home

Spector Jury Hangs

By TChris, Section Crime in the News
Posted on Wed Sep 26, 2007 at 05:23:12 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

After 43 hours of deliberation, the jury considering Phil Spector's fate could not reach a unanimous verdict. (More on the drama surrounding the deliberations here.) Unable to reconcile the differences that led to a 10-2 vote (presumably for conviction), the jury declared itself hopelessly deadlocked, and the judge declared a mistrial.

The prosecution says it will retry Spector. Second trials often favor the prosecution, since the state has now previewed Spector's defense. In the meantime, Spector remains free on bail, his presumption of innocence intact.

< Court Postpones Ruling, Craig Stays (For Now) | Dem NH Debate Live Blog >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Spector Jury Hangs | 9 comments (9 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    But hasn't the defense likewise (none / 0) (#1)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Wed Sep 26, 2007 at 05:38:22 PM EST
    The prosecution says it will retry Spector. Second trials often favor the prosecution, since the state has now previewed Spector's defense.
    now previewed the state's case?

    Or has the prosecution already had to (none / 0) (#2)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Wed Sep 26, 2007 at 05:40:48 PM EST
    disclose its case via discovery before the trial begins?

    Parent
    in California, the prosecution and (none / 0) (#3)
    by oculus on Wed Sep 26, 2007 at 06:04:47 PM EST
    defense have mutual disclosure mandates.

    Parent
    I don't know if he is guilty or not... (none / 0) (#4)
    by 1980Ford on Wed Sep 26, 2007 at 09:51:33 PM EST
    But it sure will be fun laughing at all the CourtTV lynch mobs folks.

    not only (none / 0) (#5)
    by cpinva on Thu Sep 27, 2007 at 01:29:23 AM EST
    has the defense also previewed the prosecution's case, the prosecution is pretty much stuck with it's theory of the crime, absent the introduction of previously unknown evidence.

    the defense isn't stuck with its defense, it now has the opportunity to more acutely mold its defense around what it knows the prosecutor has to present in court, and with nearly 100% accuracy, how it has to present it. since there were only two human witnesses to the event, and one is dead, i'd say the tie goes to the defense.

    unless the DA comes up with new forensic evidence, expect either another hung jury, or an acquittal on the retrial. spector has the financial resources that joe sixpack doesn't, it's why he got a hung jury, and why o.j. got an acquittal.

    Guilty or not... (none / 0) (#6)
    by Dadler on Thu Sep 27, 2007 at 10:27:56 AM EST
    I'd like to meet those two jurors and hear just what hung them.  He came outside and TOLD the limo driver he killed someone.  I suppose he was speaking metaphorically.  Then again, as a kid, I had plenty of experience with violent, abusive men who never paid a price for it.  Perhaps I'm not the best, um, judge.  

    Of course he killed her (none / 0) (#9)
    by Slado on Fri Sep 28, 2007 at 10:47:04 AM EST
    Who else could of but because he's rich he hired talented lawyers that convince at least a couple jurors that they'd be somehow letting down the judicial system if they didn't find this guy innocent.

    If he killed her because he's a crazy man (he's been known to flaunt his weapon and intimidate women in the past) then shame on the prosecution for not working that angle but the facts are...

    A women laid dead in his house, he told the limo driver he killed her.

    He killed her but he's rich and he got off.

    What a shame for the poor victim.

    Parent

    Nice to be rich. (none / 0) (#7)
    by DA in LA on Thu Sep 27, 2007 at 03:36:35 PM EST
    I'd be in jail.

    Wait, I'd never kill anyone, so that's a bad example...

    Observation (none / 0) (#8)
    by Deconstructionist on Fri Sep 28, 2007 at 09:08:42 AM EST
     Perhaps, the most important consideration is that THIS jury was instructed to deliver a verdict only on second degree murder. That's an intentional killing with malice. It is certainly possible that the "acquittal jurors" did not believe that he was "innocent" but only that the State failed to establish proof beyond a reasonable doubt of intent and/or malice.

      At a second trial, he cannot be convicted of an offense greater than the one presented to the first jury but he can be convicted of a lesser included offense such as manslaughter or negligent homicide, etc. Now that the prosecution has had a dry run it might well decide to request a lesser included instruction that it declined to seek the first time around.

      Also,  in cases like this it is not uncommon for their to be a plea agreement rather than a retrial as both sides assess likely outcomes.

      I tend to agree with the "conventional wisdom" that retrials usually favor the side with the burden of proof in a case. I think it is particularly true in criminal cases where the defense pretty much can anticipate the prosecution's proof based on discovery and investigation but the prosecution can't be as confident about what the defense is going to do. After the first trial the prosecution now knows what the defense considered its best strategy and the tactics employed to implement it. The defense can change but remember it gave what it considered its best shot in the first trial and in most circumstances that may not be something the defense reconsiders and  the testimony from the first trial often prevents hugely significant change as witnesses can be impeached if they vary from earlier sworn testimony and

     

    Spector Jury Hangs | 9 comments (9 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment