There are at least two clichés in life we can’t seem to avoid, namely: “timing is everything” and “location, location, location.” If Phil Spector had only been charged with the murder of actress Lana Clarkson, 40, in Colorado, he might have been entitled to the big Kahuna, a Kobe-style preliminary hearing conducted by alleged mobster lawyer Bruce Cutler. And if you think the proceedings in Kobe’s case were, shall we say, interesting, the public was in for a real show with Cutler, who is a dramatic and charismatic trial lawyer who carries grudging respect from the bar. However, as luck would have it, he was charged with Clarkson’s murder here in California, where she was found dead in Spector’s Alhambra mansion with an alleged gunshot wound to her face.

And for Spector’s timing, it couldn’t be worse. Just a few short years ago, California law required the court to grant a defendant’s demand for a post-indictment preliminary hearing on the theory that the equal protection clause of the California Constitution required the state to allow a defendant his/her fundamental rights to face the state prosecutors, challenge their evidence, confront and cross examine their witnesses and present argument before a magistrate who could rule on whether there was sufficient cause to bind the defendant over for trial. An independent judge, not beholden to the prosecution, would be required to pass an independent judgment on the sufficiency of the evidence necessary to require a defendant to stand trial. But the law changed through another of one of the famous California initiatives amending the Constitution to deny a defendant the right to a post-indictment preliminary hearing, thus overturning the mandate of the California courts.

Alas, it is time for another cliché. Indeed I apologize for its use, but it is so apropos, to wit, a grand jury will “indict a ham sandwich” if the prosecutor asks it to. Now, having presented important cases to the grand jury, I believe them to be conscientious and basically honest. The problem is that they are overly influenced by the power and persuasiveness of the prosecutor, who is unopposed by a defense attorney. And even though they are required to present evidence of possible exoneration of a defendant, if such exists, if the prosecutor wants the indictment, he/she will get it in the vast majority of cases presented.

Now back to Spector. By any stretch of the imagination, this is a very difficult case for the prosecution. The only eyewitness is Spector, and he allegedly says Clarkson, whom he had just met that night, put the barrel of the gun in her mouth and apparently committed suicide. Well, we’ve all seen the various incarnations of the forensic evidence TV shows. They are very popular, and the public may be conditioned to think that every case can be solved on forensics. That is simply not true. Worse yet, this will be a battle of the experts. The defense expert will say that Spector’s story is consistent with suicide or death at Clarkson’s own hands (accidental or otherwise) and the prosecution’s experts will say that the injuries are incompatible with Clarkson shooting herself. I can just see forensic guru Henry Lee, who played a key role in the O.J. Simpson case, testifying about an alleged missing fingernail of Clarkson’s and of the alleged mistakes of the prosecution forensic crime scene technicians. Or the battle of forensic pathologist titans, Cyril Wecht and Michael Baden, as a formidable team against the prosecution’s experts or on opposing sides.

And it is alleged that there are powder burns on Clarkson’s hands, and allegedly some residue and blood found on Spector’s. If that is true, that makes the case even more difficult for the district attorney. In a murder case, a jury wants to know the motive for the killing, especially when the circumstances are strange, unusual and ambiguous. Now, motive is not necessary to prove murder, but it is helpful in a common-sense determination of the facts. What is the motive in this case? Were they just playing around? Was she foolishly flirting with the gun that might have symbolized a possible phallic instrument, which accidentally went off? Was Spector drunk and unable to understand what was happening? Was he showing off his gun? Did it accidentally discharge when he was showing it off, if he did? Was she “playing a role” that misfired? How did she get hold of his gun? How much had she had to drink that night? Did Spector just walk up to Clarkson and shoot her without any resistance? These are the kinds of unanswered ambiguities that drive a David Kelley episode.

Spector is quoted as saying, “I consider myself a disturbed human being, but I’m under control …” What remains to be seen is whether Bruce Cutler or the prosecution asserts control of the trial. Stay tuned.