Legal News Analysis
By Blogonaut
Several readers have emailed us asking for our views on news reports that the parties have agreed to mediate the civil wrongful death action filed by Lana Clarkson’s heirs in 2005.
According to news accounts both sides in the civil suit—which seeks money damages on behalf of Lana Clarkson’s heirs on the theory that the music producer caused her death—have agreed to mediate the dispute.
Mediation is a nonbinding form of informal dispute resolution where the parties agree to appear in front of a neutral party (who is either an attorney or a retired judge) who essentially guides formal discussions among the parties and attempts to help the parties reach a settlement agreement of the dispute. It is a nonbinding process, because the matter will not settle unless a mutual agreement is reached on the terms of a settlement that both sides signoff on.
So what are the advantages to the plaintiffs and to Phil Spector in mediating?
1. The litigation is bound to be expensive.
Although a Los Angeles County jury found the music producer guilty of the malice murder of Lana Clarkson last year, that conviction cannot be used or even mentioned in any civil trial unless and until it is affirmed on appeal, and it is looking more and more like the conviction is substantially likely to be reversed.
In addition, according to news reports, if the civil case has not settled by next October, the court will be setting a trial date—meaning that it is unlikely that the appeal will be resolved before the case gets to trial in any event.
Therefore, the same very expensive expert testimony that was presented during the criminal trial would have to be presented during the civil trial on the issue of suicide vs homicide.
2. The result of any civil trial is uncertain for both sides.
The prior alleged “victim” testimony presented to the jury in the criminal case might not be admissible in the civil trial—and without it who knows what the verdict on liability will be?
In addition, wrongful death damages consist of two components: The lost earning potential of the decedent and monetary compensation for the lost care comfort and companionship of the lost loved one to her heirs. The first component in this case is negligible and the second very hard to value. Typically, wrongful death awards without a substantial lost earnings potential are in the hundreds of thousands of dollars and not millions.
But how about punitive damages? While punitive damages are possible, unlike the OJ wrongful death case where you had two victims with their throats cut (in other words an undeniably cold-blooded, intentional and premeditated act) the basis for punitive damages in the civil case here is far from certain.
In addition, since OJ the United States Supreme Court has held that in most cases, a ratio of punitive damages to compensatory damages greater than 1:1 will be overturned as unconstitutional. Therefore, with compensatory damages expected in the hundreds of thousands—and not millions—of dollars, there is little likelihood of a ten million or twenty million award of punitive damages in this case. But unlikely does not mean impossible, and there is great uncertainty for Phil Spector in taking the civil case to trial as well.
General damages, such as for lost care, comfort, and companionship, are largely up to the jury to fill in the blank on the jury form with little guidance from the court, and will rarely be overturned on appeal unless clearly excessive.
3. Unless the case settles, it could take years for Donna Clarkson to see any money.
While the case is expected to go to verdict sometime in 2011, even if the jury awards substantial compensatory and punitive damages to Donna Clarkson, that does not mean Phil Spector has to write her a check.
Assuming that Phil Spector has the financial ability to post a bond in the amount of 1.5 times the judgment, the judgment will be stayed during an appeal process that could last anywhere from a minimum of two years (until 2014) or, if the case goes all of the way to the United States Supreme Court on the issue of punitive damages, many years.
Remember, some of the victims of the Exon Valdez oil spill are just getting their last payment and a full 1/3 of the Exon Valdez plaintiffs died before receiving ten cents of their award—because the case was tied up in the appellate courts for years.
Therefore, it makes a lot of sense for both sides of this civil case to not only mediate their differences, but to work hard at a mutually agreeable settlement.
That does not mean a settlement that will make both sides happy; there is no such thing. Any settlement, by definition, requires true compromise on both sides.
So, dear readers, you now know what we think of the reported mediation in the Phil Spector wrongful death case, what do you think?
All comments (with one notable exception) are welcome.
66 comments:
Wouldn't it be in Spector's best interest to put this off until after his appeal is ruled on? It seems that if a settlement is reached with the Clarkson family, that it might be seen as an admission of guilt by Spector. It would be hard to tell jurors in another trial not to consider the suit's settlement as an admission of guilt. At least, it would be hard for me. I'm still not convinced of either his guilt or innocence, but would hate to see him make what seems like a huge blunder at this point in time.
Two excellent questions, and here are our answers:
1. There is no putting off the civil trial or the mediation any longer. The trial judge has ordered that the case be set for jury trial if it has not been settled by October of 2010. In addition, Spector can leverage the uncertainty surrounding the criminal appeal to obtain a better settlement. Remember, uncertainty of outcome is the primary motivating factor for both parties to a settlement. Sure, even if the civil trial could be further delayed (which it cannot) Spector is substantially likely to win his appeal, but what if he does not win at the state court of appeal level and has to proceed on to federal court through a writ of habeas corpus? Until that writ and related trial and possible appeal the 9th Circuit is resolved, he could lose his entire estate. Remember, if the state courts affirm the criminal conviction, that is an automatic determination in the Clarkson’s favor that Phil Spector caused Clarkson’s death and that when he did so he was acting with malice, i.e. that punitive damages are appropriate.
2. In any event, a settlement is not a legal admission of liability or wrongdoing. In fact, I have never seen a settlement agreement that did not recite that neither the fact of the settlement nor the settlement amount shall not constitute an admission of wrongdoing or liability by any party to the agreement. In, any settlement reached is likely to be confidential, with confidentiality assured by a substantial financial penalty (called a “liquidated damages clause”) as well as the availability of injunctive relief. The only nonparties likely to know of the settlement amount is the parties attorneys and tax advisors, and the IRS. Certainly, no jury in any subsequent criminal trial will ever learn of it.
3. A third consideration, Sidney, is that at Spector’s age, there is not much “putting it off time” left. It is in his interest to get the criminal matter and the civil matter resolved as soon as possible so he can resume his life and live out whatever time he has left a free man—if that is in the cards, and we believe that it is. That is to say, we believe that the conviction will be reversed, and a manslaughter plea entered with a sentence close to time served at that point. Once he is out of jail, that last thing he wants to be doing is spend his remaining years going to court over a civil case.
My only comment... Phil is guilty as sin and deserves to be right where he is. The only one spending his money is his crazy trial bride, he can afford the civil trial and to compensate (as much as possible anyway) Donna Clarkson and her family. If Phil gets out of prison on appeal I will lose the little faith I have left in the legal system.
I know this doesn't agree with the popular opinion around these parts but I paid close attention to both PS trials... again... guilty as sin. :)
~Ellie
I don't think your opinion is in the minority at all and in any event you are entitled to it.
Personally, we don't know who pulled that trigger and will continue to have doubts until there is a fair criminal trial.
In the meantime, however, the topic we were asked to explore is what we think of the idea of a mediation of the civil case at this time.
And as we hope we have made clear, we think it makes sense for both sides. And that issue has nothing to do with one's opinions on guilt or innocence.
If someone wins a lawsuit how much of that money do they really see? It seems to me, maybe you can use this as an example, in the R. Blake case the actual amount I believe won by the plaintiffs after all the deductions wasn't that great although the amount awarded sounded quite large. Do you remember Blogonaut? I don't want to mistake the facts.
I have no clue what an attorney's fee might be for almost 5 years worth of help, since it was first filed in 2005 right?
So if they are in negotiations, does that mean the Clarkson's civil attorneys are aware of Phil S. worth? How does that all work?
Taylor Ring are the civil suit attorneys, I have been to their website in which they have several articles about this this case.
In a trial they can use Phil's taped statements right, the ones the prosecution didn't use in their murder case? The things said in jail or to the police? I mean that could open another can of worms for Phil right? Could that perhaps be a deciding factor in Phil possibly participating in negotiations?
Kelley Lynch is attempting to make this thread all about her, as usual. Give it up lynch. This is about Phil Spector and has nothing to do with you. Go take a hike.
Dear Anon@ 1:11 pm:
First one must distinguish between a settlement and a judgment that follows a trial.
