Jurors working [trial of Phil Spector]
Jurors have been deliberating for a day and a half, after spending more than four months together.

Throughout the trial they appeared to be harmonious, taking turns bringing in donuts and other snacks. There were gifts on jurors' birthdays.

Now, they appear in good spirits as they enter and leave the courtroom each day. At the trial's start, attorneys for both sides said they were pleased to have a relatively well-educated jury. The foreman is an engineer, five are civil servants, and one juror is a film executive.

One of the jurors is a producer for Dateline NBC, specializing in high-profile trials. His selection was considered unusual; he said in jury selection he had read the official Spector case file.

[And they only deliberate for 5 hours a day.]

[This message was edited by JB on 09-13-07 at .]

quote:

---

His selection was considered unusual; he said in jury selection he had read the official Spector case file.

---

And he made it onto the jury?

Is this the Spector jury you are talking about?

And the foreman is an engineer, who was the most prolific note taker in the box, and also was the juror who came up with the 10 requests for things he wanted to see or be recreated at the palace of phil. Most of those requests were denied by the Judge.

JB
I agree with your point but the title of the post is the equivalent of saying "Water is Wet".

Anyone have an estimate of how long that trial would take in their jurisdictions?

Maybe a week.

maybe two weeks if you had to have a hearing on an expert "allegedly" removing evidence from the crime scene.

BTW, how the heck does a defense expert gain access to a crime scene before the police scene investigation is completed?

Greg, I think JB's title explains that.

Before I owned a car, I hitched quite a bit around the Southern U.S. (My mother didn't want me hitching north of the Mason Dixon line--too dangerous she said.) Once I ventured out to San Francisco, tho.

The trip out was ok, because it only involved 2 rides. One was with a Chinese fellow, who very generously gave us each a rice cake, which he was extremely proud of. It was about the size of a red brick, and appeared to be white rice, stuck together with fish oil. I reckon I got a life-time dose of Omega-3 fatty acids eating that thing. The 2nd ride was with a Marine 2nd Lt., based on Treasure Island--pretty sane guy.

On our trip home, tho, it was terrible. It took lots of rides, and the waits between rides were very long. At one intersection we were let off at, I saw where some previous hitchhiker had written on a cement wall, "Oh Houston, when will I ever see you again? Been waiting 8 hours." The 8 was scratched out, and replaced with a 10.

And the people who picked us up, were they ever scary. One girl who picked us up said she was having LSD flash backs, as she was driving along. Another driver, an old guy who rambled on and on about govt. waste ("what are they paying for those B-29s? Half a million dollars apiece?") laughed as he pulled out to pass a slow moving truck on a mountain road, "Ha! ha! I don't waste my time looking in the rear view mirror before I pull out to pass. It takes my good eye 10 seconds to focus, and by the time I have re-focused on what is in front of me, the situation in the rear is completely changed."

Our last driver, who took us into Ariz., crashed the car into a parked semi.

I vowed to never hitchhike in Calif. again, and I haven't.

TV special tonight

Jurors retired without announcing a verdict after Judge Larry Paul Fidler called them to the courtroom to warn that Dateline NBC is running a special on the trial tonight. The judge reminded them that they are not to watch television reports on the trial.

He joked with juror No. 2, a Dateline producer: "You are on lifetime jury duty."

Without missing a beat, the juror replied: "I thought I already was."

Foreman in Phil Spector trial says jury at impasse
Judge considers putting lesser charge on table
06:01 PM CDT on Tuesday, September 18, 2007

Associated Press
LOS ANGELES � The foreman of the jury in Phil Spector's murder trial said Tuesday that the panel is at an impasse, and the judge told lawyers he was considering allowing the panel to consider a lesser charge.

The juror told Superior Court Judge Larry Paul Fidler the jury was split 7 to 5, but he did not indicate which way it was leaning.

When Fidler asked if there was anything he could do to help, the foreman said, "At this time I don't believe that anything else will change the positions of the jurors."

Polled individually, some jurors agreed with the foreman and others disagreed. One suggested further instruction about reasonable doubt.

The record producer is charged with second-degree murder, and the judge previously ruled that the panel would decide only that charge and not consider lesser charges such as manslaughter.

The judge, however, told the attorneys that he was reconsidering and believed he might have cause to instruct the jury to consider involuntary manslaughter.

The judge, amid discussions with lawyers, told the jury he wanted them to take a break and sent them home with instructions to return Wednesday, possibly for more instructions or to have the lawyers reargue part of the case.

"Just set the case aside for the rest of the day," the judge told them.

