Introduction
A jury trial is almost akin to a human being as it is unpredictable with regard to the outcome even when the facts seem to be straightforward, more so in criminal cases. The Phil Spector adheres to the concept above as it resulted in a mistrial in the initial case but the second case not only arrived at a conviction on the second-degree murder but also an extra charge of using a gun. Spector was charged with second-degree murder of Lana Clarkson, as defined in Section 189 of the California penal code (Klein, 2011). Second-degree murder is defined as the intentional and unlawful killing of a human being but without malice aforethought. As per the same section 189, if malice aforethought existed, then it amounts to first-degree murder. Due to the conviction on the second trial, Spector was sentenced to 19 years to life for the murder charge and an extra four years for the gun charge, and he is currently serving these sentences.
Explanation of the Burden of Proof
Spector was charged with murder in a criminal court, meaning that the burned of proof was beyond reasonable doubt. Further, being a criminal case, the onus of proof fell on the state, through the prosecution, meaning that it was the responsibility of the state to prove that Spector was guilty (Walen, 2015). As per modern jurisprudence, a beyond reasonable doubt level of proof means that the prosecution had to prove that Spector committed the crime to the extent that a reasonable person would not doubt that he did it. In the absence of such a level of proof, acceptable to all jurors, then a conviction cannot be entered.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
Why the Spector Trial was so Important
The trial of Spector was so important to prosecutors because it presented an example that if the prosecution fail to prove guilt to the jury, can get another chance under different circumstances to do the same. In the initial Spector trail, due to a variety of reasons, which included perhaps his status as a celebrity, two jurors did not find him guilty leading to a mistrial. Normally, an individual cannot be tried twice on the same charges due to the concept of double jeopardy. However, the declaration of a mistrial, as opposed to an acquittal gave a chance for the prosecution to overcome the law of double jeopardy and get another chance to prosecute Spector, through which they eventually got a conviction (Klein, 2011).
Opening Statements
Most Persuasive
The most persuasive opening statement and perhaps also the most dramatic was that of the district attorney. The district attorney combined a presentation of the character of the defendant, what happened during the commission of the alleged crime and finally, what obligation the jury has to the victim. The district attorney sought to show that threatening women with guns were a common behavior of the defendant which he took too far with the victim by shooting her to death. He mimics the sound of the bullet then follows it with the duty of the jury, akin to using pathos, an emotional appeal.
Most Significant Facts to Consider
Bruce Cutler’s opening statement was as factual as the district attorney’s opening was emotional and dramatic. The motif in Cutler’s opening statement was the words, “the evidence will reveal”. However, based on an evaluation of the totality of the case, the evidence did not eventually reveal what Cutler had promised it would, a fact that perhaps explains why Cutler quit the case before the trial was over. His opening statement was, however, the one that presented most facts to be considered.
Establishing/Challenging a Prima Facie Case for Murder
Many witnesses testified against Spector, but most of them only presented circumstantial evidence about his gun-toting character. The primary piece of prima facie evidence that tied Spector to the murder, however, came from his own driver, Adriano de Souza. Adriano testified that he heard Spector say the words " I think I've killed someone " immediately after the shooting of Lana Clarkson (Klein, 2011). The words connected Spector to the actus reus and also mens rea aspects ingredient of the murder. Adriano’s evidence was important because it not only showed that Spector had shot Clarkson , but also that he understood that the shooting would lead to her death. This testimony thus voided any argument that Spector either did not shoot Clackson, or he was too drunk and drugged to understand what he was doing.
Evidence
The evidence produced that would have pointed most to the murder in favor of the prosecution was the gun. The evidence adduced sought to show that the gun had been found near the left ankle of the victim, although the victim was known to be left-handed (Hong, 2007). Further, the blood on the gun was smeared, which reflected an attempt to wipe off blood or fingerprints, something that would never happen in a suicide. The gun thus provided evidence that would have damaged the allegation that Clackson died from a suicide.
Closing Arguments
Linda Baden the defense attorney may not have participated in the trial but she was most convincing in her closing arguments. She focused on the absence of solid evidence on the part of the prosecution, arguing that the case was based on circumstantial evidence. Most importantly, Baden created a motive for the prosecution by arguing that Spector was only in court because the prosecution was eager to convict a celebrity (Ford, 2007). She not only spoke to the jury but also used illustrations using her co-defense attorney Christopher Plourd. It is possible that her closing argument denied the prosecution a conviction.
Outside Factors
The fact that both Spector and Clackson were big celebrities had a major impact on the trial on both sides. The initial trial was televised and took a long period making it the subject of intense public discourse, which adversely affected the jury and how the jury voted at the end of the initial trial.
Concluding Thoughts
A man kills a woman in cold blood, argues that she had killed herself and lacks any form of remorse yet almost gets ways with it because two jurors created a deadlock. Based on a close reading of the primary material, it is clear that Spector was guilty but the jurors, for some reason, did not want to find him liable. Criminal trials are thus not just about the evidence, but also the secondary aspects that may affect the jury and cause them to see the facts of the case differently. Focusing on the jury is as important as focusing on the facts.
References
Ford, D. (2007, September 06). Spector attorney asks jury to seek "truth". Retrieved from https://www.reuters.com/article/people-spector-defense-dc/spector-attorney-asks-jury-to-seek-truth-idUSN0636884720070906
Hong, P. (2007, August 13). Same evidence is viewed two ways in Spector case. Retrieved from http://articles.latimes.com/2007/aug/13/local/me-spector13
KLEIN, P. J. (2011). FindLaw's California Court of Appeal case and opinions. Retrieved from https://caselaw.findlaw.com/ca-court-of-appeal/1565713.html
Walen, A. (2015). Proof beyond a reasonable doubt: A balances retributive account. La. L. Rev. , 76 , 355
