Jury Deliberating in Phil Spector Murder Trial

Phil Spector's five month jury trial is coming to a close. The jury began deliberating the murder case yesterday. In the afternoon, they asked to see the gun.

It's been a rocky trial. One of his chief lawyers, New York's Bruce Cutler, missed weeks of the trial to do a tv show and then withdrew before closing arguments over differences in who should preent the closing.

Linda Kenney Baden, who is married to forensic expert Michael Baden, a witness in the trial, gave the closings. She, too, missed some weeks of the trial due to illness. The prosecutor criticized the Kenney-Baden relationship at trial:


Jackson criticized Kenney-Baden in his summation over the fact that her husband, forensic expert Michael Baden, testified for the defense. Jackson suggested Baden tailored his testimony to help his wife win and suggested he and other scientific witnesses were hired guns who would say anything for money.

Henry Lee never testified, the prosecution believed he disposed of a critical piece of evidence and the judge ruled Lee could testify but prosecutors could question Lee about the incident.

Spector's wife got hollered at by the judge yesterday.

The basics:

Spector, 67, is accused of shooting Clarkson, 40, in the mouth on Feb. 3, 2003. Her body was found slumped in a chair in his foyer.

The prosecution claims Spector shot Clarkson as she was trying to leave his mansion. Her purse was over her shoulder, and she was wearing her jacket when police found her. Prosecutors presented jurors with the testimony of five women who said Spector had menaced them with a firearm when they wanted to leave his home or hotel room.

But defense lawyers argued that Clarkson shot herself, either accidentally or intentionally, and that scientific evidence backs their theory.

Spector faces 15 to life if convicted.

< Calif. Vet Looking at Big Mandatory Minimum Sentence | Sen. Larry Craig Hearing Set for Sept. 26 >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    isn't that pretty much par (none / 0) (#1)
    by cpinva on Tue Sep 11, 2007 at 03:36:57 PM EST
    for the course?

    ......and suggested he and other scientific witnesses were hired guns who would say anything for money.

    of course, the key word here is suggested. in the absence of actual tangible evidence to show the defense experts committed perjury (which is what he's accusing them of), he impugns them by innuendo.

    it's a slimy tactic. the implication is that his expert witnesses weren't sufficient to overcome the defense experts scientific testimony.

    i hope the jury is smart enough to see through this.