed” or “affirmed”). In some courts this bench memo is in the form of a proposed draft opinion.
Before the oral argument the three justices who will decide the case read the bench memo and the three briefs and may even go to the transcript to read some key passages themselves, and might do some independent legal research on the issues presented to the court.
The justices then discuss the case at a conference.
Since all of this takes place before the oral argument, it is a rare case where oral argument—which is a limited opportunity for each side to address the court for 30 minutes on each side—changes the outcome. But since oral argument is the last and only opportunity to address and correct any misconceptions that the court may have about the trial court record or the applicable case law, most appellate specialists request oral argument.
Appellate attorneys are expected to not simply repeat what is in the briefs during oral argument, since the justices will all have (theoretically) read and discussed the issues amongst themselves at the conference.
Oral argument is open to the public. The courtrooms located in the courts of appeal and Supreme Court have tiered seating so all audience members can see and hear the argument by counsel, as well as hear the questions and see the facial expressions, and body language of the justices.
Most oral arguments are pretty boring and uneventful, but I suspect that this case will result in a lively oral argument.
Spector’s appellate counsel is a superb appellate lawyer, and the appellate attorneys with the California Attorney General’s Office are very experienced and very good on their feet as well—since all they do day-in-and-day-out is brief and argue appeals.
If you are in the area and have the time, I would encourage you to attend.
If nothing else, you will probably come away with a good sense of which way the justices are leaning in the case.
Blogonaut,
Will/Would the oral argument of the appeal occur in Sacramento or in Los Angeles? Thanks.
Dear Aloha:
The oral argument in the people vs. Phillip Spector matter will be at the following location:
Ronald Reagan State Building
300 So. Spring St. 2nd Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90013
Tel: (213) 830-7000
Located in the Ronald Reagan State Building, the court is near the Los Angeles Civic Center, at the corner of 3rd & Spring Streets. The court is freeway accessible from both the 110 freeway (4th street exit) & 101 freeway (Spring Street exit), with public parking available across the street from the building.
The pedestrian entrance to the Ronald Reagan State Building is located on Spring Street between 3rd and 4th Street. The building is located on the corner of 3rd and Spring Street.
Parking:
Broadway Spring Center (parking structure)
Paragon Parking (between the Ronald Reagan State Building and the Banco Popular Building)
Joe's Auto Parks (on the North-East corner of 3rd and Spring Street)
Broadway/Spring Center Public Parking (on the North-East corner of 4th and Main Street)
Joe's Auto Parks (on Main Street between 3rd and 4th Street)
Central Parking (on the North-West corner of 4th and Main Street)
When traveling East or West
Exit the 110 Freeway at 4th Street, go 4 blocks to Main Street
When traveling North or South
Exit the 101 Freeway at Spring Street, go South
For a detailed map, use this link:
http://maps.google.com/maps?oi=map&q=300+South+Spring+Street,+Los+Angeles,+CA+90013
Blogonaut,
Please enlighten us on the burden for PS to get bail pending appeal. If I remember correctly he is entitled to it if he can show that he is likely to succeed on appeal and that he is not a danger to society.
I believe that he should get bail since I believe that he is likely to get a new trial based on the 1101 evidence and obviously he was a boy scout while out on bond for six years before being wrongfully convicted.
Dear August 14, 2009 at 6:22:
Under Penal Code section 1272, subdivision (3) the grant of bail in this case is a matter of discretion. Section 1272.1 sets out the criteria to be satisfied as follows:
“Release on bail ... shall be ordered by the court if the defendant demonstrates all the following:
“(a) By clear and convincing evidence, the defendant is not likely to flee....
“(b) By clear and convincing evidence, the defendant does not pose a danger to the safety of any other person or to the community.
“Under this subdivision the court shall consider, among other factors, whether the crime for which the defendant was convicted is a violent felony, as defined in subdivision (c) of Section 667.5.
“(c) The appeal is not for the purpose of delay and, based upon the record in the case, raises a substantial legal question which, if decided in favor of the defendant, is likely to result in reversal....”
This motion can be made in the court of appeal.
We wonder, though, if the lack of a prior motion for bail pending appeal in the trial court might not preclude a bail application by Spector in the court of appeal.
California Rules of Court, Rule 8.312 states, in relevant part:
“a) Application
“Pending appeal, the defendant may apply to the reviewing court:
“(1) For a stay of execution after a judgment of conviction or an order granting probation; or
“(2) For bail, to reduce bail, or for release on other conditions.
