The Phil Spector Trial
By Burton S. Katz / Retired L.A. Superior Court Judge
The alleged murder of actress Lana Clarkson occurred on Feb. 3, 2003, yet the trial of legendary rock producer Phil Spector will not occur until 2006, nearly three years after the fact. Why such delay? And who benefits?
The short answer is that it depends. In O.J. Simpson, any reasonable delay would have inured to the prosecution’s benefit because its case was inchoate … evolving. Robert Shapiro’s team was smart enough to recognize that Simpson’s best chance was to push for a speedy trial-before the prosecution could assemble the damning evidence that ultimately dribbled out during the course of a needlessly confusing and never-ending prosecution. Much of that case depended on evolving forensics and expert testimony. A trial just 90 days from the date of arraignment in the Superior Court was just not enough time for the prosecution and thus they were forced to constantly improvise.
In most cases, the defense benefits from long continuances, because witnesses’ memories fade, the moment’s passion is lost and the public wearies of the once sensational charges. Additionally, there is danger of the case becoming stale. But in cases like Charles Manson, time is friendly to the prosecution. Like a fine wine, the case ages well. In fact, had Manson’s lawyers pushed for an early trial, the prosecution may never have proved its case. Susan Atkins, still under the spell of Manson, turn-coated and only time allowed the prosecution to secure the testimony of Linda Kasabian, a more believable and far less culpable witness, and to secure other damning evidence of guilt.
In Spector, both sides acquire benefits and deficits, though, on balance, the defense stands to benefit more from such extreme delays. Clarkson’s death is surrounded by misinformation, innuendo and rank speculation. The public has had little credible information. We in the public sector will be learning about the “true facts” of the case for the first time at the trial. We will be fascinated with what really happened and why. Yes, we’ve all heard about Clarkson’s alleged DNA on the gun that was purportedly in her mouth; that some of her teeth were on the floor next to her slumped body in a chair in the hallway of Spector’s home. We know it was Spector’s gun. We know only one shot was fired. We know that Spector was allegedly infused with drugs and alcohol and appeared incoherent upon the arrival of the police shortly after the shooting. If O.J. was a case of battling experts, you can rest assured that John Gotti’s former lawyer, Bruce Cutler, will likewise make this a battle of the experts.
And with a public informed by the slippery forensics that purport to solve the insoluble in “CSI,” “Cold Case,” “Without a Trace,” “Law and Order” and its progeny, a jury will demand no less than a prosecution and defense grounded in such dramatically inspired forensics. Indeed, the real life shows such as “Body of Evidence” and “Forensic Files” will demonstrate that it is required. This takes time to develop (for both sides). Also, the defense is presently pursuing motions to suppress Spector’s statement to the police that he had shot and killed Clarkson allegedly made at a time when he was “hallucinating” while under withdrawal from medications purportedly withheld by the police. He is also attempting to keep out evidence of 14 guns seized from his home and his past misdemeanor firearm convictions. These are important motions that can affect the course of the trial; they also require the prosecution to ask for sufficient time to prepare a response-hence more delays. A game of chess has begun.
It is said that the defense need prove nothing, that it is the burden of the prosecution to prove guilt. True, as far as it goes. But here, when the body of Lana Clarkson, a beautiful 41-year-old woman, who would seemingly have no reason to commit suicide, is blown away by a Spector-owned gun placed in her mouth by “someone” in the House of Spector-a lot of explaining must be done. Spector cannot. The defense must attempt to tell its story through forensics. And time is needed for this. All the ducks must be in place for Cutler to amass his defense, including the manifold tests, examinations, experiments and availability of experts. Only after the experts have bloodied themselves on the altar of justice, will we know the outcome of the match.
And finally, Spector, who is quoted in a 1999 edition of Esquire as having said, “I continue to try to live up to the standard of one of my heroes, Henry VIII, who perhaps came as close to the ideal of perfect wickedness as the infirmities of human nature will allow,” may find that he has a public image problem that needs “fine tuning.”