Phil Spector benefits from bad L.A. jurors

Mady Maguire J.D.Sep 28th, 2007 - 18:35:55

If I Had Done It

If I had five months to defend Phil Spector (and all the money it takes to make our team happy), then no matter how famous/infamous the defendant; repulsive the crime or open & shut the evidence—I’ll bet I could get reasonable doubt from at least one juror. One is all you need. You don’t need two, but the one needs another one to make it look like he is not the only irrational one. The odds that I will get at least one juror go up exponentially if during voir dire, I focus on selecting the one juror having the most affinity with the defendant and the business sense to understand that there will be no opportunity for media deals unless the celebrity defendant is found not guilty.

If I was the Los Angeles prosecutor I would eschew the opportunity to grandstand for five months and get that show on and off the road ASAP. For example, I would point out to the Spector/Clarkson jury, in my relatively brief closing argument, that although the defense bombarded them for months with oodles of the most expensive expert scientific evidence that money can buy; they must consider only one thing to refute the defense theory that Lana Clarkson killed herself. The gun that killed Lana Clarkson bore no fingerprints—only the victim could not have wiped them off.

If I was Lana Clarkson’s family I would file a wrongful death civil suit ASAP—before the next dream team or Spector’s mouth candy wife gets what’s left of his money and memorabilia. The defense has no shot for a summary judgment—since the plaintiff has a prima facie case based on res ipsa loquitur.

Report this comment

those 2 jurors.........Sep 28th, 2007 - 20:56:16

pray hope nothing like this will ever touch them, then they will feel the betrayal, he killed a woman in cold blood and you people let him walk! What the heck...

Report this comment