“(b) Showing
“The application must include a showing that the defendant sought relief in the superior court and that the court unjustifiably denied the application.”
Since Spector did not seek bail pending appeal in the superior court, Rule 8.312(b) may preclude the court of appeal from considering that application at this procedural stage.
Spector may argue that given the trial court's denial of post conviction bail pending sentencing, a post sentencing request for bail pending appeal in front of the trial judge would have been futile.
But we question whether, without first making the motion in the trial court,the court of appeal would have a sufficient record in the appellate court--including findings of fact--to facilitate such a motion to the appellate court—and whether given the mandatory language of Rule 8.312 (b) [“must”] the court of appeal will even entertain the application.
("The application MUST include a showing that THE DEFENDANT SOUGHT RELIEF IN THE SUPERIOR COURT AND that THE COURT UNJUSTIFIABLY DENIED the application."
That said, we are not appellate specialists--and it will be interesting to see if Spector's appellate counsel makes the motion, and if he does, what the court of appeal will do with it.
Does anyone know if investigations are underway in regards to proving if the jurors did indeed go online, visit websites about the case during the Trial?
????
Hope so!
In order to set aside a verdict in a criminal case for jury misconduct, including the kind you suggest, a defendant must make a factual showing of same through a timely filed motion for a new trial.
A motion for a new trial must be made prior the pronouncement of sentence.
No motion for a new trial based on jury misconduct was made in the trial court.
Therefore, the window to present the kind of evidence to which you refer has closed, and it would be fruitless for any such investigation to be underway at this point.
At least one person has suggested that Phillip Spector will, on appeal, “attack” his grand jury indictment on the grounds that a witness perjured himself at that proceeding.
Last Sunday we spent about 5 hours on Westlaw researching this issue.
1. No California case has recognized “perjury” by a witness at a grand jury proceeding as grounds to set aside an indictment.
2. A motion to set aside an indictment is made under California Penal Code Section 995 and must be brought prior to trial. Moreover, appellate review of the improper denial of a Section 995 motion is obtained through a pretrial writ application to the court of appeal and not a post judgment appeal.
3. No such motion was made before either Phillip Spector murder trial and no such pretrial writ application was made to the court of appeal.
Therefore, a motion to set aside the murder indictment based on a witness’s alleged “perjury” before the grand jury was never made, if made would not have been meritorious, and in any event the issue is now waived.
Simply stated, Phillip Spector will not be attacking his murder indictment based on alleged perjury of any witness at the grand jury hearing—not now, and not ever.
Rather, the grounds for appeal will be confined to those issues already raised in the trial court and preserved for appeal.
Someone has inquired "what about federal law"?
It is also a general principle of federal constitutional law that issues not raised in the trial court are waived.
Although there are exceptions, failing to object to an indictment in the trial court is not one of them.
BTW, if ANYONE has a published California or federal appellate case that holds that a murder defendant can raise, for the first time on appeal, the allegation that a witness never called to the stand during trial perjured himself before the grand jury that indicted him—leave the legal citation in the comments and I will read the case and report back to you.
See link:
http://blogonaut-blogonaut.blogspot.com/2009/09/kelley-lynchs-investigator-writes-to.html
Posted 9/5/09.
As a reminder, Philip Spector’s opening brief on appeal + any motion for bail pending appeal are due to be filed on September 9.
When the brief + any motions are filed, we will try to obtain a copy and post our analysis of the issues raised in the opening brief.
Since any issues not addressed as separate points in the opening brief are waived, the opening brief will contain an exclusive list of the issues that Spector's appellate counsel has election to raise on appeal.
Can Spector's Appellate attorneys request an expedited appeal if appeal bail is denied?
September 7, 2009 12:27 PM asked: “Can Spector's Appellate attorneys request an expedited appeal if appeal bail is denied?”
We just did a quick Westlaw search, and there are no California Appellate cases we could find that discuss the criteria for expediting a criminal appeal.
However, we did come across 4 or 5 unpublished decisions that state in passing that an appellant’s unopposed motion to expedite the appeal was either granted or denied, or that the court expedited the appeal on its own motion.