In the case of a settlement, the civil case is typically put on hold until the deal closes by the deal being fully funded. If it is all cash (right now money) then the settlement is contingent on the money changing hands and if future payments are involved those are usually funded by the defendant purchasing an annuity from an insurance company—again in a fully funded deal.
The answer to what percentage of a jury award that is reduced by the court into a judgment can be collected depends on the financial condition of the defendant and where his assets are located.
Given what we have read about Spector’s financial condition we believe that collecting a large judgment would not be an issue.
The issue on the collectability of a judgment would be the size of the judgment and how long the appeals process involved takes, at the end of which the California Court of Appeal, the California Supreme Court, or even the United States Supreme Court could reverse and send the entire case back to square one for a retrial on liability (if for instances evidence is improperly admitted) or a new trial on damages—especially of the ratio of punitive damages to compensatory damages exceed 1:1.
In all cases, before the plaintiffs would get a dime all out of pocket costs (and those could be quite substantial) would come off the top and then the lawyers would take a percentage—typically 33.33% of the entire recovery if the case settles before the matter is set for trial and 40% if the case settles or resolves after that date. If appeals are involved, the plaintiffs’ share of any judgment ultimately collected would be further reduced by attorney’s fees—typically incurred by an appellate specialist who would either work on a contingent fee to save the judgment or on an hourly fee funded by the plaintiffs’ barrowing against their share of the judgment. If barrowing against the judgment is involved, those costs would come out of the plaintiffs’ share as well.
So the answer to your last question depends on the financial condition of the defendant, where his assets are located, and how long the appeals process takes to fully resolve—which could take several years or over ten years (depending on whether the United States Supreme Court is ultimately involved).
Also, cases sometimes get reversed, retried, and appealed again—which can be a long nightmare for plaintiff’s counsel—because they want the time and cash that they have invested in the case returned to them as soon as possible.
At the same time Phil Spector is not getting any younger, he does not want to risk his entire estate, and that is why it makes sense for both sides to try and settle the case in mediation.
June 22, 2010 1:42 PM:
The answer is: Not necessarily. As with the criminal trials, any evidence either side would seek to have admitted would have to be approved by the trial judge.
In general, anything that a party opponant says is called "an admission", and the opposite party may introduce that admission over a hearsay objection.
In the Spector trial the prosecution elected to NOT offer Spector's jailhouse statement to police on the mornng of his arrest, becasue he claimed in the tape recorded statement (just hours after the shooting) that Clarkson shot herself. The prosecution felt that this statement by Spector right after the shooting bolstered his defense.
I have always been intrigued by the statement by Spector, because it was made at a time that he could not have known about Clarkson's sad--almost suicidal emails, sagging career, heavy drug and alchol use, and general depression.
But the reason it could not be used is that only a party opponant could introduce it over a hearsay objection, and the prosecution elected not to.
Believe me, if the prosecution thought the statement helped, they would have used it to convict.
Remember, an admission by a party opponant may only be introduced againt a hearsay objection by the opposing party (the side that did not make the statement).
Recall also that in trial #1 the defense tried to use the statement, but Judge fidler sustained the hearsay objection.
Blogonaut:
Usually, I can see where you’re coming from. While we often disagree, you go out of your way to be fair and quite respectful of others. However, to say the lost earning potential of Lana Clarkson is negligible—well, that’s just cruel. Perhaps Lana’s future in Hollywood was negligible. Perhaps there was a designated script for a Hollywood blockbuster waiting for Lana on her agent’s desk. Perhaps, Lana may have chucked Hollywood and enrolled in law school at the University of Wisconsin or Marquette University.
Yes, Blogo, many women in there forties chuck their careers, go back to school, and dive into financially successful mid-life careers. And if mediation isn’t successful and the case goes to trial, I’ll bet there’ll jurors who are married to women who began new careers in their forties; jurors who have mothers who began new careers in their forties; or jurors who have sisters who began new careers in their forties.
Tonight, my clairvoyant powers are under a cloud; therefore, I don’t know what professional career path, or fortune, awaited Lana Clarkson. I do, however, believe declaring Lana’s future professional earning potential to be negligible—well, you’re just being uncharacteristically cruel.
Our point is simply this:
In a wrongful death action with clear liability unless the decedent had a substantial earnings history, the lost earnings component of the case is minimal, and those cases tend to settle in the mid six figure range.
Contrast this example with a 34 year old cardiologist who is the primary breadwinner for his family.
The lost income component of a wrongful death can only be based on demonstrated earnings history. It is calculated by taking a years remaining in the workforce figure from an actuarial table, multiplying the average annual income earned to date by the number of years the person is expected to have worked, and discounting that number to present value.
In addition, the heirs bear the burden of proof on this issue and the economic damages awarded cannot be based on speculation such as maybe the decedent would have finished her schooling, obtained an MBA and gotten a job at Goldman Sachs. What ever the decedent was earning annually preceding death is what the family is stuck with as a damage number unless there is concrete proof to the contrary—such as the person already had completed a professional educational program, done well, and had excellent job prospects.
Compare one case that we are professional familiar with where a 34 year old tank truck driver with a nonworking wife and 4 kids was killed in a head-on collision with a semi-tractor-trailer in which excessive speed by defendant’s driver was suspected as the cause of the collision but disputed by eye-witnesses and defendant’s expert. The case settled between 3 and 4 million dollars.
In another case, a 52 year old paraplegic married female who was 100% disabled and unable to work fell from a Palmer Lift because the home-care nurse failed to strap her in to the lift, causing her to fall our of the lift face-forward and hit the floor, causing her death. The case settled for around $600,000.
This clinical analysis implies no disrespect to Lana Clarkson but nevertheless must be taken into consideration in order to understand the issues surrounding the referenced mediation.
I just read an article here http://www.sgvtribune.com/news/ci_15331142?source=rss -- unless I'm reading it wrong it says that the case may still have a chance at going to trial. I also really think that this is about way more than money for Donna Clarkson. Something way more valuable than money. I think she's pressing this to say to Phil "I'm not going away. You took what was most important to me.. I'm going after what's most important to you". She deserves her day in court too, whether it's through mediation or a trial. That's what I think.
~Ellie
Oh-- and imo, the criminal trial was more than fair. MORE than fair.
Blogonaut in regards to this statement made in your post
"In addition, since OJ the United States Supreme Court has held that in most cases, a ratio of punitive damages to compensatory damages greater than 1:1 will be overturned as unconstitutional. Therefore, with compensatory damages expected in the hundreds of thousands—and not millions—of dollars, there is little likelihood of a ten million or twenty million award of punitive damages in this case."
The most similar case I can think of would be that of Robert Blake and the shooting of his wife, he being a celebrity, and so forth. That civil trial ended in what about 2005 or so, after OJ's civil trialI believe. Now I paid attention to the criminal case but I don't recall Bonnie as having a job that would award the family 30 million and make the 1:1 ratio in the civil case.
I didn't realize unless I am misunderstanding the IRS comment in your post, Uncle Sam takes his share of a settlement also?
Dear Ellie:
Yes, you are quite correct.
As we said in the post, if BOTH sides fail to reach a settlement agreement during the mediation process—most likely to take place over several full day sessions in front of a retired judge—the trial court has already stated that he will set the case for trial when the parties are back in court in October.
As for the wrongful death case being about “more than money”, unfortunately that is all that can be obtained in a civil case. And I assure you that the attorneys representing the Clarkson family (who are highly regarded) will urge their client to accept a fair settlement of one can be obtained. It is the attorneys who are going to lay several hundred thousand dollars on the table in costs and a thousand of hours or more of their time working the case up and trying it and I assure you that if they did not pay attention to the bottom line they would be out of business in a hurry.
To Anon at 1:55 PM:
I do not agree that the Blake case is similar.
In the Blake case the sole issue was identity and whoever shot Bonnie Lee did so in a cold, calculated and premeditated manner as she sat defenseless in Blake’s vehicle. That kind of intentional killing justifies a lot of punitive damages.
