Burton S. Katz
The merry-go round begins – the trial of Phil Spector
It was four years ago. Four years since Lana Clarkson died in the prime of her life. Four years since Phil Spector, emerging from his house with bloody hands around a gun, purportedly said to his chauffeur, Adriano De Souza, “I think I killed somebody,” and when De Souza asked what happened, Spector said “I don’t know.”
Four years, and finally we are about to find out.
This case is big. Not because it is intrinsically important in the scheme of things, given global problems we Americans face throughout the world, but rather because it will be televised. This is not to demean the importance of Clarkson’s death and the need to find the truth regarding how she met her death; that is indeed important. But televising the trial will bring a huge magnifying lens to the process. And the process will be subjected to the smallest scrutiny.
Superior Court Judge Larry Fidler, who appeared in my court as a young criminal lawyer, is extremely gifted, knowledgeable and fair minded. He has granted television access because he believes it is time to breathe some fresh air into this otherwise arcane and enigmatic justice system. Judge Lance Ito had every good intention of doing so with the O.J. trial, but failed. Now all eyes are on Fidler to see if he can do it. He will have to seize control of the trial, the lawyers and the “circus” atmosphere that will stem from the media’s need to find a story under any crag or stone. American justice will once again be on trial. That in itself is not bad. The public needs to see with its own eyes what unfolds in the courtroom, rather than be spoon-fed through pictures sent by journalists and talking heads, who often fail in the translation.
The American system of justice will be observed with fascination worldwide. Even our enemies will be watching. And what will they see? Are the laws like spider webs, as Anarchis said in the 6th century B.C. observing that “they hold the weak and the vulnerable in its meshes, but are torn to pieces by the rich and the powerful”? Yes, Scooter Libby fell, but for whom? Dick Cheney? Karl Rove? Will we hear “unjust arguments” that Euripides, in the 4th century B.C., characterized as requiring “clever medication”? Did Johnnie Cochran deliver such medication for O.J. in his mantra: “If it don’t fit, you must acquit?” Will Spector’s lawyer, Bruce Cutler, deliver the clever medication? Cutler is formidable; a reputed mob lawyer who got three acquittals for mafia boss John Gotti. It will be harder this time, because there are no criminal informants (upon which the government relied in Gotti) Cutler can destroy.
There is another factor-celebrity. This is L.A. This is an irreverent and tricky movie and entertainment town; a town where Murdoch’s powerful Judith Regan came to play, kick butt and stumbled. Celebrity helps and it hurts. In O.J., Jackson and Blake, it helped.
Spector is an enigma. Many of the jurors ultimately selected may not relate to Spector’s “Wall of Sound” or his work with the Beatles, The Righteous Brothers, Ronettes, Tina Turner or others. Spector lacks the image of a warm and fuzzy personality. If nothing else, O.J. had warmth and charisma. He was loved. Blake, when on his game, was interesting, different and very human, a likeable oddball. Jackson, with all his problems, was a gifted, genuine pop icon.
With Spector, we may have already seen his dark side, a man filled with demons and insecurities fed by cognitive dysfunction, laden with psychotropic medications, alcohol and alleged illegal drugs. In the criminal trial, this will have two very sharp opposing edges that will be discussed in detail in future articles. The point is that it is not clear how celebrity will shape the ultimate verdict. But what is clear is that deputy district attorneys Patrick Dixon and Alan Jackson must be very careful not to view Spector as a “has been” and take his “celebrity” lightly. The prosecution track record is not very good in these high profile cases; and they must be mindful of the dynamics that resulted in the acquittals of Jackson, Blake and O.J., including the most obvious: how the evidence presented was found wanting by a disbelieving jury.