It seemed as if Judge Fidler was finally making a fair call by deciding to not introduce new, lesser charges of involuntary manslaughter in an attempt to break the jury deadlock. But now the legal community is buzzing about controversial instructions he passed on to the jury before he sent them back to deliberate the case....
The judge called the deadlocked jury into the courtroom and said:
The people must prove that ... the defendant committed an act with a firearm that caused the death of Lana Clarkson, such as placing a gun in her mouth or forcing her to place the gun in her mouth at which time it discharged, pointing the gun at or against her head at which time it entered her mouth and discharged, pointing the gun at her to prevent her from leaving the house, causing a struggle which resulted in the gun entering her mouth and discharging.
The defense had fought hard against this, as in no way were these possibilities discussed by the defense or the prosecution during the trial. As such, the judge -- who the jurors may see as an authority, instructing them on what to do -- entered an incredibly biased viewpoint in an attempt to clarify jury instructions. He actually sent them back to the deliberation table with totally new theories that were never discussed in court. No lawyers ever mentioned this. No witnesses ever considered this. Just like that.
The judge went on:
By using these examples I am not suggesting that any of these acts took place. These are inferences you may draw from the evidences but are not required to do so. You may reject them. These are only possibilities that you may consider.
Wow. Just... wow.
Since watching the first day of the trial, I have felt the judge was firmly on the prosecution's side, but this really takes the cake.
The legal community is talking about this controversial decision, largely with shock an awe.
A former lawyer of Michael Jackson, Thomas Mesereau Jr., spoke with the press and said, "It is unprecedented and highly prejudicial to the defense."
A legal professor, Laurie Levenson, called the instructions "unorthodox," and noted if Spector was convicted after this, it would certainly come into play in the appeals process. She added, "I don't think the court of appeal has ever heard of anything like this." When your decision shocks legal professors, you have to figure something strange went on....
It's clear that the judge wants the deadlocked jury to come to a verdict, despite members of the jury telling him they do not believe they can come to a decision and nothing would help that.
Judge Fidler probably should have considered the defense's motion for a mistrial when they asked... because what seemed like an unfair trial all along has officially become a farce.
