Burton Katz
The Spector trial: The dilemma
of juries
The Phil Spector jury hung 10-2 in favor of a conviction for the second-degree murder of Lana Clarkson. The failure of the jury to arrive at a unanimous verdict of guilty has again raised questions that go to the core of the justice system.
Some have asked whether the jury system has outlived its usefulness. Given the verdicts of acquittal in O.J. Simpson and Robert Blake and the hung jury in Spector, it is easy to dismiss the jury as nonessential; an entity that simply does not grasp its responsibility to abide by the evidence and the law.
But it is too simplistic to accuse the jury of failing to follow the law or to say they just don’t get it. They may indeed get it; they just may not like it. And the law gives a jury the power, albeit sometimes wrongfully exercised, to ignore the law and return a verdict that rejecting the government’s case reflects the community’s conscience.
In colonial times, jurors refused to convict colonists for crimes against the English monarch; they refused to bow to the tyranny of the sedition laws, which made it a crime to criticize the New York colony’s royal governor. John Zenger courageously printed an article revealing the corruption of the royal governor. Truth was not a defense. The only issue before the jury was whether Zenger had published the article. He had. They acquitted, disregarding the law. This power of nullification has served this country well in the past, when zealous prosecutors attempted to impose onerous, unjust or silly laws upon their peers.
But this power has also been used for mischief, as this nation for decades was unable to secure convictions against racist members of the KKK for rapes and murders of blacks. That, too, was jury nullification of our laws.
We need our juries. We just need them to do a better job. While I am mindful of Abraham Lincoln’s quip, “A jury too frequently has at least one member more ready to hang the panel than to hang the traitor,” or as James Fenimore Cooper said, “Juries … have the effect of placing the control of the law in the hands of those who would be most apt to abuse it,” there are an equal number of thoughtful people like Thomas Jefferson, who said, “I consider that [trial by jury] as the only anchor, ever yet imagined by man, by which a government can be held to the principles of its Constitution.”
Perhaps two of the 10 jurors did not get it. Perhaps it was the fault of the court’s initial instructions that appeared to be confusing; perhaps it was the fault of the prosecution for not making it clearer it was not necessary for a second degree murder conviction to prove Spector had physically placed the gun in Clarkson’s mouth or that he fired the weapon or was holding it at the time it discharged. It was not necessary to show he intended to kill Clarkson. Those points on retrial will be made forcefully.
There are, however, a few questions I would like to ask the two jurors: What would have caused her to commit suicide in a complete stranger’s house? Since women statistically do not commit suicide by placing a gun in their mouth, why had she done so? And why did she have her coat on, her purse slung over her shoulder, as if she were leaving, when she died? When Spector produced the gun, did she think to herself, “I now have a gun to kill myself?” Did Clarkson make that recent video displaying her comedic skills because she contemplated suicide? Were five previous women mistaken when they testified Spector had pointed a gun and/or placed it against their face when they wanted to leave, while Spector was inebriated each time, as in the instant case? Didn’t Spector act in accordance with his habit and custom of threatening women with a gun when they wanted to leave him?
And was the chauffeur lying when he unequivocally testified he heard a shot, saw Spector come out with a gun, his hand bloody, stating, “I think I killed somebody.”?
This hung jury also represents another principle, namely justice for the rich. The defense, which reportedly cost more than $1 million, hired famous forensic experts who arguably confused the two jurors enough to create a “doubt.” Many of us could not afford such experts and without them a conviction would surely ensue. Anarchus in the 5th century B.C. noted, “The laws are like spider webs, they hold the weak and the vulnerable in its meshes, but are torn to pieces by the rich and the powerful.”
We can do better. We can fix it. We need our juries. No judges, no bureaucrats need apply.