Keep in mind that even so, in April of 2008 the California Court of Appeal conditionally ordered a new trial on damages, unless the plaintiffs agreed to accept a reduction of the jury verdict to $15 million in that case of cold blooded premeditated murder.
See here:
http://appellatecases.courtinfo.ca.gov/search/case/dockets.cfm?dist=2&doc_id=1129705&doc_no=B191050
There is significant uncertainty surrounding not only who was holding the gun when it went off in this case (as in the Blake case) but this case lacks the element of planning and premeditation that the Blake case had to distinguish the case from the Spector civil matter.
In addition, the recent United States Supreme Court and California Supreme Court cases on punitive damages would create uncertainty that any punitive damage award in excess of a 1:1 ratio to compensatory damages would survive an appeal.
These are just our opinions, but they are opinions that are informed by legal experience and knowledge.
If I had to guess, my prediction would be that the case settles before a verdict is reached.
For those of you interested in reading the opinion, I pulled the Robert Blake Court of Appeal Opinion off of our paid legal search engine and posted it on the free part of the internet:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/33530773/Appeal-From-Robert-Blake-Worngful-Death-Verdict-Opinion
Interestingly:
The $30 million awarded by the jury was for the loss of care, comfort and companionship of their mother by Blakely’s four children; the plaintiffs did not even bother seeking economic damages or punitive damages.
The Court of Appeal reduced this award to $15,000,000.
The discussion of legal standards governing a jury’s award of general damages in a wrongful death case is interesting.
Note that Lana Clarkson had no children.
I'm not so sure that Donna Clarkson is concerned so much about how much money she may get from Spector as she is about driving home the point to him that her daughter had value and his conviction says he took that valuable daughter from her. And, again, I'm not yet sure one way or the other if his is guilty or not. As a mother, it would cut deep to see so many people clamoring about regarding the rights of the man convicted of killing my daughter, and no one making any comparable noise about the rights of my daughter. Just my humble opinion, but I don't see dollar signs in her eyes. I see a woman in great pain.
Sydney, you’re right; it’s never been about the money. This civil suit is about a mother’s pain. Spector took the most valuable thing anyone can ever take from a mother. He took her child.
I’m sure she doesn’t expect to get millions—and most likely Spector will be dead before she gets a dime. And if he’s dead before she gets a dime, then she’ll at least have the satisfaction knowing he did not die at his castle, in his own bed, surrounded by his loved ones. Ultimately, Mrs. Clarkson’s final victory will come when he dies as an abandoned old man, on a cold prison slab, clad in his prisoner uniform.
Sorry Sidney and Kelly, but we disagree.
Spending a few months in trial laying bare the precise details of a mother’s relationship to her daughter, hearing an endless parade of witnesses testify (again) about her daughter’s drug and alcohol use, and hearing her own lawyers quantify the mother daughter relationship as a dollar figure (which is what a wrongful death action is all about—asking a jury for money for the death of a loved one)—may not be what Donna Clarkson wants.
Stated another way, if sitting in court last year and hearing a jury of 12 say out loud that Philip Spector was guilty of the malice murder of her daughter did not suffice, what additional “justice” is there to be achieved by another long a legal proceeding in another venue? Bankrupting Spector?
Before you all start shouting “yea!, do it!”, keep in mind that only Dona Clarkson knows the answer to those questions, and how she chooses to proceed is entirely her call. It is also a decision that will have a profound impact on her life—not yours.
This is not one of those cases where a civil verdict is the only way to get “justice” (such as where there was no criminal prosecution or where the criminal prosecution resulted in an acquittal.)
The unsettling part about a wrongful death action is that the entire process is PRECISELY ALL ABOUT placing a dollar value on the loss of human life. That is the sole purpose of such a proceeding and that is the only thing that the jury will have the power to do and will be asked to do. And, by the way, the jury will be instructed that it may NOT award damages for the pain and emotional suffering that Donna Clarkson is experiencing over the loss of her daughter. (See the above link to the Blake case and cases cited in the opinion.)
Therefore, a wrongful death action is PRECISELY NOT ABOUT “a mother’s pain”—it is about two questions: 1) is there liability? and 2) What is the DOLLAR VALUE of the loss of the care comfort and companionship that the death of Lana Clarkson has caused her mother?
Sound cold? A civil action for cash is as cold and hard as it gets. The jury verdict only has two blanks: One for liability (yes/no) and $______________.
We just don’t think it is going to heal or help Donna Clarkson ease her pain to require her to explain to a jury why if she had such a close relationship with her daughter, Lana had to turn to acquaintances to try to borrow petty sums like $100 when she was desperate and being evicted from her cottage and her phone was being discinnected ---and a hundred more questions like it—mentioned day-after-day in another lengthy trial.
Because unlike the criminal trial, where the mother-daughter relationship was largely a side issue, in the wrongful death case that relationship will be front and center, and in terms of the damages case the SOLE FOCUS of the trial.
One thing for sure, when the civil case has concluded she will be able to afford to buy any number of pairs of $600 shoes—and anything else she wants. And so will her attorney.
Disagree? Outraged?
Then COMMENT or forever hold your piece.
So at the end of your last post you sound like you think Donna Clarkson will win the civil trial OR mediation or however it plays out. Yes?
What you say makes sense.. but I do think that emotionally this is not about money. I think this is about the differences between what is important to Donna and what is important to Phil, especially with the way Phil has tried so desparately to make it sound like Lana was 'nothing' simply because she wasn't a millionaire.
No, I'm certainly not outraged.. not any more. I was when the first trial was declared a mistrial, but now I'm feeling pretty good about the way things are. As KellyGreen so poetically said, Phil will die in prison, and that alone makes me feel pretty good. :)
~Ellie
There is no “winner” in mediation, just a voluntary private resolution of the case on terms acceptable to all parties.
It is impossible to say what other people are thinking and when we try, we often are just projecting our own thoughts onto the other person.
If the plaintiffs (or their counsel) get too greedy at the mediation, and take this to trial, I do not see the civil case ending anytime soon or benefiting the Clarkson family at all in the short term.
Yes, Donna Clarkson is going to be a millionaire over this at some point.
Do we feel nothing but sympathy for any mother who has lost a child? Absolutely.
Do we have a problem with a mother profiting from her adult daughters death? In all honesty, it bothers us—and I assure you it will bother some jurors too.
Refresh me... did the Goldman's and/or the Brown's win a civil case against OJ?
The Goldmans and the Browns parted legal company early on--when the Browns finally realized that it was in the interest of their grandchildren for OJ to keep as much of his estate intact as possible.
As to the Goldmans "winning", that is a matter of semantics.
They "won" a $40 million judgment of which they have collected about $15,000 (or less--I don't recall exactly).
OJ had some excellent estate planning, including $4 million in a retirement account that was set up to be completely exempt from execution.
In addition, as a Florida resident, 100% of his primarily residence of what ever value or equity was 100% exempt from execution by his creditors.
So the Goldmans could not touch a penny of his savings or his condo, and he could theoretically get fat, happy, pay golf and chase women until the day he died (except for a major character issue that got him in the end, i.e. once a thug, always a thug.)
The Brown's also bought the rights to his book (If) I did it, I wonder how much they made off of that.
But... I diagress....
The jury is the voice of the people.
Blogonaut, I respectfully disagree: this civil trial is PRECISELY ABOUT DONNA CLARKSON’S EMOTIONAL PAIN AND SUFFERING! I’m sure the lawyer in you looks at the rule of law—but a civil trial due to the loss of a child is always about emotional pain and suffering. Sure, we all understand jurors are supposed to follow the rule of law; however, even those most jaded acknowledge that juror’s at civil trials not only respond to but also react to emotion pain and suffering. Unless some bizarre cosmic event takes place, most of the civil jury pool will be drawn from parents—parents who will put themselves in Mrs. Clarkson’s position.
