Mistrial in Phil Spector Murder Trial

Mistrial in Phil Spector Murder Trial
Music producer Phil Spector is shown murder trial at the Los Angeles Superior Court in Los Angeles, Thursday, Sept. 20, 2007. Spector is on trial for the death of actress Lana Clarkson in February 2003. Gabriel Bouys
By LINDA DEUTSCH (AP Special Correspondent)
From Associated Press
September 26, 2007 4:00 PM EDT

LOS ANGELES - The murder trial of music producer Phil Spector ended in a mistrial Wednesday because of a deadlocked jury.

All jurors told Superior Court Judge Larry Paul Fidler they could not reach a verdict.

"At this time, I will find that the jury is unable to arrive at a verdict and declare a mistrial in this matter," the judge said.

The mistrial came on the 12th day of deliberations on whether Spector murdered actress Lana Clarkson more than 4 1/2 years ago.

The foreman reported the panel was deadlocked 10 to 2 but did not indicate which way it was leaning. The jury reported a 7-5 impasse last week and had resumed deliberations with modified instructions.

Spector, 67, is charged with second-degree murder. Clarkson, 40, died when a gun went off in her mouth as she sat in a chair in the foyer of Spector's Alhambra mansion about 5 a.m. on Feb. 3, 2003. She had met Spector just a few hours earlier at her job as a nightclub hostess and went home with him for a drink after work.

more: http://enews.earthlink.net/article/top?guid=20070926/46f9d940_3ca6_1552620070926-66716860

the pic was right after they read the charges against him!

I believe every criminal defendant deserves a fair trial and a vigorous defense, but someone with that much money can hire the hot shit lawyers and razzle-dazzle any jury (at least in this state). Court resources that belong equally to all citizens end up unequally distributed. This costs us taxpayers a shitload of money.

I don't know whether or not Phil Specter is guilty, but I do know that he's getting a lot more chances to create a reasonable doubt in the minds of the jurors than most of us would.

:argh:

He has been a troubled man, prone to violent outbursts, for many years. It was his wealth and fame that has kept him out of for years.

I'll take them to California with me. The juries over there seem to have their heads up their collective ass (apologies to Califirnia Peg, SFexpat etc)

To the point where it becomes indistinguishable from gullibility.

But I didn't see or hear everything the jurors did, and I have seen and heard much that they have not. I have deep respect for their role, having served on three trial juries myself.

I suspect that an injustice has been done to the victim's family and friends and the people of California here, but I cannot be sure.

He probably would have been found Guilty of Voluntary Manslaughter.

I frankly haven't followed the case closely enough to have a well-formed opinion.

a gun in his hand and says "I think I just killed someone". Are you kidding. Two jurers dismissed that testimony? Lead expert MD was the husband of a defense attorney and the great Henry Lee was ruled by the judge to be a liar on the stand. What were these two jurers thinking?