Burton Katz
Shades of O.J.: The victim once again on trial
The other day I was sitting with a group of judges who have more than 100 years of combined judicial experience. So I decided to tap into this reservoir of judicial enlightenment. I asked a simple question. Do you think Phil Spector will be convicted? A simple question such as this should beget a direct answer, right?
Wrong.
One judge said, “He’s guilty, who else could have done it?”
Another opined that inasmuch as Lana Clarkson’s DNA may have been on the gun and there being no eyewitness (other than Spector) to tell what happened, it will be difficult to convince a jury beyond a reasonable doubt. Another judge offered that Spector’s appearance and his frightful hair suggested that the “nut” factor must somehow influence the jury, though he didn’t know in which way. Still another said, “Aren’t they saying she committed suicide?”
Well, I should have known better than to seek wisdom from this group. They obviously had no “talking head” experience and were not trained to give me a lustrous analysis or lacking that, the kind of sound bite we’re used to seeing on “Court TV” and “Larry King Live.”
It doesn’t surprise me that intelligent judges cannot predict with any certitude or unanimity the outcome of the Spector trial. Hard judicial experience tells us that this case is up for grabs. Anything can happen and probably will.
What is most disturbing is the specter of a trial á la O.J. where Lana Clarkson, the victim, like Nicole Simpson, will be placed on trial. Her reputation will be sacrificed on the altar of “justice.” She will be vilified under the guise that her past conduct will give us insight into why she allegedly committed suicide. The defense will attempt to produce “evidence” that she used drugs recreationally, was depressed and had allegedly made statements to friends that purport to indicate she was contemplating suicide, if she didn’t succeed as an actress.
The prosecution has demanded a hearing before the judge to limit what it regards as character assassination evidence that is designed only to unduly prejudice and confuse the jury. Whatever probative value there exists, the district attorney argues, it is outweighed by the prejudicial effect. We saw it in O.J.: Simpson was a “bad” woman. She used drugs, partied, was unfaithful, and not a very good mother, so the defense suggested. The cumulative effect on her reputation was so devastating as to place her on trial and to take away the focus of attention on O.J. who was charged with double murder.
In Blake, victim Bonnie Lee Bakley was again placed on trial by the justice system. Her past indiscretions, her alleged attempts to bilk strangers out of their money through Internet schemes involving sex, her past relationships, including those with her children, were offered to support the theory that she was so despicable and had so many enemies that “many” people therefore had a motive to kill her and probably did. That caused the jury to ignore the overwhelming evidence that Blake had unsuccessfully tried on multiple occasions to solicit the murder of his wife; and had allegedly told others that he hated his wife and wanted her dead; that he was the last known person to be seen with her; that he parked in a dark, unlit place away from the restaurant where she was murdered, leaving her alone in the darkened car to retrieve a gun he “inadvertently” left at the restaurant.
In Spector, the defense will ask the judge to allow the testimony of Jennifer Hayes, who has been identified as a former friend. It is alleged in the Los Angeles Times that she is prepared to testify that Clarkson “was a selfish, belligerent, heavy drinking ‘Amazon’ who lived a life of ‘one-night stands.'”
Another former friend, “Punkie Pie” Laughlin, purportedly claims that Clarkson was suicidal, depressed over her failing acting career and humiliated by her hostess job at the House of Blues. Finally, the defense will seek permission to call John Barons, a reputed playwright, who claims in the L.A. Times article by John Spano that Clarkson took drugs for pain, and allegedly told him, “If I don’t make it by 40, I will jump off a bridge.”
I’m sure that we have all made foolish and stupid statements in the past. We have all said things we regret and engaged in conduct of which we are ashamed, but which has no relevance to our current lives. Judge Larry Fidler will carefully review the proffered evidence, perhaps parse the “poisoned” sentences and determine whether the foregoing truly bears any relevance to the question of whom, if anyone, killed Clarkson.