Burton Katz
Spector trial raises issues of good, bad, doubtful
The prosecution began its case by presenting the first of several female witnesses who will testify to alleged prior acts of violence against women committed by Phil Spector using a handgun. This damning evidence is allowed under the theory that it shows a “characteristic method, plan or scheme” similar to that used in the commission of the instant offense involving the death of Lana Clarkson.
Such evidence of prior violent crimes may be used to establish the identity and the intent of Spector as the perpetrator of the alleged Clarkson murder where there is a clear connection between the past violent offenses and the alleged murder.
The law commands the jury not to consider past crimes to prove Spector is simply a person of bad character or that he has a predisposition to commit criminal acts. Wow! What a bunch of “Alice In Wonderland” verbiage. One can close one’s eyes and hear the Queen of Hearts pontificating, “Well, I don’t need to hear the defense; he did it to other women, but of course it won’t prejudice me and I won’t use this fact to say he has a propensity to commit violent crimes or is a bad fellow when we vote to execute him.”
The law has always taken this schizophrenic approach to the use of prior bad acts, accepting the notion that jurors will adhere to the law’s restrictive covenants. Tell me how you can think anything other than Spector is a bad guy? Tell me how you can conclude anything other than he has a predisposition to commit violent acts when under the influence of drugs and alcohol, if you accept the testimony of the other alleged crime victims?
The idea behind not permitting the use of evidence of prior bad acts to show bad character or predisposition to commit crimes is grounded in the notion that a defendant is entitled to a fair trial on the instant charges; that you don’t convict someone because he or she is a bad person or has done bad things in the past. Rather you convict them because there is proof beyond a reasonable doubt that a crime was committed by the defendant. Bad people aren’t always guilty of the instant charges. If we were of a mind to do that, then we should dispense with the trial and send “truth” squads to imprison society’s “undesirables.” Or we could simply go into gang territory and kill all of the perceived gang members because they are bad people who live outside our values of common decency and humanity. This has been done in Central and South America. But we are a different people, beholden to principals of fundamental fairness.
Before the law was significantly changed by the crime weary citizens of California through Proposition 8 and our legislature, the California Supreme Court severely limited the use of prior bad acts to establish one’s guilt. While the Court admitted that the prior acts of violence had relevance, it concluded that it was too relevant. And the more identical the prior conduct was to the acts contained within the charged offense, the more likely a jury would be confused and convict regardless of the prosecution evidence. Thus they said that the evidence was too prejudicial and deprived a defendant of the right to a fair trial on the instant charges. Even though the evidence from a logical construction clearly pointed to the guilt of the defendant!
Let’s face it. Don’t we want to know a person’s history before we judge him or her? Don’t we want to know who is a good, who is honest, who is fair? Don’t we demand to know something about the background of the boy who is dating our daughter? Who is he? Where is he from? What school does he go to? What are his values and goals? All of that prior history allows us to acquire a sense of the person through past accomplishments and conduct.
It is relevant and significant to know whether, as testified to by Dorothy Melvin, there is a “Phil Mode.” That is, a violent, aggressive Spector who, after drinking, uses a gun to intimidate and force his intentions upon women. A parade of four prosecution witnesses testifying to variants of the foregoing “Phil Mode” methodology and patterned behavior is devastating to the defense case. When the defense lost the motion to keep evidence of prior acts from the jury, some experts opined, “It’s (case) over.”
But this is Los Angeles. This is the land of celebrity. And this is where forensic celebrities such as Henry Lee and Cyril Wecht will try to convince a jury that Spector could not have caused the death of Lana Clarkson. They’re good, but I don’t know if they’re that good!
Burton Katz is a retired Los Angeles Superior Court judge