Lana’s 4th cousin 32 times removed isn’t suing Spector; her mother is suing Spector. If Clarkson’s distant cousins sued Spector, well, of course the jury would easily follow the rule of law. But, Spector’s being sued by the mother of the woman he MURDERED. Many jurors will be parents—some will be mothers and grandmothers. Eventhough, and in good faith, those jurors will swear to follow the rule of law, each mother will put herself in the position of Mrs. Clarkson.
The jury is the voice of the people. There’s absolutely no upside for Spector to go to trial for the wrongful death of Lana Clarkson. Let’s not forget in his two previous trials, 22 of 24 jurors voted to convict Spector. The tribe has sent a very clear message to Team Spector.
Phil Spector will neither acknowledge nor accept responsibility for his actions. As my friends who have lost children and spouses to murder say: “If only the murderer or his family had the decency to reach out to our family; If only the murderer or his family acknowledged our loss; If only the murderer or his family said two little words: ‘I’m sorry’”…. Because neither the murderer nor his family will acknowledge the victim’s family, the jury—by default—speaks to the victim’s family.
And eventhough the law theoretically allows damages for only liability and loss of care, comfort, and companionship; in reality every dollar in damages will be for Mrs. Clarkson’s emotional pain and suffering. The jury is the voice of the people.
OK KG, fair enough.
If you were on the jury would you vary the amount of your damage awared "for a mother's pain and suffering" according to the evidence of how close mother and daughter were?
I think those comments he made about Lana will come back to $haunt him no matter how close it may come out Mother and Daughter were or were not. He may not be paying for a Mother's anguish as much as his own words. If Vincent T. takes the stand for some reason in the civil trial and that bullet comment or C word is used or mentioned, just consider each time that word is mentioned an additional $100,000 or more to the settlement I would guess.
It would be hard or not right to lean towards a guilty verdict based on foul language or general thoughts coming to light in a trial, but taking a dollar from someone for each bad word and thought as a little personal slap from a juror, that would be much easier don't you think? Just my guess.
Dear Anon:
If you refer to the tape-recorded statement that Spector gave in jail the morning of the shooting, I agree that his over-all tone is not very sympathetic (he calls Lana a “this bitch”). But because the same statement contains a claim by Spector that Clarkson shot herself just hours after the event, before he could have known that there was corroborating evidence for this defense, the tape cuts both ways.
That said, if the civil jury (if there is a civil jury) years the same inflammatory evidence that in my opinion will result in a reversal of the murder conviction, it will add more that “a $100,000” to the award—the award will go through the roof, and will be reversed on appeal as well.
What we are really interested in, though, is what the rest of you NON-lawyers think--since you are more representative of how a juror might view the case.
What would be a fair settlement number?
Where have all the Spector-haters gone?
Long time passing
Where have all the haters gone?
Long time ago
Where have all the haters gone?
Girls have picked them every one
When will they ever learn?
When will they ever learn?
A certain self-professed "dear friend" of PS is now posting that the Los angeles District Attorney's Office should pay PS for its use of the "C" word during the trials.
All she did was cut-and-paste directly from this blog. Not an original thought in that vacant and addled brain. For someone who claims to be his friend "for over 25 years" (despite admitting in writing that she did not know him), one would think that she could come up with an original, printable comment.
Civil suits of this sort have always presented a problem for me. It seems to me that these are more about adding more punishment to the sentence than they are about recompensing a person for the loss of a life. I know for me, money would never be able to compensate me for the loss of one of my children. As a matter of fact, it seems like blood-money more than anything else. I could see it as punishment in the case of OJ because he clearly got away with murder. And even though the suit was won and the money will likely never be collected, it is still a guilty verdict. But in Spector's case, I mean, for God's sake he got life in prison. What more is needed? And realistically, how much money is Spector going to have left after the appeal and after all his legal bills are paid? It just seems like spitting in the wind. Mrs. Clarkson might do better coming to grips with her loss and letting her daughter rest in peace.
That is the thing, Sidney.
It is easy to say "this is not about money" when pressing for millions of dollars of cash to be transferred from Spector's bank account to yours.
But in view of the fact that a jury of 12 has already said "guilty", what is left EXCEPT THE MONEY?
And yea, you can always say that you are going to give the money to charity, but that is not legally binding.
Sometimes suing a man for millions is just what it appears to be: An attempt to transfer wealth accumulated over a lifetime of innovation, creativity, and hard work to another.
A "practical person" who perhaps did not agree with the way her daughter chose to live her life (which is possibly why Lana had to pester strangers for nickels and dimes when she was desperate).
A practical person who chose to rub Lana's nose in her decision to "give up the dream" and serve drinks to the very stars that Lana aspired to be by (instead of taking her to Loehmann's and getting her some discount designer shoes so she could at least hold-her-head-up at the house of blues) by taking her to buy cheap-ass, embarrassing, humiliation shoes for $9.00 a pair that no woman like Lana WOULD BE CAUGHT DEAD IN. As if to say, see, these are the shoes that REALISTIC, HARD WORKING people in your circumstances have to buy, that I have had to buy all of these years......so get used to yur new REALISTIC role in society….
Or maybe this was not an act of passive-aggression at all, maybe being of ordinary means and ordinary sensibilities, and not knowing Lana at all, she just did not know any better.
But this cheap shoe buying spree--often cited as Lana's reason to go on living--struck me as just the opposite, a slap in the face to a beautiful woman who aspired to be a star, and was reduced to serving drinks to the Jimmy Choo and (Manolo) Blahnik shod A-Listers that Lana aspired to be.
I may be all wrong on this, but I know that a beautiful woman with aspirations of financial and social success would die a thousand deaths in a venue populated by designer clad women wearing $9.99 shoes from Payless. And no way would this shoe buying cheer such a woman up or give her a reason to keep on going; Far from it.
Makes it all seem so much sadder, doesn't it? I don't know if Phil Spector killed Lana Clarkson or not. The only people who know exactly what happened that night are Phil and Lana. And if the DA's office and a judge cannot improve on what they presented at both trials, no one may ever know with any certainty at all. But it is all such a sad commentary on both their lives. That Phil Spector had to sink so far below his former standing in life that he had to liquor-up aspiring young women to get them to his bed, and that this young, aspiring woman had to compromise herself to get that chance-in-a-lifetime does not speak well of either of them. As I said earlier, I just find this all so incredibly sad for all involved. There will be no happy ending here for anyone.
Blogonaut in response to your question about an amount, I will admit I feel a bit insensitive even talking about the subject. I have children and the idea of estimating the value of any parent's pain isn't a pleasant one.
Since you have been so kind as to explain so much about civil trials I have considered your question and have imagined myself as a juror.
Since it is a Celebrity case I will start at no less than one million dollars but I will try to stick as closely as I can to the judges instructions. I would want to be fair, honest and honor my duty as a juror.
Lana was a beautiful woman, I can't imagine any man that wouldn't have been proud to have such a beautiful woman on his arm. Phil was such a man that night. She was one of those woman that I feel became more beautiful as she aged from the photos I seen. So I do think there could have been future income potential as an actress. So tack on another two million. Now keep in mind I have a slight clue as to the wealth of the man being sued also, there has been enough in the paper or I at least I can associate the his name with the music he produced.
Now as a woman, I'm not going to like the way he expressed his thoughts about her or women in general which may come out in court. So like I said $100,00 for each "C" word if that is brought up in testimony from Vincent T., if he would be a witness again, and $500,000 if the bullet and women's head comment came up again also.
IF I would look out onto the courtroom scene and come to notice a well dressed blonde woman about Lana's age sitting behind him daily, I'll most likely get the idea that she part of his support system or wife, that would have me wondering and thinking during the duller moments of the trial. My thought, so a woman still benefits from him and has a future while another's woman's future ended in his foyer. As a woman I'm not going to think to much of that so slap another million on him. I'm not as cad as a Housewife of NJ but hey we all have our moments and I'm just being honest on what would probably be my take on it all.
