In a startling coup de théâtre, Truc Do’s PowerPoint presentation included slides of the Mui Ne sand dunes, located, she said, in the part of Vietnam her family is from.

“This is not a screen saver,” Do said. More pointedly, she likened the slides’ shifting sand mountains to what she claimed were defense attorney Doron Weinberg’s ever-changing position regarding the trial’s expert-witness testimony.

When it was veteran defense lawyer Doran Weinberg's turn:

[H]e took direct aim at Do’s PowerPoint photographs of those sand dunes.

“I was born in Haifa,” Weinberg tartly said, “at the foot of Mount Carmel. We have rock-solid mountains, they don’t shift.”

Of course, closing arguments are not evidence. Weinberg had 14 points that he said show reasonable doubt, including DNA tests the prosecution could have, but did not perform. In rebuttal the principal prosecutor, Alan Jackson, a Texan who apparently favors the use of a drawl and vernacular, told the jury the defense could have conducted the tests if they were important.

In my view, that's a bad argument. The defense has no burden of proof. The burden of proof is on the prosecution to prove the charges beyond a reasonable doubt. Most jury instructions on reasonable doubt informs the jury that a reasonable doubt can arise from the evidence presented or the lack of evidence presented. Since only the prosecution has the burden of proof, why concede further tests could have been relevant and suggest the defense could have provided them? Isn't it better to explain why the tests wouldn't have shed light on the material issue of how Clarkson died and left it at that?

Add this to questions about the Brazilian chauffeur's testimony -- Weinberg cleverly portrayed him as mistaken rather than lying, although he did of course mention his prior false statements on visa applications and provided an alternative to his recollection of what Spector said to him that night:

Weinberg tried to sow doubt in jurors’ minds about Spector’s intentions by suggesting Spector had reasonably expected his driver, DeSouza, to make the 911 call, which he eventually did. Weinberg also said that DeSouza, a Brazilian national, may have misunderstood Spector’s English when the record producer allegedly announced to him upon emerging from his house, gun in hand, “I think I killed somebody.” The defense attorney’s spin is that Spector may have said, “Call somebody.”

....Unlike his ham-fisted predecessors in the first trial, Weinberg has approached DeSouza sensitively but has still zeroed in on three things: the driver’s command of English, his second language; his ability to have accurately understood Spector, given that DeSouza had not slept in 22 hours; and finally, Spector’s drunken syntax and the background noise of a nearby outdoor fountain.

Weinberg also strongly implied that DeSouza, who was living here on an expired visa, was more than eager to tell his cop interrogators what he believed they wanted to hear about his boss. For example, Weinberg showed a photographic blowup of a page of an interview in which a detective disclosed to DeSouza that Spector may have worn a white or cream jacket the night of Clarkson’s shooting — a statement DeSouza then agreed with, even though he’d previously told police Spector had worn all black that night.

Finally, though, Weinberg — sensitively, to be sure — reminded jurors that for four years DeSouza had misstated on his applications for visa renewals that he was a student not holding employment here. In other words, Weinberg said, DeSouza had lied four times.

Weinberg also reviewed with the jury the (in some cases substantial) credibility issues of the five women who testified about Spector's combining alcohol and guns and threatening behavior in decades past.

This boils down to a reasonable doubt case. Did the prosecution prove the charges beyond a reasonable doubt?

Perhaps the biggest question is, if the jurors believe the prosecutors didn't prove the murder charge, will they compromise on the involuntary manslaughter charge just to throw them a bone for their efforts during the six month trial?

The addition of the lesser charge favors the prosecution. The jury is only supposed to consider the lesser charge after if it has found Spector not guilty of the more serious murder charge. It's not like they choose between them (if they follow the court's instructions.)

If they conclude there is a reasonable doubt and this could be, as one of Spector's prior lawyers, Bruce Cutler, argued, a case of accidental suicide, will they conclude it was the equivalent of a criminal accident and find Spector guilty of causing it? If so, then Spector could be in trouble on the lesser charge.

At the last trial, the Judge refused to give the involuntary manslaughter charge.

He said that either Spector put a .38 Special revolver in Clarkson's mouth and pulled the trigger, in which case he was guilty of second-degree murder, or Clarkson put the gun in her own mouth and fired, in which case Spector was guilty of nothing.

Seems to me, and I'm only going by news accounts since I wasn't there and haven't read any transcripts, there's reasonable doubt as to what Spector said to the chauffeur and whether Clarkson's death was a suicide, accidental or otherwise -- and both favor Spector.