Here's an idea for California: Don't take 6 months to try a case! How can you expect a jury to remember all the evidence months and months later? And then, the judge's answer to a hung jury? Send them home early! And now they're talking about submitting a lesser-included of manslaughter. So you can submit a lesser-included in the middle of deliberation? Whacko. How about sweating them out, making them deliberate all night, and feeding them fried chicken?

Or, as they do at all the celebrity events, how about offering the jurors some swag for a verdict. What should be included in the "goody" bag?

I would suggest OJ memorabilia, but it is tied up.

Just look at the jury profiles and it is no wonder they are in the mess they are in. Letting a juror who works for dateline, who previously covered the Spector case before trial and who before the trial has read much of the online material? WTH is that about? How did this guy get on a jury? How bad were the ones struck by the State if this is what they ended up with.

Here's the jury profile from Court TV:

Here are more detailed profiles of the panelists, based on their questionnaires:

Juror No. 1

A Los Angeles native, Juror No. 1 works for the L.A. Superior Court as a court service assistant in the probation violation system. The 37-year-old lives with a domestic partner, is the co-owner of an auto detailing business, and is raising two children, one in elementary school and one in high school. Her brother, whom she described as a gang member, spent time behind bars. Her cousin was killed in a drive-by shooting. Her former husband was arrested for driving under the influence. Her father was an alcoholic. She thinks celebrities tend to break the rules and the police are more lenient with them than others. Asked what she had heard about case, she wrote, "Just small reports about him telling the limo driver he thought he killed someone." She said she would expect a defendant to testify in his own defense "because this is his freedom at stake," but if he didn't, "I would think that maybe his lawyer did not feel it would be a good idea to do so."

Juror No. 2

A senior producer for Dateline NBC, Juror No. 2 was assigned to cover the Spector trial as a journalist before being seated on the panel. The 41-year-old man acknowledged in his questionnaire that he had read, heard and watched just about everything available about the shooting, from an 80-page civil deposition to the "voluminous" court file to reports from a dozen media outlets. Told to detail what he had heard about the case, he wrote, "Almost too much to specify." He noted that he is well-versed in information ruled inadmissible at Spector's trial. "It is hard to 'unring the bell.' Hard, but not impossible, I think," he wrote. He penned a special note on the front page of the questionnaire warning the judge and attorneys that it will be impossible for him to remain anonymous because NBC employees who report to him will be in the courtroom covering the trial.

The married father of two preschoolers said his focus on high-profile crime stories (he is Dateline's liaison with Court TV) has brought him into contact with some experts slated to take the stand, including pathologist Michael Baden and forensic scientist Henry Lee. He said he followed the O.J. Simpson and Michael Jackson cases for his job and said celebrity defendants get different treatment in the justice system. "They can have access, sometimes, to legal talent and can conduct investigations in their defense," he wrote. His opinion about the Spector case? Strictly professional: "I've probably said it's a fascinating case and recommended coverage of it."

Juror No. 3

Juror No. 3 works as a research specialist at a bank, locating missing deposits and filing fraud claims. The 45-year-old said she never heard of Spector before the shooting. "I've not been too interested following the news probably for that reason," she said. Of three other high-profile cases � Simpson, Blake and Jackson � she said, "You really couldn't get away from them. They were all over the radio and TV." She called them a "media circus" that wasted time. About celebrity defendants, she wrote, "I do think that in a lot of cases the more money you have for a defense the better defense you may have. Not always of course, but it does seem this way."

Her husband, an iron worker, died of what she called "an accidental overdose." She now lives with her 22-year-old son and her parents. She has some personal experience with crime. Her car was stolen. Her neighbor was shot recently. Her son was arrested for DUI. She has served on three juries and described the experience as "interesting mostly, stressful deliberating." She said Spector did not have to testify, but "I guess it would be really interesting if he did."

"I do think that in a lot of cases the more money you have for a defense the better defense you may have," she said, "Not always of course, but it does seem this way."

Juror No. 4

A mechanic for Federal Express, Juror No. 4 is a 47-year-old husband and father of two teenage boys. His niece is married to an LAPD officer and his nephew was shot at while walking home five years ago. He was involved in a civil suit after a work-related accident. "I think the criminal justice system is fair to everybody," he wrote. Asked what he knew about the Spector case, he wrote, "I remember reading in the newspaper that Mr. Spector picked up Ms. Clarkson at a party and took her to his house and murdered her." He expects defendants to testify. "I think that if a defendant doesn't testify in his own defense he has something to hide," he wrote.

Juror No. 5

Juror No. 5, a 54-year-old mother of two grown children who works as an assistant to a deputy mayor, said she knows little more about the case than "a woman was found dead in Spector's home." She did, however, follow the Simpson case closely. "Because he was an All-American, pro football player accused of murdering his wife. Did he? I wanted to know," she wrote. Asked for her impression of that case, she wrote, "Justice system worked."