If I see any celebrities in the courtroom supporting him, that says wealthy friends, a circle that he mut of ran in, ok add another $500,000 because he won't get much of a message really with only few thousand if he can afford that sort of lifestyle.
I'm going to be looking around the courtroom Blogonaut, I'll try to get a feel for the emotions, the money whatever that leads back to the plaintiff or the defendant. That is just the way I am.
Mother's pain and loss I can't put an amount on that really and it doesn't seem right to even make a guess at it.
So, I guess my basic award would be about 5 million or 6 million. If it was another defendant, an average man of little or no means of course I would scale it down even with the same plaintiff.
I don't know how the photos and evidence would affect my final amount.
What do you think Blogonaut, all my opinion and thoughts, would you pick me for a juror in one of your cases!?
Last, I would have no doubt as I have before, I would say a prayer for all involved and for Phil Spector, light a candle in church for him in hopes that during the time he has left on this earth he can make amends where ever needed with his past, fully experience reconcilliation with those he may have hurt along the way, find the comfort he himself mentioned not having (Agony & Ecstacy)and finally be able to look back with a sense of gladness with a feeling of accomplishment on what he was able to do with his life and the music and the geniune love he did try to share or show.
OK why am I hearing My Sweet Lord in my head right now! Thanks Blogonaut.
She needed black work shoes IIRC, not shoes for a party. I recall her shoes from the photos, black mary janes with rhinestones on part of them (?) so not exactly payless shoes. They were nice looking shoes, you get a bargain you go for it, what's wrong with that? Phil was a millionaire that night he didn't seemed to be upset by her shoes from any testimony I heard.
We have to remember he wanted to be in her company that night, where many of those that may support him now or became part of his life later he may not have given a 2nd look at.
Blogo, I know you believe it’s odd that a woman in her 40’s may borrow money from her friends; and I know you believe it’s odd that a woman in her 40’s didn’t borrow money from her mom. I don’t. Every 40-something woman—and man—wants her mother to believe she’s successful. Now that I think about it—and with the exception of the freaks that appear on Judge Judy—I don’t know of a mother who loans money to her kids. On the other hand, I know many mothers who gladly, and most generously, GIVE money to their adult children. Afterall, most mothers NEVER expect their kids to repay them. Most mothers are delighted to have the ability to “help” their kids.
Folks, give it up about the cheap shoes. I believe the shoes were far more important to Mrs. Clarkson than they were to Lana. I believe Mrs. Clarkson, in an attempt to show her daughter that she was proud of Lana for returning to the workforce, insisted on buying something for Lana (perhaps men can’t understand this concept). I believe Lana, knowing her mother INTENDED to buy her something, agreed to let her mom buy her several pair of cheap shoes. Most likely, Mrs. Clarkson got more out of giving Lana something, than Lana got out of receiving those shoes. Good god, any woman who has worked more than 2 8 hours shifts STANDING on her feet will let others in on their dirty little secret: they don’t wear cheap shoes to work. Most women I know who stand on their feet during their ENTIRE shift use their first paycheck to purchase COMFORTABLE—hence expensive—shoes.
It’s important to remember, prior to getting the hostess gig at House of Blues, Lana was out of the workforce for 1 year—breaking both wrists makes it nearly impossible to hold down any job. Because of her injury, Lana most likely qualified for disability. However, Lana didn’t take the easy way out; instead, Lana lived off her small savings and, yes, perhaps she did borrow from friends. So those who pretend to be holier than thou must ask themselves this: if I survive a debilitating accident, do I have the savings and means to financially survive for the next year? Eventhough Lana qualified for disability, she didn’t apply for disability; eventhough Lana qualified for general relief, she didn’t apply for general relief; eventhough Lana qualified for nearly every federal “welfare” type program in existence, she didn’t apply for welfare. Instead, Lana did the best she could without going on the dole and feeding at the public trough. And yet for some reason, there are so many posters who continue to show great DISDAIN for Lana Clarkson and her mother. Why? When Lana was able to return to work—eventhough she was still in tremendous pain—she took a crappy job that paid $8/hour. She went from recognized actress to hostess—and too many of you think Lana’s unfortunate circumstances are amusing. So ask yourself this: If tomorrow I have a debilitating accident, lose my career or opportunities to advance my career, and if I am relegated to working a crappy job that pays $8/hour, how will I survive the next year—how am I going to pay my bills?
Dear Anon, and with all due respect to Kelley Green, who is far to well grounded to care about this stuff:
Unless you are steeped in fashion, and you can tell the latest Jimmy Choo heels from a pair made by Manolo Blahnik, Christian Louboutin, and many others, and can tall a Chanel couture garment from a couture garment by, say, Christian Dior, from a Christian Lacroix, from a Feraud—let alone know the meaning of couture, forget it—there is no way that I could possibly explain within the confines of a blog post “what’s wrong with that”.
The whole concept of what I am talking about is so far above you that I would be wasting my time trying.
Suffice it to say, we know the difference, and any beautiful woman who has aspired to riches and fame (attained or not) and who reads Vogue knows the difference, and Lana Clarkson knew the difference.
You may have heard of a Birkin Bag—but you probably could not recognize even a fake, let alone discern the difference. But those differences are well recognized by those who know, and these things in turn distinguish pretty white trash in $9.99 pumps with sequins from women of substance and fashion sense.
I'm confused here. So basically Steeley Dan (bleh to the band) is saying that Donna Clarkson is going after Phil Spector's money for...what reason? And that because you can't place a monetary amount on the mother/daughter relationship (well, beyond "$9.99 Payless Shoes" that is) she should not get anything in a civil trial? Is no one paying attention? It's not ABOUT the money. It's about hitting the old cracker where it counts. It's about his trial bride with the new grill, the boob job, and the (good god) recording career and her acess to the millions. And you know, are ANY of you aware of Louis and Gary Spector? Based on them alone it's painfully apparent that Phil is unaware of what a true 'parent/child relationship' is about (singing the theme from All In the Family at the piano with Nicole aside...gag). Again, as I have said, it's not about how large the dollar sign is that the PUBLIC (disgustingly) places on Lana's head, it's about Donna saying "no Phil, I'm not going away. You may have gotten life in prison but I would like to remove not only your chances for appeal, but for your trailer, er, trial bride from your 'castle'.
It has NOTHING to do with the shoes. My mother STIL buys me shoes-- she'll just show up with a pair of shoes. I am FORTY TWO years old and have been totally financially independent for the last 20 years. It is. What. Mothers. Do. Period.
Donna Clarkson wakes up every morning missing and thinking about Lana. Let Phil wake up every morning missing his money. You can't compare, but it's what matters to him.
~Ellie
And Blogonaut... PLEASE tell me you didn't call Lana "pretty white trash".... please...
~Ellie
Dear Ellie:
No, we said EXACTLY the opposite.
We made it quite clear that we believed Lana was in the elite category of persons who could tell the difference between haute couture and Juicy Couture, and therefore would be mortified to wear $9.99 Payless pumps to meet and greet A-listers at the red-velvet-roped entrance to the VIP room.
And yes, only the people, who know, notice such details, but that was exactly our point.
And our mother has bought me shoes as well, but even in 1960 they did not have a $9.99 price tax affixed. I mean, how cheap can you get? Was she making some kind of point?
Second, what happened to the Elie who let go of her anger with the conviction? And why take that anger out on Mrs. Spector, who did not even know Phil when Lana died, let alone have anything to do with her death?
Oh ok... I see your point now. You're saying Donna Clarkson was being 'cheap' when she bought the work shoes for Lana. Was that part of her depo, the price tag on the shoes? I don't remember that part. I guess, to me, the price tag is not important in the least. It's all about the point. The principle. (And I think calling her "cheap" would be incredibly unfair.)
I, personally, don't think it mattered even to Lana how much the shoes cost. She wore them, right? And making a point? Did Mrs. Clarkson say Lana picked out the shoes or that she (Donna) did?