We assume, however, that it will take something more that the mere fact that release on appeal is denied to expedite the appeal, such as, hypothetically and by way of example, an appellant of advanced age, in ill health, and not expected to survive the normal course of a criminal appeal—or some other circumstances that are out of the norm and require an expedited appeal to serve justice.
Blogonaut: It says on the California courts link under the case, that the appellant briefs are to be heard today not the 9th Sept? Is that correct?
September 8, 2009 9:03 AM:
No, that is not correct.
The website says that Phillip Spector’s opening brief on appeal us due to be filed today, NOT that there is any hearing that will occur today.
Please note that there is an automatic two week grace period on the filing of the opening brief, and that it is not uncommon for the appellant’s counsel to request a 30 day extension of time for filing the opening brief on appeal. In fact, where a record of this length is involved, one or two extensions is the norm.
Thanks, so does that mean we may not hear anything today? So, nothing is happening tomorrow, and the opening brief is to be heard today?
This appeal will not be heard or resolved for approximately two years.
First, the appeal must be fully briefed, meaning the appellant’s opening brief, the respondent’s brief, and the appellant’s reply brief.
Then an oral argument on the appeal will be scheduled, most likely 6 to 9 months from the case being fully briefed.
Then there will be a delay of 30 days to 90 days from the oral argument to the decision.
No, you will hear nothing by way of disposition of the appeal today, tomorrow, next week, or next month, or (most likely) in 2011 either.
This is a very long process that we will be posing more about as it unfolds.
I would like to say, I have never really been to this site though a few have mentioned it to me. Now that I've been here, I was surprised at all the "valid" legal information regarding my father's case, that has been discussed.
What impressed me the most, for the most part, is the mostly neutral position of Blogonaut towards my father and his case. I was impressed that he did his best to hold to the facts of the case in almost all discussions.
I too have done the same thing during the entire Trial period and there were those (I saw one seems to be a repeat offender here ;-) ) has accused me of being against my own father just because I would not blindly support him, just because he is my father. I chose to take a purely neutral position during the Trial so that I could objectively listen to both sides to come to my own conclusion.
From what I observed, I was not in any way impressed with any of the Defense's tactics or the eggspurts that they chose to use use, during either Trial.
I was very impressed with how well the Prosecution presented their case and their seemingly credible witnesses.
I just find it very odd that it is his wife, that has chosen the past few days, to have published on the web, no less than 5 UK interviews stating how my twin brother and I have brought more pain to our father (than apparently this case or his prison time), by testifying against our own father in Court. When the fact is, I was never even in the Courtroom, let alone California at anytime while my father was in Court and my twin, though he was there as much as he could be, also never testified against our father.
As much as it hurts me that my father is in prison, I could find no fault with the legal system, the Judge, Jury or the Prosecution's case.
As much as I do not like what has happened, I do not see any chance of winning an Appeal with what I am reading from his wife, in regards to what she claims to be "forensic evidence". Every last piece of evidence she claims, had already been proven inaccurate during the trial.
Dear GP:
Thank you for your post and your kind words.
We are not familiar with the intra-familial dispute to which you allude, and we have no comment on it.
Actually, it is a common lay misconception that a criminal appeal will turn on the evidence of guilt or innocence.
Except for the truly rare case where there is NO substantial evidence of guilt, an appeal usually turns on claimed error by the trial court (or by the prosecution) that is so serious that it deprived the defendant of a fair trial.
In your father’s case, the trial court allowed the testimony of five women from your father’s past who testified to alleged incidents of being menaced with firearms occurring many years ago and bearing little or no similarity to the known events leading to the victim’s death in the case being tried.
In California there are very strict rules for the admission of this kind of “uncharged misconduct” evidence that are laid down by Evidence Code Section 1101, including that the prior uncharged acts be so uniquely similar to the charged act as to be a “signature”. That criterion was, in our opinion, not satisfied in this case.
Next, assuming without deciding that the evidence was properly admitted, the trial judge was required to give (as your father’s attorney requested) a contemporaneous instruction to the jury that they are only allowed to consider that evidence for the very limited purpose of establishing the identity of the person holding the gun when it discharged, and not for any other purpose, such as to show that your father is a bad person, or that he had a propensity to menace or to shoot women. This judge failed to do that.