She has been married for 15 years, but has been separated from her husband for 14 1/2 of those years. Her husband, who had served time for murder before they met, is currently incarcerated. She said she left him shortly after they wed because he became a crack addict. "I really should get a divorce," she wrote. She said she had not seen him for 12 years. Her daughter worked for the 911 system for a year. Her son is in the Air Force and has a gun. She said she had fired a weapon in the past, but does not own a gun. She has served on two juries and called the experiences an "eye opener."

Juror No. 6

Juror No. 6 is a film industry executive who specializes in new media marketing. The 52-year-old is married to a woman who also works in the entertainment industry. He once worked as an actor on television and Broadway. He owns two handguns, which he described as "collector pieces." Asked about his experience with firearms, he wrote, "My wife and I attended classes last year in firearms training for home security at a range in Burbank. We ended up not buying a gun for home defense." He said one of his brothers has struggled with "drug and alcohol issues" and it has affected his family. He has two female friends that were raped. He said he generally expects the accused to testify. "I would assume that a defendant would want to plead their case to a jury," he wrote. Asked if he agreed or disagreed with the premise "it is better for society to let some guilty people go free than to risk convicting an innocent person," he drew a question mark.

Juror No. 7

An environmental health specialist with the county's public health department, Juror No. 7 is a 56-year-old married father of two school-age children. His wife is a cosmetologist. He owns two handguns and says the purpose of owning them is to "learn about firearm safety and to experience the use of them." He has carried a gun for protection in the past. He was the victim of an attempted robbery at gunpoint on a bike trail, and his residence was once burglarized. His cousin is a sheriff's deputy. He said he would tend to believe police more than other witnesses because "it is their duty to protect and serve."

He said he thinks celebrities are treated differently by the police than others. He has followed high-profile celebrity trials and said of them, "All parties had their job to do. I'm sure they all did their best. Sometimes the truth is hard to surface." He said press coverage of cases was superficial "because the media cannot relay everything at once [so] short blips are reported to create interest."

Juror No. 8

Juror No. 8 works as a child support office for Los Angeles County. Single and never married, the juror, 45, lives with his 83-year-old mother. He has a master's degree in film and has trained as an ESL teacher, a notary, a paralegal and a realtor. He has a sister who is a criminal defense attorney, another who works as a probation officer and a brother who is a lawyer for the city. He was arrested for DUI. He said he knows of Spector "from my college days when people like myself played albums." He claims not to follow high-profile trials because "there are more interesting things to see and do to focus on just one individual." Still, he knew enough about the Anna Nicole Smith case to make an oblique reference to flamboyant Florida judge Larry Seidlin as an example of how the media tends to affect legal outcomes. He said sometimes it is in the best interest of a defendant not to take the stand in his own defense "because statements can be misconstrued and reinterpreted."

Juror No. 9

A facilities manager at a law firm, Juror No. 9 is a 54-year-old man. He has lived with his partner, an event planner, for nine years. He said he followed the Jackson, Blake and Simpson cases. "All over the news � I couldn't get away from it," he wrote. He added, "I think they got a fair trial." He was arrested for a DUI in the 1980s, but he has been sober for 24 years. He has used a firearm, but does not currently own one. He served as a juror seven years ago and said the experience was "not as bad as I had thought." He said he heard very little about the Spector case. "She died or was found dead," he wrote in response to a question about what he knew of the shooting.

Juror No. 10

A civil engineer for the county department of public works, Juror No. 10 is the only panelist to have seen Spector in the flesh before the trial began. The 32-year-old man lives near Spector in Alhambra and has spotted him shopping at Target on one or two occasions. He said he paid special attention to the shooting "since I live near the Castle." He said he did not know enough to have an opinion about Spector's guilt, but did voice one about Spector's sartorial choices, writing that the producer "dresses eccentrically." Married with three young sons, the juror keeps a shotgun in his house for "hunting, target practice, [and] home protection." He wrote, "I enjoy firearms and shooting. However, I respect other people's rights to not own or even oppose the ownership based on other personal experience."

He has two friends who were shot accidentally, one while hunting and the other at a shooting range. His uncle, a police officer in Idaho, was shot while apprehending a bank robber. A friend took his own life with a gun. The juror said there was some question whether the death was intentional suicide or an accident. He said he had relatives who struggled with addiction, including a cousin who was homeless. He also wrote, "I have a distant cousin who was arrested and convicted of being a hired hitman." Of the Jackson, Blake and Simpson trials, the juror wrote, "The impression these cases left is that everyone has problems and that fame and fortune don't shield anyone."