Angry? Hm. Maybe just a tad whenever I hear negative remarks about Lana or her mother. As far as "Mrs. Spector"--- are you referring to Nicole? If so, I'm not angry with Nicole, not at all.. I just thought her statements attempting to make her childhood sound as wonderful and typical as, say, yours (love ya Blogo but really, wasn't $9.99 shoes about average for growing boys in 1960?) was actually kind of funny. How can a man go from locking his wife in a bedroom and keeping a casket for her in the basement (in case she ever decided to leave) to being Archie Bunker?
I think a lot--- way too much-- importance is being placed on the shoes and the value or the price of the shoes. I hope Donna Clarkson clears out Phil's bank account.
I'm getting the feeling I'm not rich enough to be here. I hate to think I would be considered someone without 'substance' because I don't wear $500 shoes and wouldn't necessarily recognize a $500 pair of shoes if I saw them. (In fact, the shoes I'm wearing right now cost about twenty bucks!)~Ellie :)
(oops... sorry... by Mrs. Spector you're referring to Rachelle. Not Nicole. Sorry. I'm in Friday mode.)
No, Elie, you are very much welcome here—as is everyone else—shod or barefoot.
And no, I was dressed (note the passive form) for junior high school in high quality penny loafers or leather lace-up shoes, tailored dress-slacks (with cuffs), cotton button down shirts, and 100% wool cardigan sweaters. Which is probably why I developed such acute verbal abilities—because I had to literally talk my way out of a fight at every lunch break and recess. But I digress.
One of the main points made by the pre-verdict “guilties” on the blogs as to why Lana Clarkson (supposedly) did not kill herself was that she just went shoe shopping a few days before with her mom, and bought more than a dozen pairs of shoes for her new job as a VIP greeter at House of Blues for something line $118.00 (including tax).
It struck me that the time that this shoe buying ritual would have been more depressing for Lana than anything else, for a number of reasons.
The shoe incident was emblematic of a milestone in Lana’s life. For the first time she was acknowledging that she was no longer a full-time actress by profession and was accepting full time employment in another field.
Although that employment promised to be lucrative, it also involved meeting-and (greeting, and seating), the very important actresses and successful women that Lana had hoped to be a peer to by age 40 but was not.
Although you are comfortable in your own skin and with living within your means, you are not a Los Angeles-actress-want-to-be so obsessed with making it as an actress that you forged letters from well know producers [“Congratulations kid, you made it”] and placed them in your portfolio.
I just cannot help but think that all of this was a depressing ritual for Lana; a formalization of her self-perceived failure to achieve her dream. A formal “giving up”.
And I cannot help surmise that her mother thought the shift in Lana’s thinking toward “being realistic” was decades long over-due. Did Mrs. Clarkson just not realize how humiliating it must have been for Lana to even have her mom buying her shoes, let alone anti-fashion-foot-ware that Lana would be forced to wear in an ultra-competitive, fashion conscious environment? Or was Mrs. Clarkson making a point of her long overdue victory—finally convincing Lana to get real, in some way celebrating Lana’s capitulation the “real world” that her mother had to slog though.
To understand why you have to have some first hand familiarity with how competitive women who aspire to ascend to social recognition can be (and how critical they are of other women)—not just in terms of physical appearance but fashion; and one has to understand how exaggerated that materialism is in a town like Los Angeles.
In any event, I am not the one who initially make a huge point out of the shoe incident, the hundreds of “guilty” posters arguing that anyone who just bought 14 pairs of new shoes would not commit suicide did—on virtually all the blogs and discussion groups and boards.
And I simply have another take on that (admittedly small) piece of the puzzle.
Finally, now that Donna Clarkson—by HER OWN DECISION to sue in civil court for money damages that by law are pegged to how close she was to her daughter—has OPENED THE DOOR to being cross-examined on why Lana had to beg a relative stranger for $100 to avoid being evicted just months before she died. I am also curious about why the same mother living in the same town as Lana would knowingly send her daughter to meet and greet the very women Lana aspired to call peers clad in $9.00 shoes.
For crying out loud, a decent cheese burger served with “house” water cost a lot more than that in any Los Angeles eatery.
As much sympathy as I have for any mother who lost a child, once anyone is not satisfied with merely obtaining a murder conviction and life-sentence against the person, and seeks an additional monetary “pound of flesh” based on her relationship with the decedent in a court of law—she has opened the door to this discussion, not I.
As expected, the AG filed an additional request for extension of time to file its Respondent's Brief today. There is no ruling yet, but it will be granted for at least another 30 days.
Painful we know, but the wheels of appellate justice move very slowly indeed.
Stay tuned here for the latest developments and analysis.
Thanks for the up-date. A painfully slow process indeed. Just how long could this drag out before the parties actually get into court once again?
If the court of appeal reverses and then the California Supreme Court denies a petition for review by the AG, another estimated year to a year and a half until the parties are back before the LA Superior Court. (Spector would be entitled to a new trial judge.)
If the California Supreme Court takes up the case, another three to four years.
If Spector has to pursue federal court remidies [federal district court----->9th Circuit Court of Appeals---->US Supreme Court], years--maybe even a decade.
Donna Clarkson is banking on cashing in on the media hysteria value of this case. Blogonaut is correct in his analysis that Ms. Clarkson had minimal lost earnings and calcuable value to her mother per the law. Also PS will have to testify at the Civil trial and he was adamant that Lana "kissed the gun" which has been interpreted as performing a sex act on the gun and it discharged.
Remember,PS was there and these statements by him were made shortly after the incident, so they are not something new and outrageous after the fact. Does Mrs. Clarkson want that coming out at trial and a whole lot of other evidence that could come out at the Civil trial that was not admissable in the Criminal trial by law and the extremely biased Judge Fidler? What if the Civil trial is defensed because PS testifies that Lana shot herself as the forensics in this matter proves? This trial is a big risk for Mrs. Clarkson not PS.
I also understand that there is an Insurance Company representing and indemnifying Mr. Spector and that they will probably settle for nuisance value and because of the media attention I predict they will probably give her $1,000,000 tops and most of that will go to her attorneys.
Ah, yes, another comment from a gutless wonder too afraid to leave its name; yet so intimate with Spector that it understands how Spector’s insurance company intends to treat Mrs. Clarkson. Hmmm…. And how are you related to Spector?
Your comment that Mrs. Clarkson has more to lose than Spector proves you are either ignorantly uninformed or deliberately obtuse. Mrs. Clarkson lost her daughter; what’s Spector going to lose? Money? Remember, in 2 trials, 22 jurors voted to convict Spector. During his 2 trials, your buddy Spector did his best to dirty up Lana. Nonetheless, and after giving it his best try, he was convicted of Lana’s murder. The jury is the voice of the people. Mrs. Clarkson has absolutely to fear from a civil trial.
NO sane person believes Spector’s insurance company will settle—as you insist—for nuisance value because of media attention. Mrs. Clarkson has nothing to lose. However, your buddy Spector could lose EVERYTHING—and I’m not just talking about money. Of course your buddy wants to make this all go away: he NEEDS to settle with Mrs. Clarkson. Spector can’t afford to have this go to trial—and if the case goes to trial, there will be media coverage—and the last thing Spector needs is media attention. So what does Spector want to keep from the public? Why doesn’t Spector want this to go to trial? What does Spector NEED to keep private? Well, I’m willing to bet my last nickel that Team Spector is afraid—no make that terrified—because when this case goes to trial, all his books—every last financial record—will be opened in court…for the entire world to scrutinize. Yep, opening his books for public scrutiny is what most terrifies Team Spector. Think of all the questions the media will ask—and if Spector isn’t willing to give the answers, well, the media will be quite happy to “fashion” its own answers.
