Burton Katz
The Phil Spector case: Sticking to the facts
Shame on me for not seeing it coming, given all my experience in the courtroom. I thought this was going to be one of those rare times when the prosecution, unlike the Shaq-less Lakers, would go wire to wire without any hitches. But no, it was not to be. I should have known better than to believe the prosecution had put their case in the proverbial refrigerator.
I simply forgot about the jury; a jury that is fully empowered to bring in a verdict as nonsensical as those in O.J., Blake and Jackson. I’m not complaining about the jury system, however, because the alternative would be to allow judges to render justice based upon their narrow points of view burnished by years of cynicism relating to the human condition. As James Gould Cozzens wrote in the “Just and the Unjust”: “Resentment would build up every time the findings didn’t go with current notions or prejudices. Pretty soon half the community would want to lynch the judge … ” And I’m pretty much for saving the judges, as it were.
Judge Larry Paul Fidler allowed the jury to visit the Spector home crime scene. Though fraught with danger, judges, from time to time, allow jurors to visit a crime scene, when it is thought that a site visit will enable the jurors to understand the evidence presented with more clarity. Also a site visit might allow the jurors to better assess the credibility of witnesses. Several safeguards, however, must be in order. First, the jurors are told they are to remain passive and not to comment, ask questions or discuss the case amongst themselves. Second, the crime scene must be sufficiently similar to the crime scene that existed at the time of the alleged murder, so it accurately reflects the conditions that existed at the time of the alleged murder. Third, jurors are instructed not to attempt to reenact the events leading up to the death of the victim.
As it turns out, the Spector jury reportedly wanted to have a “reenactment” of the crime at the Spector home. Amazingly, the judge allowed the jurors to meet in a group huddle to discuss formulating questions to be put to the court. Associated Press correspondent Linda Deutsch reported that the discussion, which went on for five to 10 minutes, was intense and animated.
Jurors asked questions that went to the heart of the credibility of the prosecution’s most important witness, Adriano DeSouza, Spector’s chauffeur on the night of Lana Clarkson’s death. DeSouza had testified to sitting in Spector’s Mercedes-Benz while listening to the radio with the windows rolled up, during which he heard a noise that sounded like a gunshot and then observed Spector emerge from the adjacent foyer door saying, “I think I killed somebody.”
Jurors wanted someone to produce a loud noise similar to a gunshot within the foyer where Clarkson met her death so they could empirically determine if they could hear such noise while seated in a car with a radio playing with rolled up windows. The judge properly denied the request as it was impossible to duplicate the events accurately since Spector’s Mercedes-Benz was not there, it was day time and ambient noises would deviate from those at the original crime scene. The jurors also wanted to sit in a car with the windows rolled up, the radio playing and the courtyard fountain running to see if they could hear someone saying “I think I killed somebody.” Again, the request was properly denied.
One of the jurors, who is a hydrologist, must have authored the question as to whether the fountain pump motor was variable. I assume this suggests someone is thinking the noise from the bubbling fountain could have prevented DeSouza from hearing the things he said he heard, as argued by the defense.
Finally, at least five male jurors were allowed to sit in a chair in the foyer where Clarkson died, slumping to a position in which her body was found. Interestingly, no female juror offered to sit in the chair.
We know the strength of a jury is in its ability to do what a judge can’t. That is, as Cozzens wrote: “I don’t care what the law is, that isn’t right and I won’t do it.” But this is not such a case for that expression of power. I like Cozzens’ observation that “a jury has its uses … It’s like a cylinder head gasket. Between two things that don’t give any, you have to have something that does give a little, something to seal the law to the facts. There isn’t any known way to legislate with an allowance for right feeling.”
I just hope the Spector jury’s verdict is “sealed” to the facts of this case and not to their fanciful imagination.