Skip navigation

Jury still deadlocked in Spector case

Despite new instructions from the judge, the jury didn’t reach a verdict

Image: Phil Spector
Nick Ut / AP
Phil Spector leaves court Thursday after Judge Larry Fidler gave the deadlocked jury new instructions with several scenarios as to how the record producer might have killed actress Lana Clarkson.
Updated: 8:45 p.m. ET Sept. 21, 2007

LOS ANGELES - The Phil Spector murder trial jury spent more than four hours in deliberations Friday with new instructions issued by the judge to try to break their 7-5 deadlock. But the panel did not reach a verdict and went home for the weekend 45 minutes early.

There were no questions from the nine men and three women, who heard five months of testimony.

The panel got the case on Sept. 10 and had entered its seventh day of talks Tuesday when it reported the impasse. The judge had the jurors stop deliberating until he decided on new instructions.

Story continues below ↓
advertisement

Spector, 67, is charged with killing actress Lana Clarkson, 40, in the foyer of his Alhambra mansion on Feb. 3, 2003, a few hours after she met him at her job as a nightclub hostess and went home with him. She died when a bullet fired from a gun in her mouth went through her spine.

Superior Court Judge Larry Paul Fidler gave the jury new instructions Thursday afternoon after several days of volatile discussions with defense attorneys and prosecutors concerning the impasse.

In the end, the judge devised his own plan. The unorthodox route he took, withdrawing a legal instruction and adding one that gave the jury suggestions on new interpretations of evidence, drew criticism from legal analysts who said his actions were weighted toward trying to convict Spector.

The experts suggested any resulting conviction would be vulnerable to reversal by a higher court.

Slide show
SPECTOR
Phil Spector’s life and times
Follow the music producer from his successes of the 1960s and 1970s to his courtroom battle.
The judge also gave a controversial instruction which said the jurors might want to start their deliberations over with a new leader or try role reversal in which jurors argue each others’ opposite opinions.

The jury’s apparent dedication to trying again for a verdict may bode well for the prosecution during appeal if a conviction is returned, said Laurie Levenson, a former federal prosecutor and Loyola Law School professor.

“The jurors are not having a knee jerk response to these instructions,” she said. “If the modified instructions were so coercive you would expect the jury to come back immediately and say, ’The judge wants us to convict. We will.’

“The longer they are out after instructions, the better it is appellate-wise.”

Copyright 2007 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
Rate this story LowHigh
 • View Top Rated stories