Oh, and off the top of my head, I can just imagine the questions: Is Phil up-to-date on the royalties he owes to musicians? Since the day Phil threw away his young sons, has he given them ANY financial support? Did Phil pay off all his past judgments—to his ex-wives? Has Phil ever paid-off anyone else? Since Chelle’s managing Phil’s finances, what’s happening to his money—is he making money or losing money—is Chelle bleeding him dry? Oh, and my personal favorite: what about Phil, his business entities, and taxes?
And why didn’t Chelle let Phil “produce” her record under Spector’s label—because she wants to keep her money for herself. Chelle doesn’t want Mrs. Clarkson to get access to her money.
Anon, eventhough you and Team Spector may think this lawsuit is just a nuisance claim, it is not; this case is about DONNA CLARKSON’S PAIN AND EMOTIONAL SUFFERING! The jury is the voice of the people. Mrs. Clarkson has nothing to lose—her daughter was murdered by Phil Sector. Spector now resides in a California prison. The tribe has spoken—now it’s time for Team Spector to pay attention.
Once a claim is tendered to an Insurance carrier they make the call on settlements.
Further your analysis that Spector will be afraid to go to trial because he will be confronted with his financial books, is defective, since the Plaintiff most likely has those documents already through Discovery and if there was anything there they probably would have been leaked and or sold to the media by the Plaintiff, aka the grieving mother who is not satisfied with a guilty verdict at the criminal trial but wants money in her pocket over this tragedy, hmmm!!!!!
As to Spector being afraid, he has nothing left to lose he will be 71 shortly and has essentially a life sentence. If I were him I couldn't wait to tell my side of the story that the forensics in this matter prove unequivocally that he did not shoot Lana, she shot herself!!!!
Lastly, numerous innocent persons are sitting in jail convicted by one or two sets of juries. Your time would be better spent voulunteering for the Innocence Project instead of personally attacking persons for their views on this blog.
To Anon - This blog, like many others, entertains ALL opinions, popular or not. That we disagree with one another does not mean we are attacking one another. It's a little thing called "free speech" guaranteed to each of us in our Constitution. Perhaps that concept is foreign to you, but if you like to post your opinions on blogs, it is something you will have to get used to. I don't know if Phil Spector is guilty or innocent - I was not at his house the night Lana Clarkson died and I was not at either of his trials, have not heard/seen the evidence, so the judgement is not mine to make. I do find it distasteful that Donna Clarkson is looking for money when Spector has already gotten what is likely a life sentence. If you are a supporter of Phil Spector, then I suggest you step away from your keyboard, head off to LA and do everything you can to support his appeal and his being granted a new trial. That at least would be productive/constructive.
First, ALL comments are appreciated--whether the commenter feels like leaving his name or not.
Second, while we do not agree that the wrongful death case, if it settles, will settle for "nusance" value, Anon does raise an interesting point: Insurance coverage.
Insurance policies typically only insure against an "occurnace", a sudden and unexpected event, and exclude intentional acts by the insured.
Therefore, in most gunshot cases, the carrier will provide a defense, but also reserve its right to deny coverage (indemnity) if at any point during the case prior to a settlement it becomes clear that the loss was caused by the intentional conduct of the insured.
Therefore, if the murder conviction is affirmed on appeal and the murder conviction becomes final before the civil case is resolved, Spector's insurance coverage will evaporate, and the carrier might even demand reimbursement of its defense costs and attorneys fees.
This provides additional incentive for BOTH sides to settle NOW, Spector for the obvious reasons but also because plaintiffs attorneys don't like to chase defendants to collect a judgment from assets that might be well protected by now--or as KG points out maybe even subject to other claimants who are ahead of Clarckson in line.
Now play nice kiddies. We all have insight to contribute.
Please pardon my naivete, but what kind of insurance does one get that would protect against claims related to the insured killing someone? I mean, does that come under a homeowners policy? Does one need a special rider to cover possible homicides? I don't mean to sound flippant, but I've never heard anything like that before. It's something I would never even think to look into. Is it known if Spector has this kind of insurance? Again, please pardon my naivete - perhaps it's because I live in the mid-west...
Anon, aren’t all convicts innocent? Spector made his choices—now he has to live with the consequences of his actions.
Anon, this civil suit is about DONNA CLARKSON’S PAIN AND EMOTIONAL SUFFERING. Mrs. Clarkson wants Lana to be alive. Unfortunately, your buddy Spector murdered Lana; consequently, Lana is forever lost to her mother. Most likely, Mrs. Clarkson wants Spector to accept responsibility for his actions. She wants Spector to apologize for what he has taken from her. What would happen if Spector were to apologize for taking Lana’s life? Gee, I wonder if a sincere apology to Mrs. Clarkson would make the civil suit disappear? What might happen if Spector could just choke out those 2 little words: I’m sorry. Well, we’ll never know. Spector refuses to take responsibility for his actions—and obviously, he’d rather lose his money than say he’s sorry. Spector made his choices—now he has to live with the consequences of his actions.
For the love of God, Anon, of course Mrs. Clarkson has Spector’s financial info. Obviously, Mrs. Clarkson has more dignity and class than you give her credit—she’s NEVER tried to sell anything to the media; and unlike your buddy Spector, she’s never manufactured a fictional account as to what happened the night he murdered Lana. Because Mrs. Clarkson maintains her dignity, neither the media nor the public has access to Spector’s financial info. A public trial is the only scenario under which the media and we will get a look at Phil’s books. As I said before, Mrs. Clarkson has nothing to lose; on the other hand, Spector has everything to lose—royalties, exes, IRS? Spector made his choices—now he has to live with the consequences of his actions.
Anon, keep telling yourself Spector’s insurance carrier will “make the call” as to his settlement with Mrs. Clarkson. You intimate a relationship with Spector—did you pay attention to either murder trial? During Spector’s murder trials, where did you sit in the courtroom—behind Team Spector, behind the prosecution, the hallway…? Had you followed either trial, you’d realize Spector told his attorneys how to defend him. Yep, Spector gave ALL the ORDERS during his murder trials. Since Spector didn’t heed his attorney’s counsel during the murder trials, what in hell leads you to believe he’ll listen to the attorneys for his insurance carrier? Spector made his choices—now he has to live with the consequences of his actions.
I’m sure Spector wants to relay his fictional, manufactured tale describing how HE MURDERED LANA CLARKSON. Sure, Spector is eager to take the stand and “testilie”. However, Anon, you’re mistaken if you foolishly think Spector’s forensic experts prove he didn’t murder Lana—your theories smack of those claimed by the only person banned by this blog. Hell, why would any member of Spector’s forensic brain-trust team want to testify at a civil trial? Gee, things went so well for them during the 2 murder trials. Let’s review: after Dr. Henry Lee was accused of “tampering with evidence—the fingernail”, he fled the USA so he would not be available to testify; Dr. Pex perjured performance was so outrageous that Judge Fidler not only stopped Pex testimony but also informed Pex of his Miranda rights; everyone with the most basic understanding of human anatomy laughed out loud at Dr. Baden’s dying gasp scenario—oh and while under oath, Baden told the court he didn’t know the definition of the phrase, “conflict of interest”; Dr. Spitz had difficulty understanding questions posed to him—so Spitz just gave any answer he wanted to give; and Dr. DiMaio, yes during PS1, we learned DiMaio was not only an experienced expert secret double agent black ninja assassin but also an expert on breaking a triggerman’s forefinger while disarming him—surprisingly, a subdued DiMaio was of little help to Spector during PS2. Frankly, during PS2, Spector’s forensic wizards did absolutely nothing to help his cause. Nevertheless, Spector made his choices—now he has to live with the consequences of his actions.
PS: I will NEVER, NEVER do anything for the Innocence Project. From personal experience, I find the conduct of the Innocence Project to be nothing short of reprehensible. Anon, perhaps you’re a frustrated, wannabe lawyer—so why don’t you volunteer for the Innocence Project? Of course, the Innocence Project will want to know your name. Surely, you have a handle—it’s time to come out of the shadows.
PPS: Does anyone know of ONE insurance company that writes a policy to cover the policyholder if he commits murder?