Third, in no event was the prosecution allowed to argue that evidence to the jury as proof of bad character, or your father’s alleged predisposition to menace women with guns or to shoot them. But that is exactly was the prosecution said and argued from opening statement to final jury summation, through the final rebuttal argument to the jury. (Your father was called a “demon”, a “maniac”, and a murder waiting to happen, etc. Indeed, the prosecution argued that your father not only had the predisposition to shoot women, but that the shooting was inevitable—as when the hammer of a revolver falls on the sixth cylinder in a game of “Russian Roulette”.)
Your father’s contemporaneous objections during trial to this prosecutorial “misconduct” have preserved the issue for appeal.
Fourth, the trial court was required to give the jury the “pinpoint” jury instruction submitted by the defense on how to treat the alleged prior gun incidents and failed to do that.
Having carefully researched these issues during the defense case and in view of our 30+ years experience as a Californian lawyer, we feel strongly that the above cumulative error caused justice to miscarry.
We are not saying that your father is innocent. How could we, we were not there.
But it is undeniable that the forensics, viewed in the light most favorable to the prosecution, were equivocal and failed to eliminate the possibility of suicide.
In addition, there was credible evidence before the jury—some of it written by the victim—that the victim many have been suicidal.
Moreover, the chauffeur who testified that your father admitted to the killing committed multiple false statements in serial visa applications occurring over several years. Traditionally, courts and juries distrust sworn testimony given by admitted perjurers—even if they lied for the most “innocent” of reasons.
Again, we are not advocating for or against your father’s actual innocence. We only mention our take on this evidence as it relates to the “harmless error” standard on appeal.
We wish you the best of luck with your life going forward.
We have found the link to which Gary Spector referred in his comment:
http://www.3news.co.nz/Entertainment/Story/tabid/418/articleID/120186/cat/55/Default.aspx
Clearly, Mrs. Spector has little understanding of the appellate process—not to mention other “facts”.
But we also suspect that this (and other bone headed) statements purportedly by Mrs. Spector were drafted by a well meaning but nevertheless clueless press agent, whose name we shall refrain for mentioning, and who may be doing Phillip Spector and his new bride more harm than good.
Hal Lifson is Mrs. Spector's publicist and I agree that he is doing more harm than good. He actually got on 20/20 and when interviewed about Mr. Spector he only referred to him in the past tense, like someone had locked Phillip up and threw away the key. (101 publicist talk, when giving interviews put your client in a good light) Mrs. Spector made some awkward statements as well that a well seasoned publicist would have couched in a more favorable light.
I believe that Mr. Spector was railroaded and tried in the media I find this case analogous to the Sam Shepard case and hope that the 2nd Appellate Court follows the law and reverses. However until such time Mrs. Spector would do more good if she got copies of the transcript of her husband in custody in the wee hours of the incident after he had been beaten and tasered and had not seen legal counsel, wherein he told what happened, that Ms. Clarkson had gotten a gun, was waiving it around and singing Da Doo Ron Ron and he told her to put it down and then she shot herself. The entire transcript is on Sprockets blog and I had cited an excerpt from it on this blog as well. These statements from Phillip are consistent with the lack of forensic evidence, i.e. no GSR or significant blood on a man who allegedly shoved a two inch barrel entirely into Ms. Clarkson's mouth and would have been saturated in her DNA. Of course these statements were kept out of the trial by, you guessed it, the ever biased, Judge Fidler. In fact I remember him stating, even though several police officers testified about Phillip when in custody and opened the door to allow this evidence in, on the record that Phillip's statements would not come in unless he took the stand.
My advice to Mrs. Spector, It's not what you say its how you say it.
Dear "Anon":
We have read the TR and it contains no reference to "singing Da Doo Ron Ron".
UPDATE* UPDATE* UPDATE*UPDATE*
The CA/2 has ruled as follows:
“Motion to augment is granted except for pages 136-141. Appellant's request for an extension of time to file the opening brief is also granted. The opening brief will be due 30 days from the filing of this order.”
We are not I receipt of the motion to augment, and do not know what issues are implicate by pages 136-141 (referenced in the motion) and as to which the motion to augment has been denied.
In any event, Spector’s motion to augment (supplement) the official record on appeal—which are the only facts that the court of appeal is allowed to consider on appeal—was granted, with the exception of the 5 pages referenced.
Phil Spector’s opening brief on appeal is now due on October 23, 2009.
That's great news about the appeal. It surely means there are solid grounds, otherwise, they would have denied from the start right? It would be interesting to be able to read the motion. Thanks for keeping us updated.
Post a Comment