Juror No. 11

A 60-year-old shop mechanic, Juror No. 11 lives with his girlfriend. He was once arrested for DUI. He previously served on a jury. He said he feels strongly that celebrities feel they are entitled to act however they please. "They have the money to be treated different. Better lawyers," he wrote. He said he followed the Simpson case and left with the impression that "if you have money � better lawyers, better chance of winning the case." Of Spector's possible testimony, he wrote, "It's his call."

Juror No. 12

Juror No. 12 is an electrician at NBC Studios and a native of Los Angeles. Married with two grown children, the 49-year-old owns a rifle and a shotgun and uses them for target practice. His nephew just joined the L.A. County Sheriff's Department. His stepfather, an alcoholic, was arrested for DUI. His mother was the victim of domestic violence. He has served on three previous juries and called them "a positive experience."

"Everyone needs their day in court," he wrote.

Of defense attorneys in high-profile cases, he wrote, "Too much media coverage." But of prosecutors in the same cases, he wrote, "A lot of work." He stated he followed O.J. Simpson and Robert Blake "so I could have small talk if asked about the case." Asked what impression he took away from the high-profile celebrity trials, he said, "The celebrity life will never be the same." He wrote that the media coverage of the Spector trial would have no effect on him because he is "not interested in my '15 minutes.'"

I heard that in the English courts, once deliberations start, the jury is not allow food or water until they reach a verdict. I suspect that helps to narrow the issues.

You almost never hear of a hung jury in England, altho I did hear of one. Two women hung the jury by voting to acquit. They agreed with the rest of the panel that the Crown had proven its case BRD, but decided they could not vote to convict someone on religious grounds.

Apparently they had remained silent when asked during voir dire if they had religious scruples against convicting someone, because the judge had them locked up for something like 30 days for contempt of court.

We might have fewer hung juries if we had more judges like that.

From the Court TV spector blog:

What�s hanging up the jury? Two of the panelists who spoke in yesterday afternoon�s hearing suggested the jury needed further instruction on reasonable doubt. A third, Juror No. 5, mentioned �special instruction number three.� That portion of the jury instructions was written by the defense and states:

�As I have instructed you, to be guilty of the crime of which the defendant is accused, second degree murder, the defendant must have committed an act that caused the death of Lana Clarkson. It is the prosecution�s contention that the act committed by the defendant that caused the death of Ms. Clarkson was (to) point a gun at her, which resulted in the gun entering Ms. Clarkson�s mouth while in Mr. Spector�s hand. The prosecution bears the burden of proving that defendant Spector committed that act. If you do not find that the prosecution has proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant committed that act, you must return a verdict of not guilty.�

Another juror, Juror No. 9, may have provided insight into the crux of the debate in the jury room with his answer when the judge asked what further instruction might help the panel reach a verdict.

The man thought for a moment and then replied, �I think the difference between reasonable doubt and just doubt.� As he pronounced the second �doubt,� he made a small sour face.

I assume the term "just doubt" in this context refers to "unqualified doubt" as opposed to "a doubt which is just(ified)." Similarly to the term as used in "The defendant was not charged with capital murder. Instead, the charge was just murder."

Or like, he is just plain guilty.

Reminds me of long ago misdemeanor days when a juror told me he exonerated a defendant because we had not proved our case "beyond a shadow of a doubt."

He won't send the deadlocked jury back to consider the lesser charge, but he may have it deliberate further.

By Michael Muskal, Los Angeles Times Staff Writer
11:22 AM PDT, September 19, 2007

The judge in the Phil Spector murder trial today ruled out instructing the deadlocked jurors on a lesser charge, but he left the door open to sending them back to continue deliberating.

At a morning hearing, Superior Court Judge Larry Paul Fidler said it would be inappropriate to have the jury consider involuntary manslaughter because it would imply that jurors should return a guilty verdict after they were unable to decide whether the famed record producer was guilty of shooting actress Lana Clarkson more than four years ago.

On Tuesday, the jury of nine men and three women said it was split 7 to 5 on whether Spector, 67, shot Clarkson, 40, on Feb. 3, 2003. The jury was not allowed to say whether the majority supported guilt or acquittal.

With the jury deadlocked in its seventh day of deliberations, Fidler raised the possibility Tuesday of asking it to consider a lesser charge, such as involuntary manslaughter.

The prosecution and defense had rejected that option during the trial, but Fidler said he was concerned that other California case law required him to include the charge, even after the jury had started its deliberations.

At this morning's hearing, the Spector defense team argued against the lesser charge and the prosecution argued in favor.

Having testified in California just recently on a homicide case, the strangest thing I discovered is that after direct and cross, the JURY is allowed to ask questions of the witness! A first for me....