The jury foreman in the Phil Spector murder trial reported to the judge that the jury is deadlocked at 7-5 and there is no way they will get anyone to budge. When polled individually by the judge, some jurors agreed with what the foreman said but others said they thought that perhaps some re-reading of the instructions and definition of reasonable doubt would also be helpful.
Seizing on the statements of those individual jurors, the judge denied the defense's request for a mistrial and instead sent the jury home with instructions to return on Wednesday.
The judge told the attorneys for both sides that he was reconsidering his statement last week that Spector can only be tried for 2nd degree murder and not for manslaughter. The judge went on to say that he may allow the jury to consider manslaughter after all.
This is a very tough call for the judge. It is my opinion that even if he has attorneys reargue portions of the case, that trying to now let the jury decide about manslaughter is not going to hold up on appeal. If you let the judge do that, then if the jury is deadlocked again, he theoretically could keep moving down the chain of crimes until he finds one the jury will convict on.
The prudent thing to do would be to declare a mistrial and then the District Attorney's office would have to decide whether or not to retry (they would) but perhaps the DA would only proceed with the manslaughter charge from the outset. If the DA's office declined to bring any charges after a mistrial is declared, then of course Spector would be free to go. Not very likely in such a high profile case.
The judge will probably provide the information some of the jurors requested individually and send them back to deliberate in the hopes they can reach a decision. My guess is that the jurors won't change their mind, but said what they did to the judge because it is very intimidating to be polled individually in front of everyone and will often say whatever they think the judge wants them to say.
This bitch will walk just like Robert Blake did.
ReplyDeleteI swear there is no justice in Hollywood. So sad.
ReplyDeleteI guess rich people can get away with murder. At least with Robert Blake they never found the gun. OJ had help from the jury; this one seemed cut and dry. The only way to spend time in jail if you're rich is to have a DUI. SMH.
ReplyDeleteShoot me (no Phil it's a joke) but I have doubt. He walks up with a gun on a seated 6' woman and sticks a gun in her mouth and she just sits there. I have a feeling that it came about in a number of ways, but I think its possible that she was in some way complicit when he approached her with the gun. Ok go ahead and kill me.
ReplyDeleteLooks like maybe he'll be free for Amy.
LOL budford - I don't know much about this case, but based on what U said re: "she just sits there" - call me crazy but if someone has a freakin' GUN in my mouth, or anywhere in my face, I AIN'T MAKIN' ANY SUDDEN MOVES LOL
ReplyDeleteHey Jenner,
ReplyDeleteSure, but how did it get there.
1. She's sitting there thinking oh here he comes with a gun, lovely, wonder what he is going to do with it.
2. She's sitting there and he walks up to her when she's sitting down (hm think about that) and WHIPS OUT THE GUN AND PUTS IT IN HER MOUTH. Nope
3 Sneak attack from the back?
4 They're playing Janice Soprano games for fun or profit and something goes wrong.
Believe me, I do feel bad for her, and he obviously messed with the scene.
Enty are you going to address the ruling today in Brit/KFed custody?
ReplyDeleteIf so, could you speak to the sentence in the judgment about corporal punishment? Would a judge throw that in there without some cause? Does this mean one or the other party or some other witness has complained about someone hitting the kids? I think this part scares me even more than the drugs!
As alwasy Enty Thank you for your thoughts on all the court stuff. I love it! ~
ReplyDeleteThis trial has been going on forever. Can the DA really afford to do it all over again when they obviously don't have much of a case? 7 - 5 split isn't exactly encouraging.
ReplyDeleteI think the problem is that some jury members believe it is a pattern for him (to pull a gun on women who displease him), but he had never actually physically harmed any of them. This time he did, and they are wondering if it was an accident. If he actually intended to kill her, or if he only meant to scare her. The charge is 2nd degree murder, which means although not pre-meditated, he did, at the moment it occurred, intend for her to die. They may believe it was not his intent for her to die, but she did, nonetheless.
ReplyDeleteRegardless, she is dead and he should pay for it. I think if they could consider manslaughter or reckless homicide, that they would return a guilty verdict. It'd be a shame if he got off, but if so, you can bet they will re-try him, but on reduced charges.
Sure it's a pattern for him to pull guns on women. Didn't see any pattern of guns in mouths maybe not for lack of trying. Where's the sign of struggle of putting the gun in the mouth. Hell if anyone came at me with a gun in their hand I would not just sit there and wait for it to end up in my mouth.
ReplyDelete"The judge told the attorneys for both sides that he was reconsidering his statement last week that Spector can only be tried for 2nd degree murder and not for manslaughter. The judge went on to say that he may allow the jury to consider manslaughter after all."
ReplyDeleteRegardless of what you say what YOU would do if confronted by a nut with a gun, the issue is what happened between Spector and the victim. It appears the judge feels the jury may be able to reach a verdict if they can consider the charge of manslaughter. The judge heard all the evidence presented. He must feel there is reason to believe they can reach a consensus on a lesser charge.
The issue my post responded to was reasonable doubt. I said I had reasonable doubt and could understand if someone else did.
ReplyDeleteI understand the charges and was not disputing any of that.
My understanding of the hold up with the jurors was that they wanted further instruction on doubt obviously because someone has doubt.
OK, I see what you're saying. But could the doubt be whether he actually intended to kill her?
ReplyDeleteWhat kind of scenario do you think could have happened? Do you think it was sex/gunplay gone wrong, or that she was intending on suicide and she tried to stop her and it went off? If that's the case, how did she get his gun? I haven't followed all the proceedings, so I don't know what the defense has said.
It's an intriguing case, no doubt, and will go down in Hollywood history as yet another bizarre tale of mysterious death involving celebrities.
Sure that could be the doubt as to his intention. Also it could be doubt as to what was going on. I don't want to give these people any ideas, but if I get off on jumping out of airplanes and you decide to go with me and there is only one shoot and you die and Im ok. Did I kill you, did you commit suicide or was it just really an unfortunate accident that some might view as risky behavior.
ReplyDelete