Any homeowner's policy and many personal liability policies favored by high net worth individuals will insure against third party claims arising out of the death or serious bodily of the claimant allegedly resulting from the an act or omission to act by the insured as long as the claim arises from an "occurrence" and not an intentional act.
I can assure you that the Clarkson wrongful death complaint contains at least one alternative cause of action alleging that the death resulted from Sector's negligence. This is because the plaintiffs lawyers do not want to defeat coverage. The object is to COLLECT money--not spend a ton in costs to make a point already made by the conviction.
The verdict does not operate to prove anything the contrary unless and until it becomes final.
Until then the carrier owes a duty to Spector to defend him in the civil action--probably under a reservation of rights.
Are Phil Spector's assets now public knowledge and is there a link to the court case?
The civil case is set for a pre trial conference on February 18, 2011, in Pasadena. Looks like the October 2010, Mediation was not succesful. I'm guessing that the insurance company is using the AOB that was available during October (since the reply brief was not filed until December) as leverage and the parties could not agree.
Also I thought under California fast track law that a civil case had to be tried in five years and since the Complaint was filed on February 2, 2005, how is it still on calendar?
Regarding the so called 5-year statute (which is not a part of the Delay Reduction Act and has been the law since we became a lawyer 30 years ago), there is no grey area. Unless Spector expressly, or by implication, waived the 5-year time period to get the case to trial, the case must be dismissed upon request or on the court's own motion at the 5-year mark.
Second, our speculation is that the case failed to settle by the October deadline but that settlement discussions are ongoing.
That said, Spector is no stranger to high stakes litigation, and is a nortiously determined patent negotiator--tying up the music he produced for Ronnie Spector and the Ronettes for the better part of two decades during which he failed to receive a penny in royalties. He just did not care.
If Donna Clarkson want’s to settle this case short of a trial and then related appeals, her best bet is to offer to beg the DA to agree to reduce Spector’s sentence to time served for $2,000,000.
But Spector is a very stubborn man, he knows he will be out of prison on bail pending retrial soon (within 12 months) and I can also see him telling the plaintiff in the wrongful death case to do her worst but see you in court.
If I'm PS I have adapted to my life and know that in less than a year my odds of walking out of jail on appeal bail are great. As I stated before Donna Clarkson has a huge problem at the civil trial because the AOB and ARB are not only a blueprint for reversal of the criminal trial based upon the higher criminal burden, but set the stage for the civil trial where there is a lesser burden.
Further, PS's legal crew can now have a dry run and convince the civil jury that Ms. Clarkson shot herself, which I believe the forensics proved unequivocally. Also team PS is loaded for bear to reveal the true character of Lana that was disallowed by Judge Fidler, and it won't be pretty. Also Donna Clarkson will be scrutinized and labeled by some as a Gold Digger. Bottomline If I'm PS I've got nothing to lose I'm going to trial!!!!All PS has to do is get on the stand and answer every question with I didn't shoot her, she shot herself and since he witnessed her shooting herself, as he stated to the police hours after the shooting as "kissing the gun" in a transcript that was ruled inadminsible by Judge Fidler unless PS got on the stand, and he had no GSR on him, no blood on him consistent with allegedly being on top of Lana while pushing a two inch snub nose barrel into her mouth and breaking her teeth and discharging the gun, in my humble opinion a jury in Pasadena is going to defense the civil trial.
Also another thought, with the brilliant AOB and ARB in the public record I think the Civil Trial Judge will be on his or her toes, since it is painfully clear that nothing resembling a fair trial occured in the Criminal Courts and the Civil Judge will be heavily scrutinized.
It will be very interesting to see what evidence the trial judge in the civil action allows.
As far as the criminal appeal providing a blueprint for reversal of any civil judgment, it is interesting to note that civil and criminal cases alike share the same standards for the admissibility of so called 1101 evidence of uncharged prior bad acts. Therefore, if the judge in the civil case admits this evidence at a trial and the criminal conviction is later reversed on this ground, the civil judgment would be reversed as well.
Similarly, if the trial judge admits the fact of the criminal conviction into evidence pursuant to the hearsay exception set forth in Evidence Code Section 1300 [“Evidence of a final judgment adjudging a person guilty of a crime punishable as a felony is not made inadmissible by the hearsay rule when offered in a civil action to prove any fact essential to the judgment…”], AND the criminal conviction is subsequently reversed, does not the any civil judgment built on that criminal conviction have to be reversed?
The trial court in the civil case many or may not have a different take from Judge Fidler on the scope of the evidence he or she allows in to show that Lana Clarkson was suicidal or that she met a suicidal profile.
That does not mean that the defense will be allowed to engage in naked character assassination—so the Baby Doll Gibson diary will probably not be heard by the civil jury either—but any evidence of a drug or alcohol problem, despondency over finances or giving up on her action career would seem to be fair game.
Remember, Lana Clarkson was so obsessed with success as an actress (which by any measure would include the ability to support herself through acting) that she forged a letter from a movie producer stating “Congratulations, you made it kid!”
For a person like this, turning away from acting and toward a full time hostessing job may have been—as she stated in an email to a friend announcing that she was thinking of “giving up the dream—too much pain for one girl to bear.
When she found herself intoxicated in a famous man’s home, undoubtedly exhausted at 3:30 am and found the gun in the foyer drawer where Spector put it when they arrived from the House of Blues, did it occur to her that she could achieve the worldwide fame in a fleeting moment of suicide that had eluded her in life?
We will never know of course, not really.
I believe that her actions were more of I'm very drunk from Tequila, (a unique intense drunk of its own, from my personal experience!)and I'm being dissed and dismissed at 3:30 a.m. after swapping DNA with rich man PS and this will get his attention I'll "kiss the gun". I think the suicide angle was a mistake for the Defense to solely push. Absolutely her state of mind and finances should have been brought in but it is too messy and judgmental for jurors to get into Lana's alleged suicidal mind unless she was at home alone when she shot herself. My personal belief is that she was fooling around and boom the gun discharged, she may have been suicidal she may have not been but the accidental shooting of herself has just as much merit as the suicide theory and of course if the civil trial goes forward when PS takes the stand he can testify to her state of mind. Like did he kick her out? Was she upset? Was it a natural conclusion to a one night stand with everybody happy? He can really fill in alot of the blanks.Did he ask her to leave because she became depressed and hysterical? PS's testimony is going to diminish the State's case. In the criminal case the DA has alot of license and advantages when the Def. doesn't get on the stand. If he testifies that she was hysterical abd depressed about her life right before the incident then the jury could logically agree that she was suicidal. If she was drunk and careless then it could be construed as an accident. He was there, he knows her state of mind and since the forensics prove that she was the shooter the civil jury is going to get a much clearer version of the event not the skewed world according to the illegal alien limo driver now a proud legal US citizen!!!!
IF THERE HAD BEEN A "FAIR TRIAL" SPECTER WOULD HAVE BEEN HUNG UNTIL DEAD. ONLY A TOTAL BRAIN DEAD LOON WOULD HAVE ANY DOUBT THAT HE MURDERED LANA CLARKSTON AFTER HEARING THE TESTIMONY AND EVIDENCE OF THE TRIAL. HE "WAS" GOING TO HAVE A GOOD TIME OR SHE... WHO WAS NOBODY WAS GOING TO DIE ! SHE PREFERRED DEATH TO BEING TOUCHED BY THAT NASTY OLD CREATON. MAY SPECTOR NOT SURVIVE HIS STAY IN PRISON ! I am Chucky B. Woodenhead and that is how I feel !
The last post shows why one should never blog while drunk.
The last post shows why one should never blog while drunk.
“Beautiful” Lana?
See here: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-442807/Is-Phil-Spector-away-murder.html
Fat arms, loose skin, saggy décolletage, double chin, no waist, over the hill.
Anyone can look good in a 15 year old professional headshot that Lana paid a pro $3,000 to retouch.
Moo.
Post a Comment